Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2008)40 - Provision of food information to consumers - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2008)40 - Provision of food information to consumers. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2008)40  |
| date | 30-01-2008 |
The draft proposal consolidates and updates two areas of labelling legislation, the general food and nutrition labelling respectively covered by Directives 2000/13/EC and 90/496/EEC. Directive 2000/13/EC has been amended several times and the evolution of both the food market and consumers' expectations renders its update and modernisation necessary.
Directive 90/496/EEC requires the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the Directive. The interinstitutional procedures have changed and in certain cases the Commission must submit an impact assessment with proposals for new legislation. The revision of the nutrition labelling legislation is accompanied by an impact assessment giving an overview of the application of Directive 90/496/EEC. Therefore, a separate report on the implementation of the Directive has not been prepared.
General labelling - The main political will that motivated the first 'horizontal' legislative instrument on food labelling (Directive 79/112/EEC) was to provide rules for the labelling of foods as a tool for the free circulation of foods in the Community. Over time the protection of consumers' rights emerged as a specific objective of the European Community.
In 2003 DG SANCO in close co-operation with stakeholders, launched an evaluation of the food labelling legislation in order to reassess its effectiveness and legal basis, and to identify the needs and expectations of today's consumers for food information, taking into account the technical and logistical constraints. The conclusions, published in 2004, identified the focus for a future proposal.
Nutrition labelling - The recent White Paper on a Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues stressed the need for consumers to have access to clear, consistent and evidence-based information. Nutrition labelling is an established way for providing information to consumers to support health conscious food choices. There is wide agreement that the effectiveness of nutrition labelling can be strengthened as a means to support consumers' ability to choose a balanced diet.
There have been initiatives by stakeholders to encourage the inclusion of nutrition information on the front of packs. There is divergence in the labelling schemes being used which can create barriers to trade.
The proposal merges and amends the following legislation::
– Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.
This Directive lays down common labelling requirements applicable to all foods to be delivered to the final consumer, and to foods supplied to mass caterers. It establishes the mandatory labelling information.
The proposal introduces certain general principles regarding the provision of food information and develops a governance mechanism to take account of developments that would enable consumers to make informed food choices. The mandatory requirements remain broadly the same with the option for the Commission to propose new requirements for specific issues.
– Council Directive 90/496/EEC of 24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs.
The proposal introduces mandatory labelling of key nutritional elements in the principal field of vision.
In addition to the merging of Directives 2000/13/EC and 90/496/EEC the following texts are recast in the text:
– Commission Directive 87/250/EEC of 15 April 1987 on the indication of alcoholic strength by volume in the labelling of alcoholic beverages for sale to the ultimate consumer
– Commission Directive 94/54/EC of 18 November 1994 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs of particulars other than those provided for in Council Directive 79/112/EEC
– Commission Directive 1999/10/EC of 8 March 1999 providing for derogations from the provisions of Article 7 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC as regards the labelling of foodstuffs
– Commission Directive 2002/67/EC of 18 July 2002 on the labelling of foodstuffs containing quinine, and of foodstuffs containing caffeine
– Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 of 31 March 2004 concerning the labelling of foods and food ingredients with added phytosterols, phytosterol esters, phytostanols and/or phytostanol esters
– Commission Directive 2004/77/EC of 29 April 2004 amending Directive 94/54/EC as regards the labelling of certain foods containing glycyrrhizinic acid and its ammonium salt.
The proposal is in line with the Commission's Better Regulation Policy, the Lisbon Strategy and the EU's Sustainable Development strategy. The emphasis is on simplifying the regulatory process, thus reducing the administrative burden and improving the competitiveness of the European food industry, while ensuring the safety of food, maintaining high level of public health protection and taking global aspects into consideration. There is an ongoing exercise on the measurement of administrative costs from the horizontal labelling provisions, the outcome of which could provide relevant information.
Consultation of interested parties
Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents
There were broad surveys of all interested parties seeking their views on the provisions and application of existing legislation and the needs for change. The respondents were from governmental and NGOs, industry and individuals. Certain consultations were targeted at Member States, industry or consumers.
Consumers demand more and 'better' information on labels and are interested in clear, simple, comprehensive, standardised and authoritative information. Industry considers there are too many labelling requirements which involve implementation of detailed, technical rules. The volume and dispersal of texts undermines the clarity and coherence of the rules. The cost of changes is a concern to industry. Member States wish to balance the needs of consumers and industry, taking into account, any issues that are specific to their country.
Specific aspects highlighted in the consultation on the general labelling were:
– consumers find it difficult to read and understand labels;
– there are a number of foods from which information on allergens is missing;
– origin labelling is a problematic area;
– there is a legal limbo concerning ingredient listing of alcoholic beverages.
For nutrition labelling it is believed that the inclusion of nutrition information is an important source of information for the consumer. There is dissatisfaction among stakeholders on the legislation but views diverge on how to improve it.
– Some consumers require or prefer a comprehensive overview of the nutrient content, while others have concerns regarding only a fraction of this. Consumers and public health NGOs want mandatory full nutrition labelling that is easy to understand.
– Industry is concerned by the prescriptive nature of the legislation and the effect on the design of packaging. They want a more flexible voluntary approach.
– Member States are aware of the need to reduce barriers to the internal market which is facilitated by a harmonised approach. However, there is increasing pressure from some for increased flexibility at national level, in particular, where innovative nutrition labelling systems are being used.
An open consultation was conducted over the internet from 13 March 2006 to 16 June 2006. The Commission received 175 response(s). The results are available on
ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition
There was no need for external expertise.
Certain basic alternative approaches were considered:
No intervention - This would maintain the current situation with scattered legislation with the following negative effects:
– piecemeal and confusing rules undermining the effective implementation;
– unjustified burdens on food business because of outdated, redundant or unclear requirements;
– inconsistent consumer use of labels;
– ineffectiveness of labelling as a communication tool;
– failure of the legislation to adapt to changing markets and consumers' legitimate demands.
Intervention was considered in the context of deregulation, national legislation, non-statutory approach or updating Community legislation.
Deregulation - This would entail the abolition of the basic policy instruments on horizontal food labelling rules with a direct impact on vertical labelling rules.
Although food manufacturers would continue to apply the current rules for a short period of time, they would progressively remove information they consider as a burden. Non-harmonised rules would impair the internal market, lead to poor information and reduce the level of consumer protection. Existing rules have proven their merits in allowing free circulation of goods and consumers' protection. Dismantling them would meet resistance from most Member States and consumers given that they have been used to the current requirements and any change could be seen as an abandonment of a valuable 'acquis'. Therefore, deregulation was not considered a viable approach.
National legislation - The repeal of the harmonised rules would result in creation of national rules with the following consequences:
– different national rules would impede the internal market;
– distortion of fair competition;
– increased administrative burden for industry;
– inconsistent approach in content and availability of information creating confusion for consumers;
– different level of protection for EU citizens.
Alternative non-statutory approach (self-regulation, co-regulation, guidance) - The different features of consumer information and current trends towards the development of a 'new legislative culture' called for the assessment of an approach that could strike the balance between flexibility and prescription and between action at the national and action at EU level. A multi-level bottom-up governance (local/national/community) based on the principle of commitment to formal, measurable best practice could be a viable alternative.
Moving the already harmonised detailed requirements to such an approach would have no added value given that this would unnecessarily complicate current understanding among stakeholders and could be perceived as a deregulation. Although, as far as any new policy issues are concerned, the introduction of a more elaborate and sustainable approach to consumer information emerging from best practices and from a constant dialogue with stakeholders has the potential to achieve beneficial results both for industry and consumers.
The impacts of the main options for the revision of the general and nutrition labelling provisions were examined in relation to taking no action, voluntary action or prescriptive Community requirements were examined in the impact assessment.
The Commission carried out an impact assessment listed in the Work Programme, whose report is accessible on the Commission website. The Commission completed the impact assessment reports on the options for the revision of Directive 2000/13/EC and Directive 90/496/EEC which are presented in parallel with this proposal as Commission Staff Working Papers.
The impact assessment indicated that the impact on manufacturers can be attenuated by providing transition periods that allow for labelling changes to be made during the normal cycle for label changes that are in operation within a business.
Contents
- Legal elements of the proposal
- Budgetary implication
- Grounds for and objectives of the proposal
- General context
- Existing provisions in the area of the proposal
- Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union
- 2. Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment
- Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account
- An open consultation was conducted over the internet from 13 March 2006 to 16 June 2006. The Commission received 175 response(s). The results are available on
- Collection and use of expertise
- Impact assessment
- Summary of the proposed action
- Legal basis
- Proportionality principle
- Choice of instruments
- 5. Additional information
- Simplification
- Repeal of existing legislation
- Recasting
- Detailed explanation of the proposal
Adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers. The proposal modernises, simplifies and clarifies the current food labelling scene. In particular:
– Recasting of the different horizontal labelling provisions. The merging of those texts (directives) into a single piece of legislation (regulation) will maximise synergies and increase the clarity and consistency of Community rules. This is a powerful simplification method that should provide economic operators and enforcement authorities with a clearer and more streamlined regulatory framework;
– To ensure coherence between horizontal and vertical rules;
– Rationalisation (update, clarification) of the compulsory information required by Article 3 i of Directive 2000/13/EC;
– Setting-up of a flexible bottom-up mechanism (through national schemes) that would enable industry to innovate, and allow for some aspects of the labelling rules to be adapted to different and continuously changing markets and consumer demands.
In addition, it introduces clear principles to draw a clearer borderline between mandatory and voluntary information. The main changes with respect to general labelling issues are:
– The clarification of the responsibilities regarding food labelling for the different food business operators along the supply chain;
– To improve the legibility of the information provided on the labelling a minimum print size for the mandatory information is introduced;
– The introduction of a requirement that information on allergenic ingredients should be available for non-prepacked foods sold through retail and catering outlets;
– Given the specificities of wine, spirits and beer, the proposal provides for the Commission to report on the application of current rules on ingredient listing and mandatory nutrition labelling on these products with the possibility of specific measures to be adopted.
– With respect to the labelling of the country of origin or place of provenance of a food, the basic requirement in the legislation remains the same. Therefore, such labelling is voluntary, but if the failure to give such information might mislead the consumer, the labelling becomes mandatory. Both the mandatory or the voluntary indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of a food as a marketing tool, should not deceive the consumer and should be based on harmonised criteria. The country of origin should be determined in accordance with the provisions on non-preferential origin following the Community Custom Code. The place of provenance would refer to any place that is not the country of origin as determined by the Community Customs Code. Rules for determining the place of provenance will be adopted following Comitology procedure. In addition, criteria are introduced for the declaration of country of origin or place of provenance of multi-ingredient products and the country of origin or place of provenance of meat, other than beef and veal. These criteria would equally apply to the voluntary declaration of 'EC' origin labelling;
– The proposal clarifies the conditions under which Member States may adopt national rules on origin labelling.
The rules on nutrition labelling are recast with the horizontal food labelling provisions. The proposal makes nutrition labelling mandatory in the principal field of vision of a food label. Allows for the development of best practice in the presentation of nutrition information, including alternative forms of expression of the nutrition information in relation to overall daily nutrient requirements or graphical forms of presentation.
The main new aspects of the proposal on nutrition labelling are:
– The mandatory declaration is for energy, fat, saturates, carbohydrates with specific reference to sugars and salt expressed as amounts per 100g or per 100 ml or per portion in the principal field of vision (front of pack) whilst nutrients from a defined list may be declared voluntarily. In selecting the mandatory elements account has been taken of: research indicating that consumers can feel overwhelmed by excessive information; the scientific advice about the most important nutrients bearing a relationship to the risk of development of obesity and non-communicable diseases; while avoiding excessive burden on food businesses, in particular small and medium size enterprises;
– In the case of alcoholic drinks, derogations are provided for wine, spirits and beer, and will be subject to a future Commission report;
– The mandatory elements must also be declared in relation to reference intakes whilst other presentation formats may be developed through voluntary national schemes.
In order to address the problems resulting from the piecemeal legislation, the new proposal will amend, recast and replace provisions already in place under the current horizontal food labelling legislation leading to the repeal of the following legislation:
Directives 2000/13/EC, 90/496/EEC, 87/250/EEC, 94/54/EC, 1999/10/EC, 2002/67/EC, 2004/77/EC and Regulation (EC) No 608/2004.
Article 95
Subsidiarity principle
The subsidiarity principle applies insofar as the proposal does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community.
The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States for the following reason(s).
Food labelling protects consumers and informs their decision making. It is considered that action at the EU level would deliver better results than a series of individual actions by Member States because:
(i) a harmonised approach may simplify administrative burden on food companies operating either trans-nationally or Community wide, and
(ii) uniform action ensures Community wide minimum standards reducing inequity for citizens across the EU. Different labelling requirements could undermine the current single market opportunities for the food chain with a major impact on trade given the high volume of intra-Community trade which in 2003 accounted for over 75% of all trade with flows of around € 120 billion. One survey of the food industry indicates that 65% of companies exported their products to other Member States and in this survey over 60% of the respondents favoured harmonisation of general food labelling through European legislation.
The core of the Community action is setting the conditions for the labelling of food within the EU which cannot be appropriately addressed by Member States alone if the common internal market is to function smoothly. As to the details of the Regulation applicable, a more participative and flexible way of designing and enforcing it will be offered by the governance model for the development of national schemes.
Community action will better achieve the objectives of the proposal for the following reason(s).
Experience shows that Member States cannot achieve a harmonised common market satisfactorily and that the EU can do better and more efficiently for the provision of information to consumers. The new proposal provides also space for softer intervention mechanism at national and EU level.
Community competence is used taking full account of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality acknowledging that, with respect to certain aspects, total uniformity of labels throughout the EU is not necessarily the only and desired way to reach the objectives sought. It would, on the contrary, dismantle the potential for rapid adjustment to changing needs and circumstances of the applicable rules.
Harmonisation is provided for prepacked foods that would potentially be part of intracommunity trade. Member States may introduce rules when the products are not subject to intracommunity trade, such as non-prepacked foods and foods provided by mass caterers.
The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle.
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s).
The proposal harmonises the regulatory framework for the horizontal provisions regarding food labelling and thus contributes to consumer protection by ensuring that consumers receive appropriate information to enable them to make informed, safe, healthy and sustainable choices. The proposed measures are sufficient in terms of reaching the objectives of ensuring consumers are enabled to make informed choices and to securing the smooth functioning of the internal market. At the same time they do not impose an excessive or unjustified burden.
The absence of harmonisation would result in a proliferation of national rules resulting in increased burden for the industry and lack of clarity for the consumers. The financial burden is minimised as most of the provisions currently exist whilst sufficient time is allowed for any new requirements to be part of the regular modification of labels by manufacturers.
Proposed instruments: regulation, co-regulation.
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s).
The existing rules are, in general, prescriptive with little flexibility for Member States in how they should be applied. A Directive would have lead to an inconsistent approach in the Community leading to uncertainty for both consumers and the industry. A Regulation provides a consistent approach for industry to follow and reduces the administrative burden as they not need to familiarise themselves with the individual Regulations in the Member States. Guidelines, self-regulatory or voluntary approaches would have led to inconsistency and a potential reduction in the amount of information provided to consumers, which would not be acceptable. However, there are aspects of the legislation for which a more flexible approach was considered appropriate and for those aspects an alternative form of governance based on soft law and voluntary commitments is developed in the draft proposal.
None.
Simulation, pilot phase and transitory period
There will be a transitory period for the proposal.
The proposal provides for simplification of legislation.
The use of a Regulation as the legal instrument supports the objective of simplification because it guarantees that all actors have to follow at the same time the same rules.
The combination of the Directive 2000/13/EC with Directive 90/496/EEC on nutrition labelling into one instrument simplifies the regulatory framework. In addition, the proposal simplifies the structure of the 2000/13/EC legislation, by recasting and replacing provisions already in place under the current horizontal food labelling legislation. By addressing certain specific policy issues the proposal will contribute significantly to easier compliance and greater clarity for stakeholders.
The proposal is included in the Commission's rolling programme for up-date and simplification of the acquis communautaire and its Work and Legislative Programme under the reference 2006/SANCO/001.
The adoption of the proposal will lead to the repeal of existing legislation.
The proposal involves recasting
European Economic Area
The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.
The Regulation provides the basis for the assurance of a high level of consumer protection in relation to food in establishing general principles and requirements of food information law (Chapters II and III).
Chapter IV (mandatory information) simplifies the existing legislation while maintaining the core mandatory labelling particulars. In taking the definitions and detailed or specific rules into annexes, the text is easier to follow and amend.
The rules for the labelling of particulars of the place of origin are clarified.
Section 3 of Chapter IV specifies the nutrition information for energy value and the amounts of fat, saturates, carbohydrates with specific reference sugars and salt is made mandatory, and requires its presentation in the principal field of vision of the label.
In Chapter VII a food information governance system for national schemes is created to encourage the establishment at Member State level an interactive and sustained process of information exchange in order to allow national non binding schemes to be developed drawing on best practices. At Community level the Commission shall encourage and organise the exchange of information between the Member States and with itself on activities related to the development of national schemes.