Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers COM(2008) 40 final — 2008/0028 (COD)
Date: 2008-09-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, approximation of laws, consumer information, consumer protection, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, labelling, packaging, public health

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/81

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers’

COM(2008) 40 final — 2008/0028 (COD)

(2009/C 77/20)

On 10 March 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to
consumers.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 2 September 2008. The rapporteur was Mr José
Ma Espuny Moyano.

At its 447th plenary session, held on 17 and 18 September 2008 (meeting of 18 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 77 votes to 3.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The EESC welcomes this Commission initiative which

1.1
will facilitate consumer understanding and simplify legislation.

1.2
However, the Committee wishes to make it known that
unless the information indicated in point 3.4.1 is backed up in
advance by proper measures to educate final consumers, it will
lose most of its value and fail to meet most of its objectives.
The EESC therefore finds it regrettable that the proposal is not
accompanied by measures to support education of consumers
either within Member States or at European level. At the very
least, providing a guide to priority measures in this area as an
annex to the Regulation might be a very useful first step.

1.3
As regards reference to origin, the proposal maintains
the current rules. In this context, considering the interest shown
by consumers in the origin of food products, the EESC regrets
that the proposed regulation does not provide for mandatory
indication of origin on the label. The EESC believes, however,
that a distinction should be made between primary and
secondary processing products, with the obligation to mention
the principal agricultural ingredients of the latter products being
determined on a case-by-case basis.

‘national schemes’

1.4
The EESC is deeply concerned about the development of
(described in chapter VII of the
additional
proposal) which, rather than offering any additional benefits,
become an excuse to interfere in the free movement of the
internal market. The risk this poses is particularly serious for
SMEs since, as the Commission points out in its proposal, more
than 65 % of food businesses market their products in other
Member States. For this reason, SMEs will have more difficulties
in sending their products
to other Member States, with
knock-on effects for their costs and competitiveness. Only by
ensuring that these ‘national schemes’ provide additional infor-
mation, which is not obligatory on the label but available via
other means (Internet, free telephone numbers, etc.), can these
detrimental effects be avoided.

1.5
The EESC understands that, for reasons of consistency,
the Commission intends to apply the same system of deroga-
tions to alcoholic products, a system which could be reviewed
within five years, following the publication of the report on the
subject.

The EESC suggests that Member States have at

their
1.6
disposal the necessary list of
infringements and penalties to
prevent any breach of these common rules, which must be
harmonised if the same behaviour is to be penalised with a
similar degree of severity in all Member States.

In this connection, the EESC calls on the Commission
1.7
and Member States to establish information tools and specifi-
cally a data base for public consultation on the information that
must be included on the labelling of various foods. This would
ensure that businesses, consumers and the authorities use the
same guide when the legislation is implemented.

1.8
As far as legibility is concerned, the 3mm requirement
proposed by the Commission does not seem feasible. Various
elements such as the quantity of information, the size and the
form of packaging would have to be taken into account. An
appropriate reference could be the typeface of the EU's Official
Journal.

Finally, with a view to achieving the desired clarity and
1.9
simplification,
the references to the
repealed rules should be more explicit, thus making the Regu-
lation more readable and facilitating its application.

the EESC believes that

2. Gist of the Commission proposal

labelling, presentation and advertising of

This proposal seeks to consolidate current legislation on
2.1
the
foodstuffs
(including nutrition labelling) into a Regulation, with a view to
modernising, simplifying and clarifying it.

C 77/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

2.2
The proposal will repeal current legislation on food label-
ling: Directives 2000/13/EC, 90/496/EEC (within five years),
87/250/EEC, 94/54/EC, 1999/10/EC, 2002/67/EC, 2004/77/EC
and Regulation 608/2004.

2.3
The main objectives of the proposal are to ensure a high
level of consumer protection and the smooth functioning of the
internal market.

2.4
The scope of legislation in this area is being broadened
to include all aspects of food information made available to the
final consumer by economic operators and also to cover food
delivered by mass caterers and foods intended for supply to
mass caterers.

The general principles and mandatory labelling require-
2.5
ments established under previous legislation will be maintained,
while at the same time expanding certain aspects such as the
responsibilities of each link in the food chain and the circum-
stances in which it is obligatory to indicate the country of
origin.

2.6
Provisions on nutrition labelling differ significantly from
previous legislation in that they include an obligation to indicate
six nutrients or substances both in terms of quantity and as a
percentage of the recommended daily intake.

Another major change concerns

the coexistence of
2.7
‘national schemes’ for nutrition labelling alongside the provi-
sions of
the rules for
presenting nutrition labelling information with voluntary
requirements set at national level.

the Regulation, which complement

2.8
The draft Regulation stipulates that many of the neces-
sary changes to the proposal should be carried out using the
comitology procedure. Various transitional periods are provided
for to facilitate its entry into force.

that cause allergies or

The annexes provide further details on the following:
2.9
ingredients
intolerances, additional
mandatory particulars, nutrition labelling derogations, name of
the food, quantitative indication and designation of ingredients,
net quantity declaration, ‘use by’ date, alcoholic strength, refer-
ence intakes, energy, and expression and presentation of nutri-
tion declaration.

Finally, the Regulation is due to come into force 20 days
2.10
after its adoption, although the actual
implementation of the
mandatory particulars and the nutrition declaration will be post-
poned by three years (five years for the latter in the case
of SMEs).

3. General comments

3.1 Consolidation, modernisation, simplification

3.1.1
European legislation on the labelling, presentation and
advertising of foodstuffs has helped, over the course of the past

almost 30 years, to maintain a high level of consumer protec-
tion and to ensure that the internal market runs smoothly.

3.1.2
The current proposal seeks to consolidate, update and
simplify existing legislation, to cut red tape, and to provide
greater transparency for consumers. The EESC supports these
objectives but regrets the complexity of
the proposed text,
which would stop the regulation from being directly applicable.

3.2 Development of additional ‘national schemes’

There is no doubt that a regulation which consolidates
3.2.1
and updates the current individual sets of rules will
lead to
more consistency in levels of consumer protection and greater
harmonisation. However, the EESC is concerned that the intro-
duction of ‘national schemes’, provided for in Articles 44 et seq,
may undermine the objectives of harmonisation and consis-
tency. Under the new provisions, Member States will be allowed
to adopt national schemes with additional requirements which,
although voluntary, will result in more information on labels
and could confuse consumers.

3.2.2
The problem becomes worse if we consider that every
national market sells products from many other Member States.
Those products will be able to display various items of informa-
tion which have been decided on in those other States and
which may not be understood by a consumer unfamiliar with
such information.

3.3 Mandatory information requirements

3.3.1
The draft Regulation incorporates the vast majority of
mandatory particulars that are stipulated under current legisla-
tion and which have proven useful in protecting the health and
interests of consumers (such as name, list of ingredients, quan-
tity, dates, name or business name and contact address). Some
of these particulars are covered in more detail in the annexes.

3.3.2
The experience of the past few years has shown that
such requirements are useful and should be maintained. In the
light of this experience, the EESC would also like to see manda-
tory indication of the origin of food, of the primary processing
products and, on the basis of a case-by-assessment of
the
secondary processing products, the origin of the main ingredi-
ents used to make them.

3.4 Nutrition declaration

3.4.1
First and foremost, consideration should be given to
the fact that European consumers need to be educated in nutri-
tion in order to able to follow a balanced diet. Without such an
education, the consumer will be unable to understand or make
the information provided. The measures for
use of any of
increasing nutrition information are to be welcomed, but we
must not forget that without education these measures will not
have the desired effect.

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/83

Given the nutritional

3.4.2
in the European
population, any information measures must be accompanied by
a major education drive.

imbalances

it stipulates that

The proposal represents, for various reasons, a major
3.4.3
break with current legislation. First of all,
it makes nutrition
information mandatory, whereas under Directive 90/496/EEC
this was voluntary. Second,
the following
should be declared: energy value and amounts of fat, saturates,
carbohydrates, sugars and salt. Third, not only will the quantity
of these substances be provided, but also the percentage that
they represent of the daily recommended intake, thus seeking to
offer guidance to the consumer as to the appropriate quantity
that may be consumed as part of a balanced diet. Finally, the
proposal stipulates that this information should be presented in
the principal field of vision of the packaging and set out in a
particular way.

Given the amount of mandatory information that
3.4.4
already appears on labels, it is important to assess very carefully
which nutrition information is useful to the consumer. The
move from voluntary nutrition labelling to mandatory nutrition
labelling will
in itself constitute a major change for a large
number of SMEs in the agri-food sector. The mandatory infor-
mation could therefore be limited to what is currently advocated
on a voluntary basis, namely indication of energy, protein,
carbohydrates and fats.

The main advantage of the nutrition labelling model
3.4.5
proposed by the Commission is that it provides information

Brussels, 18 September 2008.

(recommended daily allowances) showing the consumer how
the product should form part of an appropriate diet, and does
not assess the product in itself, but within the context of such a
diet, as advised by nutrition experts.

3.5 Additional obligatory information about

the food's country of

origin

Current

3.5.1
where there might be some confusion on the part of
consumer, foods should indicate the country of origin.

legislation already stipulates

that

in cases
the

3.5.2
The EESC considers that indication of origin not only
meets the needs of consumers, but is also an effective way of
improving market transparency and supporting the future devel-
opment of the agriculture sector and of rural areas throughout
the EU. The establishment of a direct link with the place of
origin of a food and the indication of the production methods
used are crucial to the European development model, based on
respect
rules that guarantee food safety, environmental
safety, animal welfare and adequate public health standards.

for

3.5.3
Indication of origin should therefore be obligatory for
all non-processed or primary processing agri-food products. In
the case of secondary processing products, the obligation to
indicate the provenance of the main agricultural raw materials
used to make the final product should be assessed on a case-by-
case basis.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS