Food Labelling Forum Hosted by the Food Standards Agency on 6 December 2002

United Kingdom

The Food Labelling Forum hosted by the Food Standards Agency on 6 December 2002 concentrated mainly on the following areas:

1. Allergen labelling;
2. GM labelling;
3. Country of origin labelling;
4. Health claims; and
5. Criteria for use of labelling terms.

1. Allergen Labelling

The FSA discussed the proposed revisions to the Food Labelling Directive (2000/13/EC) for which the European Council had reached political agreement on the text last month, November 2002. The principal revision in this amendment would be the abolition of the “25% rule which currently means that it is not obligatory to label components of compound ingredients that make up less than 25% of the final food product.

A list of ingredients liable to cause allergies or intolerance is being established as part of the draft law, the specified allergen currently stated are: cereals containing gluten, crustaceans, sesame seeds, soy beans, celery, sulphate at more than 10 mg/kg, nuts, fish, peanuts, mustard, eggs and milk and products thereof. The new rules will also extend to alcoholic beverages if they contain an ingredient on the allergen list e.g. sulphate in wines.

In addition, some labelling exceptions will no longer be accepted for allergens. Previously it was possible to declare ingredients only as a category (e.g. “vegetable oil), whereas the new rules will require the source to be indicated for all allergenic ingredients so that e.g. “peanut oil must be specified. The Scientific Committee for Food responsible for reviewing the list of allergens and proposing additions, amendments, removals and exemptions will allow the list of allergens to be adapted with new scientific information far more efficiently than the usual sources of amending legislation.

In order to avoid the proposed amendments running the risk of labelling becoming too complex, derogations may be made below 2% in relation to: (i) the order of ingredients (ii) similar or mutually substitutable ingredients and (iii) certain compound ingredients.

The Council’s common position paves the way for the Directive to enter into force, the second reading, expected in early 2003, member states then have one year to transpose the Directive, after which a one year transition period will be granted to manufacturers in order to modify the labelling of the products. If these steps move smoothly the amended Directive is likely to be fully in force by the end of 2005.

The FSA also referred to using this amended Directive as a framework for more detailed rules and guidance in relation to catering establishments, in particular requiring more accurate descriptions of foods on menus for allergy sufferers. Allergens have been highlighted as the most important issue over and above nutrition/calorie claims. The key points made by the FSA in relation to catering establishments were that:

  • good operating practices should be established with regard to allergens;
  • establishments should retain food ingredient and traceability/transfer information;
  • training and awareness should be increased; and
  • improved information should be available to allergic customers.

2. GM Labelling

The FSA gave a brief history of GM labelling and the current two proposals:

1. Proposal for a regulation concerning traceability and labelling of GMOs and traceability of food and feed products produced from GMOs, amending Directive 2001/18/EC;

2. Proposal for a regulation on GM food and feed.

The draft laws extend the current labelling provisions to all genetically modified food or feed, irrespective of the detectibility of genetically modified DNA or protein. All food and feed which consists of, contain or are produced from GMOs would have to be labelled as such.

The current GM labelling system is based on the detectibility of genetically modified DNA or protein in the final food product. It has a 1% de minimis threshold for DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification below which labelling is not required, if operators can demonstrate that they have used appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GM material. Also there is currently no specific Community legislation on the labelling of GMO feed.

The European Agriculture Council at the end of November agreed that the draft should now state that there are two lower threshold de minimis levels:

1. 0.9% for any adventitious contamination of approved EU GM varieties in conventional food does not have to be labelled; and

2. 0.5% for any adventitious contamination of non-approved EU GM varieties (but which have been subject to a safety assessment) in conventional food does not have to be labelled. It should however be borne in mind that no GM varieties have been approved in the last 5 years; despite this the current draft proposes that the application of this second threshold should be limited to 3 years as it is believed that once these proposals are in place the approval system will re-start.

The FSA commented forcefully that these new proposals would be a “cheat’s charter which would not improve consumer choice. Rather that the proposals were:

  • Impracticable;
  • Unenforceable;
  • Unaffordable.

It was pointed out that the only obligation would be for the suppler to provide documents if food came from a GM source and if no paper was provided then it would be assumed the product did not come from a GM source and that this situation would therefore be ripe for fraud, especially in the absence of analytical methods for testing at this level.

However, the Counsel has not yet accepted these arguments as a reason for not implementing these revisions.

3. Country of origin labelling

The FSA have issued formal guidance to the food industry on the labelling they should use to make it easier for consumers to understand where their food comes from. The FSA would like legislation that would require country of origin information on a much wider range of products and is also pressing for better labelling in Europe.

The guidance is also aimed at assisting enforcement authorities identify and clamp down on misleading origin labelling.

The guidance document may be found at www.food.gov.uk

The guidance recommends that terms such as “produce of…, “product of …, “origin …, “British, “Scottish, “Welsh etc only be used where all the significant ingredients come from the identified country and all of the main production/manufacturing processes associated with the food occur within that place or country. The only exception would be for products like chocolate, where certain ingredients (in this case, cocoa beans) cannot come from the country in question.

It is recommended that there be a declaration of origin information for meat ingredients in meat products and also for all sorts of primary products.

The FSA recommends that for origin labels for meat (other than beef and veal which is already subject to detailed rules) single country origin declarations should only be given where animals have been born, reared and slaughtered in the same country otherwise information on each of the countries of birth, rearing and slaughter should be given.

Where consumers may not recognise the name of the geographical area used, there should be an additional country of origin declaration. The FSA further recommends that where it is not possible to refer to a single country, the information given should be as specific as possible e.g. where products are supplied from more than one country terms which designate the group of supplier countries (such as “the EU) are more helpful than terms like “product of more than one country. However, the FSA accepts that even phrases like “origin will vary are more helpful than no information at all.

4. Health claims

The European Commission’s draft proposal for a regulation on nutrition, functional and health claims made on foods was briefly touched upon at the forum. The draft proposal is currently being considered internally and its adoption is expected early 2003. The aim of the proposal will be to harmonise at European levels rules relating to nutritional and functional claims. Harmonised rules on definitions and conditions to be met in order to make such claims will ensure that this information is adequate, appropriate and not misleading. They will also ensure uniform application across the Community.

The FSA welcomed the EC’s move to harmonise the rules on the regulation of claims and considered that controls at a EU level would increase consumer protection and consumer choice.

The FSA representative stated that the legislation was to be practical, not overly burdensome on industry and to be introduced in a sensible way.

The current situation in the UK is that health claims are not subject to specific national rules, but rather the FSA at present supports a self-regulatory joint health claims initiative developed by industry, consumer groups and law enforcement bodies, which defines good practice and establishes a system for validation of claims.

5. Criteria for use of labelling terms

In light of the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) review “FAC Review of the use of the terms fresh, pure, natural etc in food labelling 2001 – FSA/0334/0701 the Food Standards Agency (FSA) published criteria in July 2002 which is to be applied in using any one of the terms:

  • Fresh
  • natural
  • pure
  • traditional
  • original
  • authentic
  • home-made
  • farmhouse

The FSA criteria is advisory only but may be used as a benchmark in deciding whether or not labelling and advertising of foods may be deemed misleading. The FSA points out the labelling and presentation of the food as a whole including any pictures on labels and in advertising should be assessed. Terms covered by the FSA advice must be capable of technical substantiation and where there is any doubt over the likely interpretation of the phrase or description being used, the most likely interpretation of a typical consumer should prevail.

The criteria may be accessed on: www.foodstandards.gov.uk

Conclusion

The Food Labelling Forum emphasised “consumer choice as a priority for the Food Standards Agency. Clear food labelling of all ingredients, which might affect consumer choice, was therefore paramount. At present, the issues of allergen and GM labelling top the consumers’ list of priorities and therefore the FSA is taking particular interest in these issues.

The FSA will shortly be publishing guidelines on the legibility of labelling to assist industry in best supporting consumer choice.

For further information, please contact Jessica Burt by email at [email protected] or by telephone on +44(0) 20 7367 3000.