MEPs said they wanted to see the country of origin stated for meat, poultry, dairy products, fresh fruit and vegetables. Committee members also approved proposals to indicate the country of origin for meat, poultry and fish when used as ingredients in processed food. The committee voted 33-29 in support.
The MEPs were voting on a committee report drafted by the MEP Renate Sommer on food labelling proposals that will now go forward for full parliamentary vote, probably in May/June 2010. Sommer tabled some 800 amendments to the original proposals published by the Commission in January 2008.
While the vast majority of these amendments are minor clarifications, there have been some hot spots that have divided opinion. In particular, some member states have been keen to see colour coding, like the ‘traffic lights’ advocated in the UK, included in a new pan-EU front of pack system. But MEPs rejected this idea.
More nutrients up front
They agreed with the Commission proposal that values for five nutrients – energy, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugar and salt, should be mandatory on the front of food and beverage packs. But they added that they would like to go even further, including added proteins, fibre and natural and artificial trans fats.
Given the importance of energy among the nutrients recommended for the front of packs, they said calorie content should be made prominent.
Per portion or per 100ml/g
Among other contentious issues has been the question of whether information should be given per portion or per 100ml/g of product. The food industry has tended to prefer a portion-based approach on the front of packs, arguing that unlike the “values per 100ml/g” approach, it does not require consumers to work out exactly how much they would be eating, with the on the back.
But MEPs decided that 100g/ml is preferable, with portion info alongside as an optional extra.
Other sticking points dealt with include nano-materials being labelled as nano- in the ingredients list; the replacement of the minimum font size of 3mm for mandatory information with stipulation that it be legible, and clear labelling of “imitated food” to avoid misleading consumers – that is, clearly stating where an ingredient has been replaced.
In terms of the overall approach, the MEPs said the regulation should lay down only quite general rules on how information should be displayed, which would allow different countries to keep or adopt national rules.
Sommer had proposed that member states should not be able to promote additional national schemes alongside the EU-wide format, but MEPs chose to reject this idea.
Where next?
Despite the indication that the matter is now moving forward, shape of the final nutrition labelling legislation is far from a done deal. Parliament will have its first reading in plenary at the end of May, after which the Council will have to adopt its position, and the proposal will return to the Environment committee.
Moreover, it could be years before the information on food packaging actually changes. MEPs said larger companies should have three years to put the new rules into action, but companies with annual turnover or balance sheet under €5m would have five years.