Brussels, 16/06/2010 (Agence Europe) - Following an extremely long votes, with 300 amendments put to the plenary session, the European Parliament, in Strasbourg on Wednesday 16 June, came out in favour of clearer labelling for foodstuffs which provide better information on the energy and nutritional values of foods thereby allowing consumers to make informed choices. Much to the disappointment of the Social Democrats, the Greens and the GUE/NGL, MEPs rejected the “traffic light” system which is much in favour in the UK and is particularly backed by consumer organisations, to show at a glance on packaging whether the product contains high, medium of low levels of certain nutritive substances.
By a wide majority (559 votes to 54, with 32 abstentions) in first reading, MEPs followed the main recommendations of Renate Sommer (EPP, Germany), the rapporteur on the draft regulation on information to consumers on foodstuffs, who sought to improve effectiveness of labelling without placing a heavier administrative load and additional costs on operators in the sector (see EUROPE 10101).
All the amendments by the S&D, GUE/NGL and Greens/EFA Groups advocating in one form or another the introduction of a colour coded system (including hybrid systems combining, for example, nutritional information and colour coding) were rejected by large majorities, causing the three groups to reproach Parliament of giving in to agri-food industry lobbying.
Parliament opted rather for compulsory information on the front of packaging on the quantities of fats, saturates, sugars and salt contained in the product, along with the recommended daily intake of these substances, expressed as per 100g or 100ml, and the energy values in calories (not joules). Information on protein, fibres and trans fatty acids should be listed elsewhere on the packaging.
For the rapporteur, listing recommended daily intakes would overload the packaging. “This is the system developed by the agri-food industry which the European Commission Directorate General for Health wanted to introduce. I tried to get it removed because it's not clear for consumers. This system gives the impression of informing the consumer when, in reality, it is intentional disinformation,” Sommer told press, adding, “We'll see what the Council decides”.
Contrary to what the Commission recommended, the European Parliament rejected giving member states the option of using national labelling systems to complement the labelling system agreed at European level. The de jure optional nature of these national systems would be de facto compulsory for manufacturers and would bring some legal insecurity, Sommer explained to the press.
MEPs also voted for meat, fish, poultry and dairy product labelling to state the origin of the product, with a triple level of information for meat, indicating place of birth, where the animal was reared and where it was slaughtered. Reconstituted meat should be clearly marked as such on the front of the packaging.
For the remainder, the text as adopted by the Parliament excludes from the scope of the regulation foodstuffs traditional, small-scale foods and foodstuffs which are not pre-packed, “such as bread from the local baker or meat from the local butcher,” Sommer said. Information on the allergy inducing properties of some if these foodstuffs will not have to feature on the packaging but should be given to the consumer orally, by means of leaflets or through posters in shops.
Wine will escape the labelling rules of the new regulation, since it is covered by separate legislation, something regretted by the Greens since “Alcohol is also a foodstuff high in calories that consumers are not aware of,” said Carl Schlyter (Greens, Sweden).
With the Council working group having fallen behind on this text, there will be no common position on the draft regulation before February 2011.
Informing without imposing choices, and doing it legibly and intelligibly, that is to say, in sufficiently large print and not giving the information in such a way that “only agronomists would be able to understand it” (Herbert Dorfmann, EPP, Italy) It is difficult to disagree with certain key requirements, but the devil is in the detail and the plenary session debate on 15 June showed the extent to what the broad consensus reached on the report by Renate Sommer (see EUROPE 10101) is now under fired on various points from MEPs of all groups.
Thus the “traffic light system” rejected by the committee as a Community measure (though leaving states free to apply it) still has its supporters, including Corinne Lapage (EPP, France), who challenges the various criticisms of the system. Too complicated? No, it simplifies things. It brings in bans? No, it is informative. It treats consumers like children? But they support it. This system in no way seeks to judge or penalise any eating behaviour, said UK Labour MEP Glenis Willmott, but, with its simplicity, it could be a useful tool in tackling the veritable obesity “epidemic” which is threatening Europe. Mairead McGuinness (EPP, Ireland) wondered about the effectiveness of some information: smokers have for many years known about the dangers associated with smoking, but how many quit? Austrian MEP Richard Seeber (EPP) thought it was somewhat naïve to expect labelling to warn consumers. The United States have long had very precise labelling, but is this not the country with highest obesity levels?
From here to the need to think long-term and better educate consumers is but a short step, and most speakers backed this approach, so long as educate did not mean oblige.
Most MEPs said that indications of origin should be compulsory for certain products, particularly meat (the mad cow crisis had forced Europe to make progress in this area). Several, including Françoise Grossetêtte (EPP, France) called, however, for a degree of flexibility on meat from animals that have been slaughtered according to religious rites, which are perfectly fit for consumption but which could be penalised by too rigid a system. Scot Struan Stevenson (ECR) would like an impact study on the effectiveness of compulsory labelling, while calling for a distinction to be made between the country of origin and the final country of production, a distinction of great importance for a number of products, including Scotch whisky, which face competition from products of lesser quality made in other parts of the world. Agriculture committee report draftsman Marc Tarabella (S&D, Belgium) had asked for the voting to be in two parts - on the country of origin and on the country of consignment - but his request was rejected. It is in this context, too, that the issue of craft and traditional products has to be seen, products which contribute to the richness and diversity of Europe, the individuality of which was defended by many parliamentarians, including José Manuel Fernandes (EPP, Portugal). Some MEPs also called for a specific regulation on the labelling of wines and spirits.
The commissioner responsible, John Dalli, stated that certain information, in particular relating to possible allergies, were essential to consumers. He said he understood those who wanted this kind of information not only for pre-packed products, but also for fresh produce. With regard to “nutrient profiles”, the value of which may be open to question, Dalli admitted that there had been a large number of health claims challenged, 44,000 in all, though this number was reduced to around 5,000 after contact with member states. Dalli acknowledged that there was a certain delay in investigating these cases and that EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, had delivered an opinion on only a few hundred. The situation was improving and there was no need to talk of “chaos” as UK Liberal MEP Chris Davies had done. (A.N./L.G./transl.rt)