Consultation on front of pack nutrition labelling. UK Governments - Consultation Response of The Trading Standards Institute

Transcription

1 Consultation on front of pack nutrition labelling UK Governments - Consultation Response of The Trading Standards Institute August 2012

2 About The Trading Standards Institute The Trading Standards Institute is the UK national professional body for the trading standards community working in both the private and public sectors. Founded in 1881, TSI has a long and proud history of ensuring that the views of our broad church of Members are represented at the highest level of government, both nationally and internationally. We campaign on behalf of the profession to obtain a better deal for both consumers and businesses. We are also a forward-looking social enterprise delivering services and solutions to public, private and third sector organisations in the UK and in wider Europe. We run events for both the trading standards profession and a growing number of external organisations. We also provide accredited courses on regulations and enforcement which deliver consistent curriculum, content, knowledge outcomes and evaluation procedures, with the flexibility to meet local authority, business and operational needs. In compiling this response, TSI has canvassed the views of its Members and Advisers. The response has been composed by joint TSI Lead Officers for Food and Nutrition Corinne Lowe and David Pickering. If you require clarification on any of the points raised in the response, please do not hesitate to contact Corinne and David at their joint lofood@tsi.org.uk. TSI does not regard this response to be confidential and is happy for it to be published. Trading Standards Institute 1 Sylvan Court, Sylvan Way Southfields Business Park Basildon Essex SS15 6TH Tel:

3 Consultation on front of pack nutrition labelling (UK Governments ) Preamble Trading Standards Institute response August 2012 For the benefit of those reading this response without the consultation document to hand, the new Provision of Food Information to Consumers Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 (known as FIR) will make it mandatory for most pre-packaged foods to carry nutrition labelling from This consultation is being undertaken across the four countries of the UK. Consultation Questions I. To what degree does your organisation believe that greater consistency in UK FoP labelling would be beneficial to consumers? Is your organisation willing to work with the UK Governments to achieve this? The Trading Standards Institute believes that greater consistency in UK FoP labelling will be of great benefit to consumers, both in terms of increased consumer understanding and ease of finding the information they are looking for. The Trading Standards Institute will offer what relevant support it can to the UK Governments in achieving this. II. If you are not a food retailer or manufacturer, please provide your views on the current provision of FoP labelling in the UK. The Trading Standards Institute is not a retailer, manufacturer or consumer. However, the Institute believes that having several different forms of FoP labelling is not beneficial to consumers in terms of consumer understanding and ease of reference. III. In what circumstances do you think it might be appropriate to give an energy declaration alone FoP, instead of energy, fat, saturates, sugars and salt? Please detail the reasons for your views. Note for Industry - We would also be interested in understanding to what degree complying with the FIR impacts your answers to this question i.e. to what extent is your answer dictated by space restrictions and to what extent is it driven by other considerations? The Trading Standards Institute cannot comment on this. Page 1 of 5

4 IV. Whilst market penetration of FoP labelling is key, there will be some food products on which consumers will not find it useful. Do you concur that products listed in Annex V of the FIR foods that are exempt from mandatory nutrition labelling - should not carry voluntary FoP labelling (see Annex E)? Based on the information given in the consultation, it is not known why consumers would not find FoP labelling useful on some food products. The Trading Standards Institute does not concur that products listed in Annex V of FIR, should not carry voluntary FoP labelling. This is because FoP labelling is voluntary and it would therefore be contradictory to start saying what products FoP labelling should not appear on. The products listed in Annex V should, therefore, be able to carry voluntary FoP labelling if they voluntarily wish to do so. It should also be noted that the products listed in Annex V are exempt from the mandatory FIR requirement to provide a nutrition label. This does not mean that these Annex V products cannot provide a nutritional label if they wish to, it just means that there is no legal requirement to do so. Therefore, some of these products may voluntarily provide a nutritional label. V. Currently FoP labelling in the UK is based on per portion. The FIR permits expression of FoP information per 100g or per portion, but where per portion information only is provided, energy should be provided per 100g in addition. Views are sought on whether per portion remains the right basis for consistent FoP declarations. The Trading Standards Institute is concerned that per portion, in itself may cause disparity when comparing FoP labels for similar products. This is because the Trading Standards Institute is not aware of any standard portion sizes. For example, one brand of pizza may label its portion size as half a pizza and another brand of pizza may count the whole pizza as a portion size. VI. The FIR allows nutrition information to be provided on an as sold or as consumed i.e. in a cooked or prepared, ready-to-eat form. Views are sought on how useful it would be to seek agreement on the types of product that should express FoP nutrition information on an as consumed basis to bring further consistency and comparability to FoP labelling, bearing in mind full manufacturers cooking instructions must accompany such declarations. If as consumed labelling is supported, please indicate the categories of food that should carry this information. Whilst the Trading Standards Institute does not object to as consumed nutritional information being provided, the Institute believes that care needs be taken when there may be more than one cooking method available for a product. For example, some products such as some ready meals can be microwaved or oven cooked. The Institute is Page 2 of 5

5 concerned that different cooking methods could affect the nutritional content of the food. If this is the case, this could again cause difficulties for consumers when comparing products, such as one ready meal giving as consumed nutritional information when micro waved and another one giving this information when oven cooked. VII. We are also interested in gaining an insight into how the agreement of the FIR might affect the provision of FoP labelling in the UK. Please indicate whether, following implementation of the Regulation s requirements, your company will be providing around the same amount of FoP information, and whether more or fewer of your products will carry FoP information. Please detail the reasons for your answer. The Trading Standards Institute is not a food company. VIII. The FLABEL 4 study indicated that consistency in positioning of the FoP label also played a part in gaining consumer attention. Views are sought on the degree to which position on pack could be harmonised. The Trading Standards Institute believes that harmonising the position of the FoP label will assist consumers in being able to quickly reference this information. IX. Views are sought on whether % Reference Intakes (%GDAs) should be used on all FoP labels. The Trading Standards Institute cannot comment on whether % Reference Intakes should be used. However, the Institute believes that whatever is decided, there should be consistency for all FoP information given, in order to try and avoid consumer confusion. X. Given current market practice, and the research on consumer preference, a move towards more consistency would require most interested parties to make some changes alongside the changes that would be required by the FIR. Views are sought on interested parties preference for the following options for a single approach: %GDA only; % GDA + HML text + interpretative CC based on standardised nutrient levels; % GDA + HML text; % GDA + interpretative CC based on standardised nutrient level; Colour coding only; Colour coding + %GDA; Colour coding + HML text. The Trading Standards Institute cannot comment on a preferred option. However, whichever option is preferred overall, there needs to be consistency with all FoP information, in order to try and avoid consumer confusion. The option preferred overall should also be understood by the consumer and provide meaningful and comparable information. Page 3 of 5

6 XI. Do you have any alternative suggestions that might fulfil the Governments ambition to see a more uniform approach to FoP labelling? The Trading Standards Institute does not have any alternative suggestions. XII. If your business already provides FoP information, what form of FoP labelling do you use and why? Do you have any research that supports your choice of FoP scheme that you would be willing to share*? We are particularly interested in research (especially unpublished work) that: addresses consumer preferences, consumer understanding and comprehension (particularly amongst lower literacy and lower socio-economic groups (C2, D, E), those of different ages, disabilities (including those with learning disabilities), longterm conditions, gender, race, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity); Demonstrates any impact on consumer choice; Demonstrates any effect FoP has had on the reformulation of food products. The Trading Standards Institute is not a food company. XIII. If your business uses interpretive additional forms of expression, such as HML text, and/or colour coding, how do you determine the cut-off points between each category? Does this differ between types of foods, or are the same criteria applied to all your FoP labelled products, and, if so, why? The Trading Standards Institute is not a food company. XIV. The FLABEL research recommends the use of health logos accompanied by repeat nutrition information as a form of labelling that might provide a way forward in delivering a consistent form of FoP labelling across the EU for the future. Interested parties views and experience of using health logos are sought. The Trading Standards Institute cannot comment on whether health logos should be used. If, however, health logos are used, these should be standardised. In other words, the number of different health logos should be kept to a minimum to aid consumer recognition and understanding. XV. What are your views on further emphasising the energy content per portion of the FoP (e.g. by increasing the font size or prominence of this information or the use of pings ) in order to help those looking to reduce their calorific intakes? Are there particular types of product that might benefit from this type of additional FoP labelling? Are there any commercial limitations to providing this information on foods? What criteria underpin the use of pings and has their provision been evaluated*? For those companies that currently colour code calories, do you have any research that demonstrates any impact of this approach? Page 4 of 5

7 what criteria have been used to underpin the colour coding of calories*? The Trading Standards Institute cannot comment on whether energy content should be further emphasised. It should be noted, however, that if pings mean further energy statements being given in addition to the FoP information, it should be noted that it is the Institute s understanding that FIR requires energy information to always be declared in kilojoules as well as kilocalories. It is understood that the Department of Health have already raised concerns about consumer confusion in relation to having to provide kilojoules as well as kilocalories with any energy information provided in addition to the nutritional label/table. XVI. Are there any further costs or benefits other than those set out in the costs and benefits section above that might accrue from the further voluntary harmonisation of the provision of front of pack nutrition information asset out in this consultation document? The Trading Standards Institute is not currently aware of any further costs or benefits other than those already provided in the consultation. Trading Standards Institute 03 August 2012 Page 5 of 5