After having been sidelined for two years, the dossier on nutritional labelling is returning to the agenda, with a vote - on 15 March - on the report by MEP Renate Sommer (EPP, Germany) in the Parliamentary Committee on Environment and Consumers. And, while opinions are still as divided, a fact which, moreover, justifies such delays to the dossier, the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) reiterated, on 11 March, its call for legible, understandable labelling which is as exhaustive as possible.

A COLOUR CODING SYSTEM

Following the publication, on 30 January 2008, of the proposal for a regulation (2008/0028 (COD)), BEUC welcomed the fact that the problem regarding consumer information on foodstuffs had been brought to the EU level. “The current existence of several simplified nutritional labelling systems leads to pointless confusion (…) In this context, the Commission’s proposal is more than welcome, but it is far from meeting a series of essential demands,” it stated at the time.

Pressed by forecasts predicting that 2/3 of Europeans will suffer from obesity and excess weight by 2030, the organisation calls for four key measures: the improved legibility of nutritional information, complementary front-of-pack and back-of-pack information as well as the insertion of a mention stipulating the country of origin. Legibility could firstly be improved, it proposes, through significant contrast and a character size which is easy to read. Information could then be graded, based on a front-of-pack colour coding scheme. The colour code would use red, orange and green to enable consumers to identify whether the content of essential nutrients (lipids, saturated lipids, carbohydrates and salt) is high, medium or low. It would be complemented by a back-of-pack detailed nutritional table, which would mention the energy value and content of proteins, lipids, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugar, salt, fatty acids and fibre per 100 g/ml and per portion. According to a survey carried out among its members (3,000 consumers in total), a vast majority of respondents would be in favour of a simplified labelling system that would grade the amount of fat, sugar and salt.

TOO COMPLICATED, TOO SIMPLISTIC

The idea of a colour coding scheme is, on the contrary, less popular with rapporteur Renate Sommer. “Considering the fact that the current proposal for a regulation should lead to compulsory labelling across the board, which is applicable to all foodstuffs and non-alcoholic drinks, a colour coding scheme would penalise basic foodstuffs”, she protested. The Commission does not support this idea either: it settles for proposing the inclusion of a full nutritional declaration (energy value and the five main nutrients) in the “principal visual field” and the inclusion of additional mentions elsewhere on the pack. In fact, the proposal leaves member states with wide room for manoeuvre, to the great displeasure of the rapporteur who believes that this liberty would deprive the proposed regulation of its raison d’être. According to the proposal, member states will be authorised to legislate on certain categories of foodstuffs and to develop national labelling systems in addition to the compulsory presentation forms.

The report by Renate Sommer will be put to the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on 16 March. A vote in the plenary session is scheduled for 14 June 2010.

Background

The European Commission’s draft proposal consolidates and updates two areas of labelling legislation: the labelling of foodstuffs in general, governed by Directive 2000/13/EC, on one hand, and nutritional labelling, the object of Directive 90/496/EEC, on the other hand. Published in January 2008, the Parliament’s report on the proposal had been the subject of several amendments (1,332 in total), postponing the examination of the dossier to the new legislature.