Do we need more detailed food labelling?

Consumers need and demand useful information and manufacturers are complaining because they prefer packaging full of useless …

Consumers need and demand useful information and manufacturers are complaining because they prefer packaging full of useless brand images, argues Dermott Jewell, while Mark Fielding saysEU regulations will not combat obesity but will reduce consumer choice by favouring processed goods over small-scale manufacturers

YESHAVE WE got food labelling providing details and information to the consumer? Yes, we most certainly have and in abundance! And, yes, these labels will give me some information of importance such as the best before or use by date; a list of ingredients; a list of additives; an accreditation as to its organic or even higher status of quality and, of course, a price.

The problem is that other details of equal or greater importance, relevance and even necessity for many consumers are simply not provided. Now, requests and, increasingly even, demands, for same are being very determinedly resisted.

The volume of that resistance is increasing as industry producers and representatives cry low-salt tears at what they claim to be regulatory regimes gone mad, consumer representatives misleading their followers and consumer demand manipulated by misguided and meddling media lacking in scientific support for their unsubstantiated clamouring.

READ MORE

Why the big fuss? Well, predominantly it is due to the fact that packaging is primarily a marketing tool and therefore designed and used particularly to sell the product bedecked with a brand name and colourful, yet impossible to replicate "representation" of the content.

These works of imagination demand large budgets from the agencies that design and deliver them and so the stakes are very, very high. Worse though are the even more colourful banner-style claims, many of which are meaningless and, increasingly, make absurd misrepresentations as to quality and preparation.

The unacceptable fact is that too much of this spin and contrivance does no more than satisfy the producer's determination to out-brand and outdo the competition through the placement of an often mediocre product with state of the art packaging. It does little to actually inform the purchasing consumer. Of what specific health-oriented and nutritional benefit is the advice to any consumer, in large colourful print and packaging, that this soup is "creamy", yogurt "natural", those vegetables "home-style" and these meats produced "with consideration", not forgetting attention to "tradition"? Apparently, it is all because we are worth it. Yes, terribly scientific and essential! This is not a matter of compliance nor is it a matter of consumers, consumer representatives, health specialists or nutritionists sounding off for the sake of it.

Neither is it a matter of unreasonable expectation, especially considering the fact that the product has to be paid for by the consumer. Details of relevance and importance should be provided in a font size that does not require a magnifier and that actually informs and guides the reader and purchaser as to the healthy and nutritional intake of this food product.

We have a nation of consumers who know that they must take care of their own and their family's health by eating the correct foods in the recommended amount. In response to this, we now have the industry providing Guideline Daily Allowance (GDA) information on the front of packs. This is, in their opinion, the best way of informing consumers as to the maximum percentage intake for calorie, fat, sugar, salt and carbohydrate content. It is a positive move, but not necessarily the right move.

GDAs do not provide immediate understandable detail for every consumer. We do not require to, nor should we be, guided towards what is a maximum intake of salt, fats or sugar, but rather advised simply as to the high, medium or low existence of these ingredients in our food. With a continuing rise in the levels of diet-related health problems such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease, we need consideration and provision of the best detail. It is the traffic light system, preferred by consumer food representatives and advocates across many EU member states, that simply and understandably provides this detail for the consumer.

Origin is another issue and so too is GM, especially where this is a food product that has been through various processes in a variety of factories and plants in various locations. That is why this question posed requires being qualified through the answer.

It is not necessary to see more detail, but rather the important and essential detail provided in the most readable and understandable way. These details are now, more than ever, required to vie for place, quality and size with information determined to be of more importance by the producer and retailer. This balance must change so that we can then perhaps move on to the limited space allocated for this necessary advice in proportion to that existing for the brand, various logos and associated advertising trivia.

We as consumers now require a progressive attitude to our food labelling because it is essential to our well-being. It is time to acknowledge the continuing truth and relevance of the adage "the devil is in the detail". Detail is necessary here; consumers know it, are asking for it and are entitled to it.

Dermott Jewell is chief executive of the Consumers' Association of Ireland

NOCONSUMERS ARE interested more than ever in the origin and quality of food they buy. However, consumers also like simplicity of information. Producers are obliged to ensure consumers are safe from misleading and incorrect information and by extension to assist them in making proper choices. As the growing, harvesting and production of food becomes increasingly complex, information on the products must be useful and understandable.

For large batch producers, the label is the only method of getting this information to the public. With this in mind, the EU has introduced a regulation on the provision of food information to the consumer.

This regulation was initially to be welcomed as an opportunity to achieve more efficient labelling legislation, focusing on essential information needed by consumers and leaving operators with sufficient flexibility. However, as with other legislation, the regulation is far too complex to be workable in practice and kills the intention of simplicity. The practical difficulties for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the predominant majority of all Irish and European food manufacturers and caterers, remain completely unconsidered.

Even a little change of recipe will require a new analysis and therefore an adaptation of the labelling. A seasonal changing of the products will be too costly for small craft enterprises and consequently the consumer will no longer be able to choose from a wide range of fresh and seasonal products.

It has been said that those who like sausages or legislation should never watch either being made. With this proposed legislation there will never again be a need for such a warning as the day of the artisan butcher, baker and candy stick maker will be brought to an end by over-regulation so out of touch with reality that it brings a whole new meaning to the Nanny State.

With the new rules, SMEs will have to provide information to which "consumers attach significant value". SME food producers will now have to label goods to satisfy vegetarians, vegans, lactose intolerants, coeliacs, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Holy Rollers, friends of the forest, sea and earth, and members of every known sect on what may affect them. These are not safety matters, and should not be required. There is also a mandatory requirement to include a "nutrition declaration" on the label. This would seem to be as a result of public policy concerns about obesity, and is based on false assumptions and unproven theories but gives the political kudos that comes from pandering to public opinion. Scientific evidence from the Journal of the American Dietetic Association and Vermont University states that greater nutritional labelling has little or no effect on obesity rates, or on general nutritional behaviour. A compulsory declaration of nutritional values for all types of food products is meaningless.

Not alone is it meaningless but it is impossible, in terms of the time required and the financial implications, for small businesses to order a nutritional analysis for every craft pre-packed foodstuff. Unlike standardised industrial recipes, craft recipes are subject to changes, because raw materials and consumer demands are ever-changing. Mandatory nutrition labelling would make it impossible for the craft sector to adapt to consumer demand and offer greater product variety.

Food artisans will have to operate with external experts to quantify the nutritional and energy levels required for ingredients. This will affect SMEs , as it will see significantly increased costs for SMEs in compliance and package redesign. Without fundamental changes, small and medium enterprises will be put out of business for packaged foods.

It is also appropriate to consider how we get all of this information on a pack complying with the Brussels regulations. Due to changes in dietary habits and waste regulations, packages are constantly becoming smaller. The establishment of minimum font sizes and demands for more and more labelling elements is leading to an impossible impasse. Redesign and repackaging will lead to increased costs and items with minimal packaging will be affected by the minimum font size requirements. The ironic thing about the recommended font size of 3mm is that this requirement is not even fulfilled by the Official Journal of the European Union, the most important information source for European citizens. The capitals have a size of 2mm and the lower case letters a size of 1mm. So, with all this new enlarged and improved labelling, will the consumer be better off? What we do know is that consumers like simplicity of information, but this regulation will kill the simplicity through a headlong rush to "completeness of information".It has no effect on obesity, but will curtail choice, frighten off consumers with information on perfectly safe trace elements, decimate craft and artisan food producers and lead to a well-labelled universal blandness in our food choices.

Welcome to a land labelled bland.

Mark Fielding is chief executive of the Irish Small & Medium Enterprises Association