Misleading and spurious claims on food labels will be outlawed under new proposals from Brussels this week, writes Shane Hegarty
This is not recommended, but should you decide to push your cornflakes to one side and begin nibbling on The Irish Times then we could claim that this newspaper is high in fibre, with added minerals. We could even go as far as to say The Irish Times refreshes the mind and brings harmony to the soul. All of this may somewhat downplay the unpleasant side-effects of eating paper, but if we marketed The Irish Times as a foodstuff then we would simply be complying with current guidelines. It would be up to you to read between the lines, so to speak.
Food labelling sometimes involves inexact claims aimed at putting specific ideas in your head. If a product claims to be "90 per cent fat-free", surveys have shown that more than half of consumers believe that to equate to less than 10 per cent fat. A product that calls itself "light" may actually be heavy in fat. It is illegal to claim it can cure a disease, but it can hint heavily at being good for the symptoms.
This week, David Byrne, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, proposed regulations that will bring clarity to the shelves. The largely voluntary current guidelines on health and nutrition claims will be replaced by proper legislation. If approved by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, brands that claim to be "low-fat", "sugar-free", "high-fibre" and "low in salt" will have to be just that.
Vague claims - such as "balances your body's defences" or "refreshes the soul" - will come under scrutiny. The term "X per cent fat-free" will be banished.
The gaps through which marketers currently crawl will be plugged. The term "Light", for instance, currently has no clear definition. Walkers Lites crisps, for instance, are a hefty 22 per cent fat. Philadelphia Light cream cheese contains 16 per cent fat. There has been confusion for shops as well as shoppers. Last year, Marks & Spencer withdrew its slimmer-friendly Count On Us Barbecue Marinade after a watchdog pointed out it contained slightly more fat than its regular barbecue marinade.
Brands will only be "light" if they have at least 30 per cent less fat than a similar product, a stipulation that will allow free passage to most already using the term. Walkers Lites and Philadelphia Light will survive. Diet Coke will still be Diet Coke.
The new laws, however, could be interpreted as posing a problem not just to packaging but also to the names of products.
Life may also get a little more difficult for those brands that accentuate the positive. Kellogg's Frosties, for instance, gives over a good deal of its packaging to emphasising how beneficial the product is to your bones (if eaten with milk), and how it may help keep your concentration at its best, your heart in shape and energy high. Yet, it is a product made up of 40 per cent sugar.
While Kellogg's says that this forms a very low percentage of a child's daily sugar intake, if the new legislation is passed a brand will not be able to market itself as healthy unless it is simultaneously low in sugar, salt and fat.
The grander the claim, the more scrutiny it will come under. The burgeoning area of "health" drinks has caused a mixture of frustration and amusement in Brussels. The new regulations will prohibit claims about psychological or behavioural functions. A drink such as Red Bull is claimed to "vitalise body and mind" and to be "especially developed for times of increased stress or strain" - which is the kind of language the European Commission wants to bar. Red Bull's sister drink, Kombucha, is claimed to cleanse and refresh body and soul.
"It will be interesting to see how they prove that in clinical trials," says Thorsten Munch, European Commission spokesperson. He adds that some products aimed at the elderly also proved prime offenders, but that inexact claims are a general problem that has been allowed to drift on too long without any focused attempts at reining it in. There will be, Munch insists, a commonsense approach.
"Milk, for instance, is normally high in fat, but a milk producer can still sell it as being good for the bones," he says. "So we will look at the different types of products, because milk would be seen as different to chocolate."
However, he insists that there is general support for the legislation from larger brands, whose manufacturers welcome the chance to clarify the rules across Europe.
Early resistance did come from the body that represents the interests of the German advertising industry, which is concerned that new regulations might stymie creativity. As the week went on, however, more imposing opponents emerged. The makers of Kombucha and Red Bull insist they can back up their claims with clinical evidence. In the UK, the Food and Drink Federation, the industry's chief representative body, described the European Commission's moves as "censorship" and argued that "the new proposal moves away from recognising the validity of health and nutritional claims on their scientific merits and labels products as good or bad foods". Within the industry it is believed that the legislation, due to be fully implemented by the end of 2005, could face stiff resistance.
Yet, in Ireland, the reaction has been far more sanguine. Batchelors, whose Sugar-Free Beans in Tomato Sauce contain natural sugars, acknowledges it may face a dilemma.
"We're in a bit of a predicament," says a spokesperson. "But we're aware of the changes that may come in and we're looking into it. But obviously we have time to re-brand if it became necessary."
In contrast to the British Food and Drink Federation, the Food and Drink Industry of Ireland, has welcomed the move. It has just finished printing up its own guide to labelling in order to clear up confusion for its members and, in turn, the public.
"We would strongly encourage manufacturers to put as much nutritional information as possible on their packaging, above and beyond what's required by law," says food and drink industry executive Louise Sullivan. The new legislation, she admits, may cause some problems, ranging from tweaking of packaging to complete re-branding, but she believes the overall effect will be minimal.
"The food and drink industry is interested in giving consumers the opportunity to make choices in products. There are certain groups who say that the food industry doesn't want us to know what's in their products, and there has been a certain amount of negative publicity, but it's not the case. With this guide, what we're doing is saying: 'Here's a set of guidelines. If you go by these, then it will be better for you and the customer.'"
Irish consumers, though, do not shop in isolation. We import both food and packaging from the UK. To a certain extent, we are at the mercy of the judgments of that country's Food Standards Authority. This problem also works in reverse.
"One of the problems for Irish manufacturers is that quite a significant amount of what they produce is for export, mainly to the UK," says Sullivan. "A lot would have a sister company in the UK, so that the decision-making process would not be based on Ireland alone."
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is the official arbiter of labelling, and is delighted by the proposals.
"Currently there are clear labelling guidelines, but how closely those regulations are enforced here is a different matter," says Alan Reilly, acting chief executive. "Some nutrition claims, though, sail a little close to the wind, and what this legislation means is that it will tighten up the labelling and get rid of the grey areas from the system."
The European Commission's moves are being seen as the beginning of a root-and-branch overhaul of food labelling. Nutritional and health claims are the first targets on a long list. Most alcoholic drinks are not yet required to be accompanied by nutritional information. Neither will you find it on products that avoid making direct health claims. Elsewhere, there are only voluntary guidelines regarding the highlighting of allergens, such as nuts or shellfish.
The country of origin is not always defined in products. Could you spot the difference between a packet of "Irish sliced bacon" and one of "sliced Irish bacon"? Irish sliced bacon, however, may be foreign bacon sliced in Ireland, while sliced Irish Bacon might be Irish bacon sliced elsewhere. It's a sleight of hand that was commonplace until recently, although the food safety authority believes it has largely stamped out the problem.
The authority also recently conducted a survey of foods claiming to be GM-free and found some of them actually contained traces of genetically modified DNA from GM-derived ingredients. When the results were presented to the companies, some agreed to change their packaging.
As part of its "honest labelling" campaign, the UK Consumers Association regularly "names and shames" products it feels are misleading the customer. It found that McVities Butter Puffs contained no butter, Asda Maple Syrup Creams contained no maple syrup and Oasis Light Summer Fruits drink contained only 5 per cent fruit.
The consumers' association says there are health implications to do with bad labelling. Sainsbury's Blue Parrot Café Banana Flavoured Still Spring Water was included in Sainsbury's five-a-day campaign, counting towards recommended daily fruit and vegetable portions. Yet, it contained only 2 per cent reconstituted banana and would act as the equivalent of one banana only if you managed to drink nine bottles.
The association has also done what so many shoppers often wanted to do, and outed products whose pictures on the label don't quite match what arrives on the plate. Masterfoods agreed to take the picture of cheese off its packet of Dolmio Carbonara after it was revealed to contain only cheese powder. Knorr Taste Breaks Pasta: Creamy Chicken and Herb showed a significant amount of chicken on its packet, but contained only 1 per cent chicken.
It is a long aisle, and there is plenty for David Byrne's office to tackle. It stresses that it wants to identify not "bad foods" or "good foods", but "bad diets" and "good diets". The goal is to reach a point where shoppers can pick any product off the shelf and know exactly what it contains, where it comes from and what it will do to their bodies without having to second-guess, examine small print or get out a calculator.
"At the end of the day, the government can educate the consumer, tell them what's good and bad for them, but it can't be overly prescriptive," says Louise Sullivan. "If someone wants to eat a Big Mac every day then that's up to them, as long as they know how many calories and how much fat is in it and that they will have to run a marathon to work it all off. But at least they can make an informed choice."