EU tries to stop food giants 'exploiting fear'

New regulations will make food companies accountable for the claims they make about their produce

SUPERMARKET shelves are full of it. Rich in Omega-3, low in cholesterol, high in fibre, free from hydrogenated fat, "proven" to strengthen your bones, help you lose weight, do wonders for your digestive transit and improve your ability to concentrate - the food labels are missing just one ingredient: widespread understanding by consumers.

Now the European Commission is on a mission to make clear, simple labelling mandatory on the front of all pre-packed foods. What started out in the 1970s as a project to encourage the flow of food between EU member states has become a fervent, if legislatively cumbersome, desire to protect the health of consumers.

Good labelling not only helps consumers make the right choices, it also encourages food manufacturers to reformulate their products, removing salt, fats and sugar. But if food companies can use labels to promote their products, then governments should use labels to promote public health messages, goes the thinking.

"Labelling is an aggressive marketing tool, which is used by the industry in the most effective way for them," says Paola Testori Coggi, deputy director general of DG Sanco, which is the EU's health and consumer affairs directorate general.

"But food can never prevent or treat a disease, so when a food is sold with this idea to cure, to prevent, to treat, it is illegal. There is food that doesn't say that it prevents, but implies that it does. The food can help you body react in a certain way, but the food itself cannot cure," Coggi says.

Nutrition and health claims legislation introduced last year is currently subject to a two-year transition period, during which Coggi says Brussels enforcers will be "tolerant".

Member states have submitted lists of the "thousands" of health claims already in use in member states. These will be passed onto the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) by mid-2008, and a final list of permitted health claims will be adopted in 2010.

One of the main aims of the legislation is to stop manufacturers "making a true claim, but giving the wrong message". For example, a cereal that claims on its packaging to be high in fibre will also have to declare, with equal prominence, if it has a high sugar content.

As well as stopping food companies from selectively highlighting the positive aspects of their products while keeping schtum about the negative ones, the EU hopes to stop manufacturers and retailers using labelling to "exploit fear" in consumers, and making inappropriate comparisons with other foods.

New "nutrient profiles" will stipulate what constitutes a low, normal and high proportion of fat, salt, sugar and other ingredients for particular categories of food, based on both the composition of the food and how it is typically consumed. For example, olive oil manufacturers won't have to label their bottles with a "high fat" warning in the same way that a chocolate manufacturer might do.

The amount of information that should be put on a product increases whenever the food makes a positive health claim. So if a plain chocolate bar says it "contains antioxidants" - a health claim that will require clinical studies and formal EU authorisation in the future - it will also have to alert consumers to the fat content.

Before legislators and the food industry tackle this brave new "frontier between food and medicine", as Coggi describes it, they must agree on a standardised approach to basic front-of-pack nutrition labelling. The EU proposed draft labelling requirements in January, but says they are intended to complement national schemes agreed in individual member states.

In the Republic, Food and Drink Industry Ireland (FDII) has decided to adopt the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) system of standardised labels, which show the calorie, sugar, fat, saturated fat and salt content in foods, and the percentage of an adult woman's recommended intake that it represents.

The traffic light system favoured in the UK has been deemed too simplistic, as it requires milk and cheese to be labelled with a red light for their high fat content, which might discourage consumers from buying important sources of calcium and other nutrients.

Under the proposed EU rules, manufacturers will have to add carbohydrate content to the front-of-pack labelling. Standardised serving amounts will also be considered, while allergens will have to be listed on all products.

But trans fats, which have become a popular villain among nutrition-conscious consumers, won't have to be on the label, because in public health terms they're just not that big a problem.

"Trans fats should not contribute more than 1-2 per cent of your diet, and in Europe it is at that level. Saturated fats shouldn't make up more than 10 per cent of your diet, but in the EU they contribute 13 per cent or more," says Helen Lee from DG Sanco's food law, nutrition and labelling unit.

"If consumers focus on trans fats and don't take account of total fats or saturated fats, the outcome might not be good for public health."

The EU's main aim is to encourage a balanced, healthy diet, unswayed by what the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) has called - to the anger of the industry - "ambiguity, fibs and bluff" on food labels.

"We want to avoid a situation where a consumer's choice is driven by one nutrient, rather than the entire composition of the diet," says Lee. In other words, the EU wants consumers to embrace super diets, not superfoods.