Food Labelling Forum summary report: 6 December 2002

Thursday 9 October 2003

This is a summary of the Forum meeting on 6 December 2002.

Baroness Howarth OBE
UK Board Member, Food Standards Agency
The Food Standards Agency was established as a UK-wide non-Ministerial Government Department in April 2000. The Agency had an independent Board and was accountable to Parliament and the devolved authorities through Health Ministers. The Food Standards Agency had publicly committed itself to three core values:

• Putting the consumer first
• Being open and accessible
• Being an independent voice

Baroness Howarth had been a member of the Food Standards Agency Board since its inception and had found it particularly satisfying to play a part in delivering on being open and accessible. Baroness Howarth had found the open Board meetings challenging, and very rewarding on a personal level, and believed that the Board had made a significant contribution to increasing transparency in public life.

As a Board member Baroness Howarth had very much valued the opportunity to attend open events like the Food Labelling Forum. This event in particular offered an insight into individual experiences, for example those of allergic consumers. It also offered the opportunity for discussion between interested parties, which could lead to a better understanding of needs and constraints.

The Board was strongly committed to promoting informed choice, and improving labelling was a very important part of this. Baroness Howarth welcomed this opportunity to hear the presentations and subsequent discussions, and to meet and talk with those attending during the lunch break. These discussion sessions were very important as they played an important role in policy making.

Presentations
Allergen Labelling
The Agency has a strong commitment to improving food choice and improved labelling is a key part of that agenda.

Keith Gregory, Head of Branch A, Food Labelling and Standards Division

Progress on Allergen Labelling, Revisions to EU legislation

The issue:

• Most ingredients are listed on the label in descending order by ingoing weight,

But

• Some legal exemptions from ingredient listing mean those wishing or needing to avoid certain ingredients can't

The solution:

• Establish those 'allergens' for which ingredient listing exemptions should not apply
• Review ingredient listing exemptions generally to improve information

Political agreement on text reached in November 2002:

• Requires specified allergens and their products always to be listed as ingredients by reference to their source
• Provides framework for more detailed rules and guidance

The specified allergens:
Cereals containing gluten
Crustaceans
Nuts
Eggs
Sesame seeds
Fish
Milk
Soybeans
Peanuts
Celery
Mustard
Sulphite at more than 10mg/kg
and products thereof

Broadly sensible approach:
tahini label as sesame tahini
casein label as milk protein
satay label as peanut satay
albumen label as egg albumen
tofu label as soya bean curd/soya tofu

Also removes compound ingredient exemption (so the ingredients in the sausage on a pizza would have to be declared) – 25% rule

Next steps:

• Common Position expected end January/early February 2003
• European Parliament (2nd reading)
• Final adoption by mid/end of 2003
• New rules in place by mid/end 2004
• Fully in force by mid/end 2005

Catering establishments

• Minimal labelling requirements
• UK has scope to extend labelling provisions to food sold by caterers
• Consumers need to be able to make informed choices based on accurate information

Key issues for caterers

• Good operation practices with regard to allergens
• Guidance on transfer and retention of food ingredient information
• Training and awareness
• Improve information available to allergic customers

Next steps
The Agency to hold a stakeholder meeting early 2003.

'May Contain' Labelling, Hazel Gowland, Member of The Anaphylaxis Campaign
'May Contain' Labelling – The Consumer's Perspective

Background

• 90%+ Anaphylaxis Campaign members allergic to nuts/peanuts
• One child in 70 allergic to peanuts
• Nuts and peanuts avoided by siblings, friends and schoolmates
• Even non-allergic families avoiding them – both ingredients and trace contamination
• Additional problems for people avoiding other allergens: cows' milk, eggs, sesame etc.

'May contain nut traces'

• Initially seen as responsible and helpful to allergic people
• Perceived increase in use on ordinary foods
• Should only be used when there is a measured and recorded risk of cross contamination
• Could manufacturers be using it without the full risk assessment, ie to protect their own interests?

Nut trace contamination (NTC) consumer perception?

• NTC labelling on wide range of unrelated products, eg bags of salad, boiled sweets, tomato sauce
• NTC on a high proportion of everyday items, particularly cereals, biscuits and confectionery
• NTC ignored by high risk young consumers
• NTC hard to find and hard to read

Activity A: Parallel shopping baskets

• Shopping basket activity
• Comparing consumer choice, time and cost
• Basket of everyday items – nuts not usually ingredients
• Control basket – unrestricted choice
• Second basket for nut/peanut allergic consumer

Retailers
Sainsbury's, Safeway, Marks and Spencer, ASDA, Waitrose, Tesco, Iceland and Co-op

Shopping trips

• On a weekday – usually middle of day
• Shops well stocked then but not too busy
• Selection time recorded (not queuing payment time)
• Shoppers asked to use all information available, eg labelling, shelf edge, asking staff

Activity A: Conclusion

• Only 73% of items for nut/peanut allergic person matched
• Nut/peanut allergic consumer missed out on 18% of items when a match/substitute not available
• Shopping time 39% longer
• Cost 11% more
• Additional cost of lack of choice

Activity B: Labelling assessment

• B1: To measure the packaging area and the percentage used for ingredient and allergen information
• B2: Devising an assessment scheme based on current industry guidelines and advice

Brand leader shopping

• In addition to the own label shopping, the survey included examples of brand leader items
• These were included in the labelling assessment – Activity B
• They were also included in the final review, conclusion and recommendations

Activity B: key findings

• More than half (56%) of the items in the control baskets had NTC labelling
• 11% had allergen information away from the ingredients
• 42% of products were in shiny or creasable packaging
• More than a third of products had ingredients in poor colour combinations

Activity B: Conclusions

• The ingredients need to be easy to find and easy to read
• Both the amount of space and the proportion of the packaging allowed for ingredients and allergen information are important
• There is a wide variety of allergen information presented in many different ways
• Current industry guidelines are frequently ignored

Activity C: Labelling audit

• Using shopping in the control baskets
• Ten sorters worked through the control baskets of each of the eight retailers in turn
• Placed items in one of two boxes – suitable/not suitable for a nut/peanut allergic person

Nearly 10% of 'may contain' labels were missed altogether

Conclusion

• For at least 1% of the population and all who share their food, NTC information is critical
• Allergic people are already forced to avoid in-store bakeries, many ethnic outlets, markets etc
• They need pre-packed foods which they can trust
• Current practices are dangerous

Recommendations

• Clear labelling task force guidelines
• Science to support manufacturers 'cleaning up' – assays and cleaning protocols
• A recognised food production standard to support manufacturers 'cleaning up'
• FSA to repeat and extend this research activity, to link it into related projects and to monitor and review the use of NTC labelling

Question and Answer Session – Allergen Issues, Chaired by Rosemary Hignett
Rosemary Hignett opened the session by reminding people that the Agency holds these Forums to listen to what the public has to say. Rosemary invited questions on any of the issues raised earlier by Keith Gregory or Hazel Gowland on any aspect of allergen labelling.

Labelling of products derived from the list of major allergens:
Several stakeholders expressed opinions about the labelling of products derived from the EU list of major allergens. It was stated that many of these derivative products do not contain the allergen. For example, glucose syrup derived from gluten containing cereal does not contain gluten. Therefore, there was no need to signal these items on labels as allergens. Keith Gregory explained that the Scientific Committee for Food was looking at this issue at the moment with a view to advising on specific exclusions from the list of major allergens.

The addition and removal of allergens and derivatives from the EU list:
There were concerns raised about the speed at which changes could be made to the list of allergens and products derived from them. The text of the proposal allows for changes to be made to the list. The Scientific Committee for Food will look at the issues and the Commission will deal with the changes. This could be dealt with reasonably quickly within Europe.

'May contain' labelling:
It appears that, based on their production facilities, manufacturers and retailers are labelling many items with 'may contain' warnings. There was a plea for them to look at their production processes and label the risk accordingly. Hazel Gowland said that this was partly a consumer education issue. Consumers need to understand the risks and manufacturers and retailers need to look at production throughout the food chain. The use of too much ‘may contain’ labelling negates the warning. The public needs to be told where and what the risks are so that they can make an informed choice.

The use of symbols:
It was asked if labelling could be simplified by the use of symbols. For example, using the letter 'N' in a circle to represent the presence of nuts in a product. Sainsbury's supermarket replied that they were looking at making changes to their labelling to introduce icons with wording so that there would be no confusion on issues.

Sesame allergy:
It was mentioned that sesame allergy was as serious as peanut allergy, but that not all of the food industry recognised this. Sesame is on the EU list of allergens and the British Retail Consortium and the Food and Drink Federation indicated that they take sesame allergy very seriously and consider it a major allergen.

Nut free lists from supermarkets:
There was a plea from a mother of an allergic child that these lists should be as user friendly as possible, as they are a vital source of information. It was recommended that some supermarkets could make improvements to the layout of their lists.

The use of 'nut free' on Labelling:
There is a need to ensure that all products bought for a household where there are allergic members are safe and that people outside the immediate family may not be as familiar with the different ways of listing the allergen that the allergic person wishes to avoid. The use of ‘nut free’ on products would simplify this issue. The Agency is to hold a stakeholder meeting in the New Year that will look at the issue of wording on labels.

Food sold loose:
The difficulties that allergy sufferers experience were highlighted by tales of retailers and caterers not being able to inform them of the ingredients of foods sold loose or in restaurants. One response from the audience suggested computer terminals at retailer outlets so that customers could look up what ingredients are in their food.

Alcoholic labelling:
Alcoholic drinks are mostly exempt from labelling although the allergen labelling proposal does have a provision for this. The Commission is keen to propose something on listing of ingredients on alcoholic drinks. The Agency is pleased to see this underway and discussion should start sometime next year.

GM Labelling, Nick Tomlinson, Head of Novel Foods Division

Introduction:
Summary of existing legislation
Commission proposal
FSA view
Current state of proposals
FSA evidence based
Required to act proportionately

Not about safety of GM foods– rigorous safety assessment procedure
Issue is one of consumer choice
Labelling is a national, European and international issue
Global food supply

Facts
GM crop cultivation
>99% outside EU
EU imports 30M tonnes soya and maize

Evolution of GM labelling in UK/Europe

1994 Polkinghorne report
1996 Tomato paste
1997 EC novel foods regulation
1997 UK retailers voluntary labelling of soya/maize
1998 EC soya maize regulations (GM trigger)
1999 Retailers remove GM
1999 labelling threshold introduced.

Thresholds
Nothing new husked rice 2.5% other rice
Wheat 2% edible grains
Maize 1.5% organic matter
GM thresholds 1% EU, Australia
3%Thailand
5% Japan

The Commission proposals
Food/feed (F/F) and traceability and labelling (T/L)
What they would require
F/F Centralised approval process
Labelling all food/feed ingredients produced from GM sources
1% threshold, labelling and non-approved
Applies to food sold to final consumer (catering establishments)
T/L Documentation to accompany supplies of GMOs + prods from GMOs
Records kept for 5 yrs

EP views

Label 0.5%
Non-approved 0%

Council

Threshold 0.9%
Non-approved 0.5%

The Agency's view of the proposals:
Fully committed to genuine consumer choice and meaningful info
Organised stakeholder meetings, written consultation,
Focus groups:
- little knowledge of true extent of GM use in food chain
- far down list of concerns (also Quantatative research – price)
- demands for info at relatively low level

Do not believe the proposals are enforceable, practical or affordable.
'A cheats' charter'

UK Government View:
Consistently argued for a policy based on sound science and which is practicable and enforceable. The compromise text failed to meet these objectives.
Present significant practical problems for developing countries, indeed meeting the requirements will probably be impossible for the least developed countries.

Next steps:
EP 2nd reading

Conclusion:
Not a safety issue
Agency fully supports genuine consumer choice
But need to be practical, enforceable and proportionate
Honest debate
Developing countries

Question and Answer Session: GM Issues, Chaired by Rosemary Hignett

Safety of GM Foods:
The safety of GM foods was raised; participants reported that the public is concerned that there is no proper safety assessment for GM foods because of the lack of research in this area. It was suggested that products flooded onto the market with no indication that they were GM.

In answer to this Nick Tomlinson advised that all GM products are rigorously assessed before they are placed onto the market. There has been no reported adverse effects arising from the consumption of GM foods.

GM Labelling:
There were calls that GM food should be properly labelled to ensure those people that wished to avoid them can do so. There were also requests for clear guidelines on GM labelling for small businesses.

Under the new EU proposal a supplier would need to provide information of GM source material in documentation. Regardless of the presence or absence of novel genetic material in the end product, if its source material were GM then it would need to be labelled as such.

There were concerns raised that the term 'modified starch' may refer to genetic modification. This is not the case and the use of the term does not refer to the inclusion of genetically modified material. There is a statement on the FSA website to this effect.

Enforcing labelling legislation – opportunities and problems, David Walker, Chief Trading Standards Officer, Shropshire Country Council

Food standards treated as a Cinderella issue by Local Authorities (LAs)

The financial implications:
Adulterated food – added water
Soya protein not declared

The Marketing environment –or the 'not me first syndrome'
Retailers under much pressure to market goods competitively
Many lower quality
Would only comply with law if (also do competitors) told to LAs

Modern Technology or 'if you can't beat them, join them'
New technology can provide opportunity for fraud

N = Apparent meat
Nitrogen 'N' can be added to give false levels of meat in products
Analyst used the detection of N to give and indication of meat levels in products

Dehydrated rind
'Absorbs four times its weight of water… to replace 5lbs of meat add 1lb of … and 4lbs of water'

Bone protein
'A typical level of addition is 2% of … plus 3.25% water to replace 4% lean meat' (working party document)

Blood plasma
'Blood plasma is predominately used:
In comminuted meat products such as luncheon meat
In cured cooked meat products such as cooked ham'
Scope for abuse evident

Milk powder:
Improves the yield allows pumping level increases
Use less milk powder to make ice cream – spread throughout industry dictated by market forces on the basis that if you can’t beat them join them

Local Authority strategic objectives
Economic Welfare
Unfair competition – employment of local workers
Protect the UK industry from unfair competition
Social Inclusion
Protect food quality

Ambiguous legislation
'A name which indicates its true nature and which enables it to be distinguished from products with which it could be confused'
(Regulation 8 of the 1996 food labelling regulation)

Health Claims
55% of consumers were prepared to pay more for a product that had a health related claim. (Consumers' Association, 1989)

'The borderline between medical claims that are subject to strict controls and health claims which are not subject to specific controls is unclear and the increasing use of health claims on the labelling and advertising of certain foodstuffs has led to a great deal of controversy.' (Food Advisory Committee)

Substantiation
'The second area of concern is the potential to mislead consumers. This arises when consumers are led to believe that certain products are necessary and/or beneficial to health when claims are unsubstantiated. In the opinion of the Working Group excessive claims are being made for some supplements.'(MAFF/DoH Working Group on Dietary Supplements and Health Claims)

Resisting the Challenge
Companies – defended by expert lawyers
Companies – threaten to go the European Court

Investigations
LAs go into investigations with all the powers that they have.
Powers:
Visit the manufacturer
Recipe
The process
Relevant samples
Audit on sales etc

Equipment Manufacturers
'Golden Water Tap Technique': why sell meat when you can sell water”

Ingredients suppliers
Cheese Substitute: 'As a complete or partial replacement for natural cheese' … for up to 35% less cost'
Textured Soya Protein – Intended primarily as a meat extender hydrated TVP has the appearance and mouthfeel of meat and can be used to extend meat products by up to 25%

All should be declared

Birds Eye Walls Ltd v Shropshire County Council
'The purpose for which TVP, or for that matter any other substance is included in a made up food products is, in the terns of whether or not that product falls foul of the labelling requirements of regulation 9, wholly irrelevant'. (Lord Justice Rose)

LAs can make a difference
Emerging issues:
Good response by FSA to LAs enforcement
Some LAs not doing their job – not enough samples being taken
Need to send samples to Public Analyst to support this service

Things changing:
Good news food companies attitudes changing
Food companies will change their labels when challenged
Food companies also changing their attitudes towards LAs comments
Still some room for improvements

Question and Answer Session: Issues for Enforcement, Chaired by Rosemary Hignett
Food Standards
The issue of how high food standards come on the Local Authorities' agenda was raised. The Agency's local authority audit programme includes a number of audits of Country Councils and Unitary authorities, both of which will include auditing of the authority's food standards enforcement activity. Local Authorities work together in this area, increase their effectiveness.

Substitute meat products
A question was raised about the use of substitute meat products and how Local Authorities could verify labelling claims for example that farm assured meat had been used in the production of meat products. There is no easy answer to this question. It is a difficult issue but there are statutory powers to seek documentation and Local Authorities would need to go back right through the food chain to ensure that farm assured meat was used.

Claims on baby and Infant foods
There was a call for clear laws and to ban any claims from being made on baby and infant food. The law is as transparent as possible, there are 15 member states and it is not easy to get clear transparent legislation. The UK is always pressing for this. LACORS give clear guidance on legislation to local Authorities. There have been no complaints received by Local Authorities on this issue and LACORS have only received a few.

Enforcement
Points were raised about the cost of enforcing the GMO and the proposed allergen labelling regulations when this comes into effect. Other points such as would the FSA be increasing the Local Authorities sampling budget and do the Local Authorities deal with products wherever they originate were also raised. John Barnes (Food Standards Agency) and David Walker addressed these issues. Analysis is not the only way to check if the contents of products are as stated on the label. Other methods of investigation may also be employed depending on the nature of the case or complaint. Benchmarking goes beyond the number of samples analysed. The Local Authorities will deal with consumer complaints wherever the product originates. All Member States are inspected for their Local Authorities law enforcement handling.

Question and Answer Open Session, Chaired by Rosemary Hignett
Rosemary introduced the question and answer open session, calling initially for questions on the areas of vegetarian/vegan, health claims and country of origin labelling. The scope of the session was then expanded to cover all issues of interest to participants.

Vegetarian Labelling
Several questions that were raised in earlier sessions about vegetarian labelling were deferred until this final session. In response Rosemary addressed these questions by saying that improvement in ingredient labelling would help everyone. However there was a particular need for consistency in claims on vegetarian foods. Rosemary announced that the Agency planned to set up a Working Group in the New Year to look at the issues. The Working Group should develop guidelines on standards that all vegetarian products would have to meet.

In discussion it was mentioned several times that there needs to be a firm definition of term 'vegetarian' as there appears to be several in use at present. A representative of the Vegan Society offered their definition: 'No animal products or cross contamination with animal products', and offered the Agency their assistance. The vegan groups would be invited to be involved in the Agency‘s Working Group in due course.

Health Claims
Concerns were raised about how the expected health claims proposal would affect the food supplements industry. Consumers need adequate protection so that they can trust claims, but legislation needs to be introduced in a sensible way so not to over burden industry. The Agency is pressing for arrangements which would allow the smooth transition of valid existing claims. Discussions in Brussels on health claims will lead to an EU position in due course.

Internet Sales
Internet sales were an area being looked at by the Agency. David Walker announced that the Local Authorities could still do something about incorrect or misleading labelling in this area.

Definition of Pasteurised
The definition of pasteurised milk came into the discussion and it was announced that labelling needs to be clear to the consumer, but we were unable to deal with safety issues at this forum.

Irradiation of products
There were concerns that products were being irradiated to give a long self-life without declaring this on the label. Products that are irradiated would need to state this clearly on the label. Only a few foods have been authorised to undergo the irradiation process in the UK, these are herbs and spices; anything else should not have been irradiated.

Country of origin labelling
The Agency has taken the lead in introducing this into international debate. New guidance notes issued recently by the Agency should assist local Authorities police labelling in this area. However, the Agency would like to see country or origin labelling on a wider range of products, particularly meat and meat products, and the Agency is pleased that this labelling issue is on the future EU agenda.

Requests for advice were raised about how to label products that had a flexible source for an ingredient, such as meat, to ensure supplies were constant. There are different options available for this: a) use different labels for the different sources, b) state on the label that ingredients come from a number of different sources and list the different countries.

Clear labelling
Legibility of labelling is very important, especially the size of the print used on labels. This is a big issue with the public and the Agency has responded to this by issuing clear labelling guidelines. The Agency will monitor the uptake of these and respond accordingly. Rosemary indicated that the Agency welcomed any further comments on the guidelines.

Close
Baroness Howarth reflected on the complexity of the issues raised at this Forum. The Agency will do what it can, but we are not all powerful we are restricted to what we can achieve in the broader world. Please keep talking to us.

Baroness Howarth thanked the speakers and delegates for contributing to a very successful event.