News
BackThe future regulations concerning food labelling are currently hotly lobbied and debated in the European Parliament. Which details should be stated on food packages, how large should the font be for sugar, fat and salt content etc. and how many calories one consumes. The MEPs, who are currently trying to answer these questions, want to introduce new relevant regulations. This should set alarm bells ringing in the food industry: MEPs report of hosts of food producers who lobby for their interests.
This intensive lobbying probably also shares the responsibility for the fact that even after two years of its publication, the Draft proposal of the European Commission on the “Provision of food information to consumers” has still not passed its first reading in the European Parliament. There was, however, an attempt in the relevant Environment Committee in spring to get things moving. Following the fact that the first draft report had attracted no less than 1,132 amendments by MEPs, the European Parliament decided to restart the negotiations after the European elections.
The draft report, which has now been presented by the responsible MEP Renate Sommer (European People’s Party), embodies the following principles:
•All packages must include obligatory basic details, which are clear and readable.
•Packages should not be overloaded with information: Sommer proposes a small information box in the bottom right-hand corner at the front, which should contain among others details such as the energy value (in calories), the protein, fat (saturates should be stated separately), sugar and salt content.
•Sommer is not in favour of the so-called traffic light labelling (green means the food is low in a nutrient such as sugar, fat or salt; amber is medium and red represents an over proportional share). She regards this as misleading; milk, for example, would have to have a red dot because of its - in her opinion - high fat content.
•The rapporteur would like to exempt unpacked products from mandatory labelling. Whilst Renate Sommer seems to find the presentation of nutrients on a separate sign (which could be affixed to the shelf) impossible, she, however, regards an allergy warning on a separate sign as a feasible option.
•Alcoholic beverages should be exempt from the regulation’s area of application according to the rapporteur.
•Sommer regards a 3 mm font size also as too large. The quantity of required information would mean that quite a number of packages had to be larger. There is, however, no mention of the fact that many packages have advertising texts, which are several centimetres large.
•In accordance with the rapporteur, food imitations (for example imitation cheese) should be labelled separately.
Critical comments were made by the Social Democrats: the MEP Glenis Willmott demands that informing consumers of the use of nano particles should also be mandatory. Apart from that, three quarters of consumers wanted to know the origin of a product. Therefore all nutrition information had to be readable; this would include the font used, its size and its background. The MEP was also clearly positive with regard to the colour scheme (traffic light). The MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, however, cannot understand that a mixed salad at the salad bar should not be labelled, whilst the same packaged product, just 5 meters further on has already been labelled.
Different positions with regard to the “Traffic light” are assumed by the European Liberals. Some are in favour, some are against. The Greens are clearly in favour of the colour code, as one could see the nutritional values of a product at a glance. They did not support the idea of exempting alcohol from the Ordinance as it would contain many calories. Nano particle should also be included in the Ordinance.
Right at the start of her contribution, the MEP Kartika Liotard of the European United Left remarked that the Draft proposal was meant for consumers, however, that it was still intensively lobbied by companies. In her estimate, there are only 5 consumer lobbyists compared to 80 corporate lobbyists. She reports that consumers are reacting positively to traffic light labelling.
Clearly noticeable was the concentration of MEPs of the European People’s Party on the rejection of the traffic light labelling. Sometimes with obscure arguments: one MEP for example said, that breast milk, due to its high fat content, should also get a red dot. In view of this (even wrong) statement one can only hope that breast milk will not be displayed as a commercial product on the shelves of the supermarkets one day.
In its discussions with MEPs, AK EUROPA, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, has among others come out in favour of labelling unpacked products and supports the introduction of the “Traffic light”. The origin of a product should also be made clear. All other requests can be read in the AK EUROPA Position Paper.
Further Infromation:
AK EUROPA Position on the provision of food information to consumers
Traffic Light Calculator of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (only in German)
The draft report, which has now been presented by the responsible MEP Renate Sommer (European People’s Party), embodies the following principles:
•All packages must include obligatory basic details, which are clear and readable.
•Packages should not be overloaded with information: Sommer proposes a small information box in the bottom right-hand corner at the front, which should contain among others details such as the energy value (in calories), the protein, fat (saturates should be stated separately), sugar and salt content.
•Sommer is not in favour of the so-called traffic light labelling (green means the food is low in a nutrient such as sugar, fat or salt; amber is medium and red represents an over proportional share). She regards this as misleading; milk, for example, would have to have a red dot because of its - in her opinion - high fat content.
•The rapporteur would like to exempt unpacked products from mandatory labelling. Whilst Renate Sommer seems to find the presentation of nutrients on a separate sign (which could be affixed to the shelf) impossible, she, however, regards an allergy warning on a separate sign as a feasible option.
•Alcoholic beverages should be exempt from the regulation’s area of application according to the rapporteur.
•Sommer regards a 3 mm font size also as too large. The quantity of required information would mean that quite a number of packages had to be larger. There is, however, no mention of the fact that many packages have advertising texts, which are several centimetres large.
•In accordance with the rapporteur, food imitations (for example imitation cheese) should be labelled separately.
Critical comments were made by the Social Democrats: the MEP Glenis Willmott demands that informing consumers of the use of nano particles should also be mandatory. Apart from that, three quarters of consumers wanted to know the origin of a product. Therefore all nutrition information had to be readable; this would include the font used, its size and its background. The MEP was also clearly positive with regard to the colour scheme (traffic light). The MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, however, cannot understand that a mixed salad at the salad bar should not be labelled, whilst the same packaged product, just 5 meters further on has already been labelled.
Different positions with regard to the “Traffic light” are assumed by the European Liberals. Some are in favour, some are against. The Greens are clearly in favour of the colour code, as one could see the nutritional values of a product at a glance. They did not support the idea of exempting alcohol from the Ordinance as it would contain many calories. Nano particle should also be included in the Ordinance.
Right at the start of her contribution, the MEP Kartika Liotard of the European United Left remarked that the Draft proposal was meant for consumers, however, that it was still intensively lobbied by companies. In her estimate, there are only 5 consumer lobbyists compared to 80 corporate lobbyists. She reports that consumers are reacting positively to traffic light labelling.
Clearly noticeable was the concentration of MEPs of the European People’s Party on the rejection of the traffic light labelling. Sometimes with obscure arguments: one MEP for example said, that breast milk, due to its high fat content, should also get a red dot. In view of this (even wrong) statement one can only hope that breast milk will not be displayed as a commercial product on the shelves of the supermarkets one day.
In its discussions with MEPs, AK EUROPA, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, has among others come out in favour of labelling unpacked products and supports the introduction of the “Traffic light”. The origin of a product should also be made clear. All other requests can be read in the AK EUROPA Position Paper.
Further Infromation:
AK EUROPA Position on the provision of food information to consumers
Traffic Light Calculator of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (only in German)