Food Labelling Forum summary report: 20 October 2004

1.1.1 Michael Gibson, Food Standards Agency Board Member, Chair of the Scottish Food Advisory Committee.

1.1.2 Michael explained that the Food Standards Agency was established as a UK wide non-ministerial government department in April 2000. The Agency has an independent Board, which is appointed to act in the interests of the public. Michael is an UK Board Member and also has responsibilities as a Board Member for Scotland. Part of that role is to chair the Scottish Food Advisory Committee (SFAC), which advises the Agency on food matters with particular relevance to Scotland.

1.1.3 The Agency is committed to three core values:

• To put the consumer first
• To be open and accessible
• To be an independent voice

1.1.4 The Agency has identified food labelling as one of its key priorities. It is aware that different consumers want different types of information and that they may want to avoid certain foods for religious, ethical, health or cultural reasons.

1.2 Overview of the Food Labelling Action Plan, provided by Michael Gibson

1.2.1 The objective of the Agency's labelling policy is to give consumers the information they need to use food safely, to eat more healthily and to make informed choices about the food that they buy.

After carrying out research on consumer views on food labelling and the improvements that they wish to be made, the Board adopted the food labelling 18-point action plan in September 2000.

1.2.2 The two main themes of the 18-point action plan are:

• Development of a labelling regime based on consumer's priorities
• Promotion of good labelling practice

1.2.3
The wide-ranging plan comprises a mixture of regulatory and voluntary initiatives.

The objective of the plan is to provide appropriate protection for consumers in law while allowing the necessary flexibility for the food industry to provide clear, consistent and accurate information about the food in a practical way that consumers would also find useful and accessible.

1.3 Key points of progress to date:

Changes in legislation:

1.3.1 EU rules have been amended recently to deliver more comprehensive ingredient listing and clearer labelling of some of the most common food allergens.

The new rules will make it compulsory to list these allergens whenever they are used in food, including alcoholic drinks. These new rules are currently being implemented in the UK and labels will have to comply by November 2005.

1.3.2 Tighter statutory controls on health related claims are currently being negotiated at EU level.

This will help to make sure the use of nutrition claims, such as 'low fat' is consistent, and health claims, such as 'good for your heart' are backed up by science.

This will help to protect consumers from misleading claims and to improve the free movement of goods within the internal market.

1.3.3 The Agency is in favour of nutrition labelling information being required on all pre-packed foods in a user-friendly format.

Key findings of the Agency's consumer research, testing the effectiveness of various formats and content of nutrition labelling, have been forwarded to the European Commission to inform their review of this issue and the Commission has indicated that its proposal amending the Nutrition Labelling Directive is likely to include a requirement for compulsory nutrition labelling on all pre-packed foods.

The proposal is now expected in 2006.

1.3.4 The Agency is pressing for changes to the rules on country of origin labelling.

These changes are needed to ensure that origin labelling is clearer, to prevent misleading labelling where the origin of the product and its primary ingredients differ.

The Agency is also pressing for more origin information to be required, especially on meat.

This is being facilitated by the review of EU Food Labelling Legislation that the European Commission is currently carrying out.

The Agency is working closely with the Commission to ensure that the review will address UK concerns.

1.3.5 As part of this review of EU food labelling rules, the Commission has indicated that it will also look at full ingredients listing on alcoholic drinks.

Promoting best practice:

1.3.6 The Agency has issued guidance on the use of terms like 'fresh', 'natural' and 'pure'; clear labelling; and country of origin labelling.

This is intended to help industry to comply with the law and provide additional voluntary information in a way that is helpful to consumers and to assurance scheme operators.

The latter will help consumers by promoting best practice amongst schemes.

1.3.7 A survey to monitor the effectiveness of Agency advice on the use of terms like Fresh, Pure and Natural was published early in 2004.

The purpose of the survey was to test the extent to which the guidance is being followed, and to identify any areas where the additions or clarifications to the guidance might be usefully made.

1.3.8 Surveys to monitor the uptake of Agency guidance on clear labelling and country of origin labelling are currently being commissioned and are due to be completed in summer 2005.

1.3.9 A survey to examine the extent to which schemes are taking account of the Agency's advice to assurance scheme operators is planned for 2005.

2.1 Nutrition Information on Foods, Dr Jonathan Back, Head of Claims and Promotions Branch, Food Standards Agency

2.1.1 The presentation concentrated on back of pack nutritional labelling and the issue of front of pack signposting.

2.2 Back of Pack

2.2.1 Nutrition labelling must comply with the requirements set out in EU Directive 90/496. Nutritional labelling is only required where a nutritional claim is made, and the information provided must be set out in a standardised format.

2.2.2 The range of foods and the way that food is promoted has changed, therefore in January 2003, the European Commission decided to initiate an extensive consultation to ask people whether they thought current nutritional labelling was working and how it could be improved. The main questions asked were:

• To what extent is nutritional labelling used in Europe? (around 80% of pre-packed foods carry nutritional labelling in the UK)
• What are the views of consumers/industry/enforcers?
• What are the views of the experts (dieticians, health professionals)
• What consumer research has been carried out on nutrition labelling?

2.2.3 Fifty-two responses to the FSA's consultation on the Commission documents were received.

The Commission has now produced a new document setting out the areas to be considered.

One of the issues identified is mandatory nutritional labelling.

This raises questions of how practical this would be on small packets, burdens of compliance for small/medium size businesses, what nutrients should be included.

2.2.4 There is general agreement that the nutritional list should be short and relevant and easy to understand.

The Commission is suggesting that there should be a minimum of 6 nutrients set; energy, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars and salt or sodium (the UK favours the term salt).

The Agency acknowledges that there are concerns over implementing mandatory labelling.

One way to assist industry is to have a long transition period for the new legislation.

This will allow time to change labels and use up existing stock.

It will also allow time to consider derogation's (e.g. tea, coffee, spices) from nutritional labelling. Another complex issue for consideration is the reference quantity.

The Commission's view is to allow people the flexibility to use 100g, but also include serving size if they wish.

Another aspect for discussion is the format of the nutritional label (currently it is very standardised) e.g. the additional use of graphs or pie-charts.

The main point here is that the information should be easily available and easily understood by the consumer.

2.2.5 In response to the Commission's request for information about consumer research on nutrition labelling, the Agency sent its report of a quantitative study conducted to discover consumers views on nutrition labelling.

The research consisted of 2,500 people being questioned of which 200 were of an ethnic minority.

There was also a balance of sex, age, and social class. It was also essential to make sure that there was the right mix of people who actually read labels and those who don't.

There were five formats of labels tested for whether the consumer could extract information, interpret the nutritional levels, compare products, and identify which were healthiest in terms of fat, salt and sugar content.

The design that is currently in use was liked for its performance (finding of information) this may be because consumers are used to this format.

However, they preferred the labels that indicated the quantification of key nutrients (I.e. low, medium or high).

Consumers may have felt that this was helpful in trying to quantify key nutrients as well as carrying out comparisons between products.

A draft proposal for a revised Nutritional Labelling Directive is now likely to be issued by the Commission in 2006.

2.3 Front of pack - nutrition claims

2.3.1 Quite often people do not have the time or the inclination to actually turn the pack over to read the nutrition-labelling panel.

They want to be able to make an informed and quick choice. Industry are recognising this and beginning to put more information on the front of packets.

This comes in a variety of ways, e.g. nutrition claims such as low fat, reduced salt or contains calcium.

The Agency has found that although consumers like these claims they are not entirely sure what the criteria for these claims are.

2.3.2 The Agency has placed guidance material on the website, but this may be overtaken by work in Brussels on the draft regulation on nutrition and health claims.

When talking about front of pack you need to consider brand names, or range descriptors or trademarks.

An example of a trademark would be Sainsbury's 'Be Good to Yourself', which could be seen as a signpost to the percentage of fat.

The Agency is keen to make sure that, through its discussions in Europe, these brand name trade scripts are not left out.

Information on the front of the pack needs to be valid and must not mislead consumers.

2.4 Front of pack - Signposting

2.4.1 The Action Plan on Food Promotions and Children's Diets includes a commitment to introduce a system of front of pack 'signposting' for foods, that will provide at a glance information about the nutritional content of the food, and therefore help consumers to make healthier choices.

A number of retailers and manufacturers are already using, or are planning to launch, schemes of this sort. In addition, signposting schemes are already in use in other countries, most notably the 'Green Keyhole' in Sweden and 'Pick the Tick' in Australia.

2.4.2 The Agency has recently carried out research to determine the form of signposting that will be most helpful to consumers.

Following a meeting with a wide range of stakeholders, five alternative signposting concepts were agreed for inclusion in the research:

• A 'simple traffic light' system where foods are labelled with a single green, amber or red traffic light on the basis of their overall contribution to a balanced diet.
• An 'extended traffic light system similar to the simple traffic light, but with five bands instead of three.
• A 'healthy choice' symbol which would appear only on products that were healthier choices, with no signposting for other products.
• A 'key nutrients' system - which rates each nutrient as high (red), medium (amber) or low (green).
• A 'guideline daily amounts' system - which provides numerical information on the content of each nutrient, together with an indication of the guideline daily amount.

2.4.3 The results of this research will be published shortly.

The Agency will work closely with stakeholders in taking this work forward, and a consultation on guidance for signposting is planned for summer 2005.

2.5 Enforcement of Food Labelling, Mr John Barnes, Deputy Head of Imported Foods Division, Food Standards Agency

2.5.1 This presentation covered enforcement arrangements in the UK, including the background, an outline on how consumer issues are dealt with and the relationship with industry.

2.6 The role of the Agency in Enforcement

2.6.1 When the Agency was initially discussed there was a debate over whether it should take on board the responsibility for food law enforcement and provide a national service.

An overwhelming response from consumers, stakeholders and industry decided that enforcement should remain with local authorities, as it was a good idea to retain a local intelligence.

Although the Agency negotiates and implements legislation, day to day enforcement is mainly carried out by local authorities.

However, a key role of the Agency is to check that local enforcement services are in place, that the officers are competent and that they have enough resources locally and/or that they can contact the Agency for help where appropriate.

2.7 Enforcement Arrangements - for food labelling

2.7.1 In Scotland there are 32 local authorities and on the whole, environmental health officers (EHO�s) enforce food hygiene, labelling and standards legislation.

This differs from England where most food labelling enforcement is carried out by trading standards officers (TSOs), albeit in the London boroughs and Unitary Councils this work may well be the responsibility of EHOs.

2.7.2 Businesses are required to register with local authorities 28 days before they open therefore ensuring that the local authorities can check that the standards are adequate.

A risk-based inspection programme is operated by LA's based on what LAs know about the business, size and nature of the business, past history of the business and confidence in management/quality assurance arrangements.

2.7.3 Most inspections would be unannounced (although this may not be the case if officers are looking to focus on management systems and would benefit from documentation being readily to hand).

For food labelling and standards, inspections would take place about once a year. The inspections would look at areas such as:

• The ingredients of the product, ensuring that what is stated to be in the product (recipe) is actually in the product
• Traceability of the product
• Quality Assurance systems
• Record keeping
• Product labelling ' compliance with legislation
• Interviews of staff will also take place

2.8 LAs also provide advice to businesses

2.8.1 Retail inspections will include checks on: labelling, product declarations, composition, description, use by dates, instructions for safe use.

2.8.2 Catering inspections are difficult in the respect that most labelling requirements do not apply unless the food is pre-packed.

Enforcement officers have to weigh up whether an extravagant marketing description of the food by the chef becomes a situation where consumers are being misled.

Inspections will very often include: sampling, and analysis to ascertain what is actually in the food and whether the labelling is accurate.

Samples of food will be sent to Public Analysts for analyses, and the Public Analyst Service is a very important part of the food standards (labelling and composition) enforcement system.

2.8.3 Consumer complaint

A large amount of LA activity will involve responding to consumer complaints about foods.

These may involve visiting a factory to check processes and to carry out further sampling.

2.8.4 The Home Authority Principle is very important to the enforcement of food labelling.

This means that businesses, whose products are sold across the UK, can ask their own LA to act as their Home Authority which may enable them to act as a filter for other LA's if there is a problem with a product sold in another area.

Similarly, the Home Authority can be consulted by other authorities to check whether a complaint about a product is an isolated case or part of a wider problem.

2.8.5 In Scotland there is Scottish Food Enforcement Liaison Committee which acts to ensure there is a consistency of approach.

2.9 Agency's Role

The Agency makes sure that enforcers are equipped, and competent to help industry, and competent to enforce the law.

• The Agency provides guidance, including free training where industry and consumer associations are brought in
• The Agency ask LA's to send in the information on the enforcement activities i.e. the number of inspections that are carried out or the number of samples that are taken
• The Agency returns information to Brussels - system ensures there are effective EU controls.
• Returns include - number of inspections, samples, findings and formal actions
• The Agency audits Local Authority services - assess quality
• Details of LA activity and audits are placed on the Agency website

2.10 Issues

• There are approximately 60-70,000 samples checked by LA's annually in the UK.
• Annually there are around 175,000 inspections and visits to check labelling and composition.
• The figures for prosecutions for labelling and composition offences annually are circa 250-300.
• There is a wide variation in activity levels between LAs.
• There is a variable local profile on food law enforcement.
• Competing demands locally in authorities.
• Some of the issues and investigations are very complex, which can cause problems for businesses and enforcers.
• Law can be challenging, e.g. on claims - at the moment enforcers have to disprove the claim. This creates difficulty as claims can sell a product. Therefore enforcers have to ensure that claims are appropriate and not misleading.
• Imported foods - 50% of the food coming into the UK is imported. The Agency has trained 1.000 enforcers in what to look for in imported foods.
• Emerging problems, e.g. new technologies and new products that can disguise water in food, new ways of selling products.

2.10.1 All of these issues need to be dealt with and investigated, but there is a significant local control system in place so that businesses and consumers are able to feel confident about the food they consume.

2.11 Allergen Labelling, Mrs Sue Hattersley, Head of the Food Allergy Branch, Food Standards Agency

2.11.1 This presentation concentrated on Allergen labelling in terms of the new legislation that was due to come into force in November 2004 and voluntary initiatives.

2.12 Background to Allergens and Food Intolerances

2.12.1 Food allergy is a reproducible adverse reaction to a food that involves the immune system, whereas intolerance is the term that we are using for reproducible adverse reactions not involving the immune system e.g. a lactose intolerance where there is a deficiency in the enzyme that breaks down lactose.

2.12.2 Coeliac disease (gluten intolerance) is a sort of immune reaction but it is not like an allergy, as gluten cannot cause anaphylactic reactions. If those with coeliac disease consume gluten, a protein found in cereals such as wheat, barley and rye, this results in damage to the lining of the small intestine, which stops the body absorbing nutrients properly.

2.12.3 The symptoms that you can get with food allergy or food intolerance include:

• Rashes
• Tingling sensation in the mouth
• Swelling of the lips, tongue, face and throat
• Difficulty breathing
• Diarrhoea
• Vomiting
• Abdominal cramps
• Anaphylaxis on rare occasions

2.12.4 About 1-2% of the adult population has a food allergy that's about one million people in the UK.

The incidence is a little higher with children (around 5-8%).

Children who have a milk allergy will often grow out of this by the time they reach school age.

Gluten intolerance is under diagnosed, current figures suggest that around 1% of the population are affected.

Lactose intolerance may affect about 5% of the population, but this figure varies in different ethnic groups.

2.13 Types of Labelling

2.13.1 There are statutory requirements for allergen labelling which, relate to deliberate ingredients in pre-packed foods, and there are voluntary initiatives and best practice guidance on allergens.

Specifically, the issue of accidental contamination - the accidental presence of allergens in foods, which result in 'may contain' labelling.

There is also the matter of non pre-packed foods and how information should presented.

2.13.2 Previous legal provisions:

• Food Safety Act 1990
• EU Directive 2000/13
• The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (as amended)

2.14 Directive 2003/89/EC

2.14.1 This is the new EC legislation, which will be implemented in the UK in November 2004.

This Directive, which amends Directive 2000/13/EC, establishes a list of specified ingredients for which ingredients listing exemption should not apply because of links with allergy and intolerance. This is the Annex IIIA list, which currently includes 12 allergenic foods.

2.14.2 This Directive requires that products derived from these allergens be labelled with reference to that allergen and also makes provision for the list to be revised.

2.14.3 Specified allergen list

• Cereals containing gluten
• Crustaceans
• Eggs
• Milk
• Fish
• Peanuts
• Soybeans
• Nuts
• Sesame seeds
• Celery
• Mustard
• Sulphite (=/> 10mg/kg or10mg/l)

2.14.4 And products thereof

The Agency has raised with the Commission the issue of adding molluscs to this list.

2.15 Scope Total

• All added ingredients
• Carry-over additives
• Additives used as processing aids
• Solvents and media for additives/flavourings
• Also covers alcoholic beverages

2.15.1 The Directive also removes the 25% rule whereby ingredients such as pepperoni slices (which made up less than 25% of the total food) on top of a pizza did not have to have the ingredients in the pepperoni listed.

2.15.2 The European legislation will be implemented into national law by 25 November 2004. There are separate and parallel pieces of legislation being enacted in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

2.15.3 There are some ingredients derived from allergenic foods that themselves might not be allergenic because they are highly processed, such as: glucose syrup, isinglass, refined peanut/nut/seed oils*.

Industry were given until 25 August 2004 to notify the European Commission of their dossiers.

The Commission and the European Food Safety Authority are in the process of producing an Annex of ingredients derived from specified allergens that will be exempt from the labelling requirements - deadline 25 November 04. The final list, based on study results, will be produced by 25 November 2007.

2.15.4 The Agency is aware that there are concerns about 'may contain' labels and have commissioned a number of research studies, including focus group research and had meetings with stakeholders. The Anaphylaxis Campaign produced a report for the Agency.

The main consumer concerns that were identified are:

• Finding the warning label
• Do different wordings represent different levels of risk?
• Restriction in choice

2.15.5 Early in 2004 the Agency went out to consultation about possible phrases to use to convey the 'may contain' warnings. The two phases consulted on were:

'Not suitable for peanut/sesame allergenic consumers'
'Not suitable for people with peanut/sesame allergy', with additional advice on reason

2.15.6 The wording used to convey possible allergen contamination advice is only one aspect of what the FSA needs to do. It is very clear there is a need to produce appropriate and proportionate guidance for industry about when they should be using this sort of label. The FSA would like to build on and amalgamate the existing guidance that some food manufacturers already use. This will be available to industry and will have the Agency seal of approval on it.

2.15.7 The Agency has already set up a stakeholder working group and is working closely with industry to draft guidance notes. The next stage will be to go out to full consultation on the document and obtain views so that the guidance can be issued by 2006. The Agency will also consider whether the guidance should be applicable all the allergens currently listed in the 2003/89 list.

2.15.8 Another area of concern is non pre-packed foods; this is the food sold loose in bakeries, in markets, deli counters and foods sold in catering establishments and also foods sold pre-packed for direct sale, for example the sandwiches consumers buy in the various sandwich bars. Article 14 of Directive 2000/13/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/89/EC, makes provision for non pre-packed foods to be exempt from the labelling requirements. However, that Article also says that consumers should be given sufficient information but what it doesn't say is how that information should be provided. What the Agency has done is asked questions whilst consulting on the Statutory Instrument to implement Directive 2003/89/EC about what sort of action needs to be taken to provide information on allergens in non pre-packed foods.

2.15.9 The Agency will consider how to balance the needs for information of those that are allergic or intolerant to certain foods with the practical problems faced by businesses in supplying such information. We will look at which particular allergens ought to be concentrated on. We need to consider whether it's going to be a statutory or a voluntary scheme. What the Agency want to do is to try to encourage a dialogue, particularly in the catering sector between the consumer and the person selling the food so that there is good information being passed to the person that needs it.

2.15.10 The FSA will consider the responses that were received from consultation and then produce some possible options for action, which again will go out to consultation. In the meantime, the Agency produced, in May 04, some advice for caterers, which is available on the Agency website. Various stakeholders were involved in producing this guidance, including industry, enforcement people as well as the consumer groups. In the advice issued to caterers the Agency make the following points:

Food allergy and intolerance are important safety issues

Caterers need to be able to answer consumers who ask for information on which ingredients are present in the foods being served

But if caterers are not sure if an ingredient is present, they should say so and NEVER guess

2.16 Next steps for the Agency:

• Increasing awareness and use of the advice to caterers
• Training for caterers to include food allergy and intolerance issues
• Enforcement officers to include control of foods causing allergy and intolerance in discussions with food businesses
• Food safety management guidance for catering businesses to include food allergy and intolerance
• Discussions with Hospitality Organisations

3.1 Nutritional Labelling

3.1.1 A query was raised in respect of the tables used for nutritional labelling and whether these allowed for tolerances.

The participant felt this was important due to seasonal variations i.e. in fat levels in a product.

The Agency responded that no labelling should be false or misleading, and that there would be dialogue between industry and enforcement before any action was taken.

It is important that practical problems such as this are raised as part of the consultation on the Nutritional Labelling Directive.

3.1.2 The issue of internet shopping and front and back of pack labelling was raised.

Retailers who sell via the internet will have to comply with the legislation both in terms of what is in the product and the way it is advertised.

For example, if a product makes a healthy eating claim, is low in fat but very high in salt, this would be seen as confusing and misleading to the consumer.

3.1.3 Concern was raised that signposting of foods through the use of traffic lights could lead to losing regional products, e.g. mutton pie because it would contain a red label.

Traffic lights are only one system under consideration by the Agency. A product containing a red light would signal to consumers that this is a treat food.

3.1.4 A statement was made about the need to provide nutritional information on raw products i.e. fruit and vegetable, not just the processed foods that the Agency seems to be focussing on.

The participant was concerned that children favour convenience foods.

The Agency does have concerns about the total diet, there is the 'Cooking Bus', which visits schools and where children have the opportunity to cook.

The Agency also works very closely with the Health Department.

In Scotland there is the Scottish Diet Action Plan and Eating for Health.

Trans fats

3.1.5 A question raised was 'when will the content of trans fats have to be included on the label'?

Currently the content has to be listed when a claim is made about trans fat.

This issue is something that the Agency will consider during discussions on the Nutritional Labelling Directive.

Where consumers are concerned about trans fat they may look at the ingredient listing, which should list hydrogenated oil.

3.1.6 A delegate pointed out that in the final product, many fats have been heated so that the percentage of trans fat from unsaturated fat will increase.

Therefore if this labelling does become mandatory will it be the trans fat in the initial or final product that will be labelled?

Labelling of Salt

3.1.7 One participant asked if the labelling of salt content in food should be made mandatory?

All labelling legislation comes from Brussels and there is very little flexibility for the UK to make additional requirements.

However, the Agency is working hard (Sid the slug and the salt campaign) to encourage industry to (voluntarily) put salt information on food.

Fat Content in Cheese

3.1.8 Clarification was sought on whether UK cheese cut from blocks or continental imported cheeses should be labelled with fat content.

There are two issues here, firstly this information is only mandatory when a claim is being made and secondly in the case of voluntary provision of fat content, this is less likely to be found on imported cheeses.

3.2 Clear Labelling

3.2.1 A participant asked what consideration had been given to the needs of people who have eyesight impairment in the development of labelling policy.

In the development of its labelling guidance, the Agency involved a large number of stakeholders and carried out focus group work, which included the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

Their recommendations, which included font size, contrast and the grouping of information, were used as basis for drafting the guidance.

The labelling guidance is soon to be updated and the Agency will try to reach as wide a range of people as possible and take on board their comments.

3.2.2 In response to a query on what work is the Agency doing on labelling foods in other languages, it was made clear that one of the concerns that the Agency has is how much information can be put on a label.

A balance needs to be achieved between how much can be put on and what people are going to read.

3.2.3 There was comment on the need to provide education for consumers so that they can have a better understanding of what is on the label.

The Agency has introduced a mock label on the website, which explains in simple terms the various labelling issues.

3.3 Food Labelling Enforcement

3.3.1 Comment was made that local authorities employ a range of people in addition to EHO's and (in England) Trading Standards Officers to enforce food law.

In addition, the role of the public analyst service was flagged up. It was made clear that samples are not analysed by EHOs or TSOs but by the public analyst and their staff.

3.3.2 A question was raised on how a labelling (and composition) discrepancy of food, which is produced outside of the EU, is handled.

If food is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded or is poorly labelled, then action can be taken against the retailer in certain circumstances, depending upon the relationship that they have with the supplier.

The food would certainly be removed from sale and where necessary action taken with the importer.

3.3.3 A food enforcer gave an example of the work that has been done by them in advising third country importers on food labelling when the product will be sold in the UK.

In this particular example it entailed the company having to over label their product.

A public analyst responded by saying that he had been involved in this work and had also identified compositional differences.

3.3.4 A participant questioned how the internet market for food supplements is controlled.

The Agency made clear that supplements are counted as food, which is covered by the Nutrition Health Claims Regulation. Any claim about a supplement would have to be approved by the European Food Safety Authority.

However, the issue becomes complex because the Agency only has jurisdiction over websites based within the UK.

On the positive side there are at least two local authorities that the Agency is sponsoring to surf the internet to look at products, including supplements.

In some cases where the distributor is outside the UK, the Embassy will be contacted.

The Agency also highlights these products to consumers.

3.4 Allergens

3.4.1 The issue of buying food from a vending machine and the practical problem of knowing what is in the product was raised.

In addition, in the case of drinks vending, there may be cross contamination i.e. of milk (allergens).

The issue of food from vending machines is a concern for the Agency, particularly in relation to the quality of the product (there is specific comment on this in the action plan on the promotion of foods to children) and the signposting of foods. In relation to allergens, the vendors could consider putting information on the outside of the machine.

Vending machines are used a lot in schools and it is something the Agency could include in its work on signposting and caterers.

3.4.2 One participant raised the question of ranking allergens based on their severity and their prevalence.

Also what is the prevalence of celery allergen in the UK? Ranking allergens is not really possible.

If a person is allergic to mustard than that is a serious issue for them, although there may not be many people in the UK with that particular allergy.

From a legislative position all 12 allergens are equal and if they are used in a product, they must be labelled.

There is very little information on celery allergy; it is not common in the UK, but more of a problem in Eastern European countries.

3.4.3 Another participant asked about the labelling of foods that are produced in a factory that handles allergens.

This issue is related to the work that the Agency is doing on 'may contain' guidance to manufacturers, which will make clear how they can carry out risk assessment of cross contamination.

It also ties in with normal manufacturing controls and quality assurance.

3.4.4 One participant wanted to know if a producer would be prosecuted for allergen cross contamination.

The Agency made the point that cross contamination is down to quality control procedures that are in place in the manufacturing facility.

The producer would need to show that they had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence, with documentation in place.

Whilst there were no legal requirements to label possible allergen cross contaminants, if a food manufacturer wanted to claim that a food was free from a particular allergen, then additional measures to prevent or minimise possible cross contamination with that allergen would be necessary.

3.4.5 A question was asked about animals that are fed a high proportion of fishmeal before they are slaughtered; could this cause an allergic reaction in someone who is allergic to fish?

The Agency noted that they are not aware of any evidence to suggest that fish protein would taint the meat to cause a reaction in a person with a fish allergy.

3.5 Accreditation of new labelling systems

3.5.1 One participant asked whether the Agency would offer accreditation for a database that would bring together different labelling strategies.

Any system would have to be compliant with the legislative framework.

The Agency is independent of individual systems as such, but there are a large number of organisations that do accredit.

Where possible the Agency will supply information and will work with LA's to ensure that the system complied with the law.

3.6 Review of Directive 2000/13/EC

3.6.1 The Agency was asked what are the main areas that they would like to see addressed as part of this labelling review.

The areas identified by the Agency were set out in the recent consultation.

These included country of origin labelling, clear labelling, ingredient listing in alcoholic drinks as well as the deletion exemption for certain additives.

People who responded to the consultation were generally in support of the areas that had been identified by the Agency, plus some other areas such as water in chicken was highlighted.

These views will be taken back to the Commission and the Agency will be very much involved in future negotiations.

3.6.2 Industry raised concerns with regard to this review that country of origin labelling is being looked at mainly in terms of meat and meat products.

They ask that the Agency also look at country of origin in terms of whisky and press for a mandatory marketing requirement.

Currently, many third country imports do not contain statements of origin.

3.7 Novel Foods

3.7.1 Some discussion took place on whether imported sweets that contained edible insect larva or edible crickets could be sold within the UK.

If they can be sold, are they products of animal origin that should come through a border inspection post, or are they a novel food?

The Agency will respond on this issue.

3.8 GM Labelling

3.8.1 A question on how it can be ensured that imported feed from the USA and Canada is GM free was passed to the relevant Division within the Agency for a later response.

3.8.2 One participant said she had a grandson who drank a soya milk product because of milk intolerance.

She was concerned that the soya in the product might not be GM free.

3.9 Labelling and Methods of Production

3.9.1 It was suggested that consumers should be given the opportunity to select how they want their food produced.

There is too much of a difference between how some types of animals are reared. It was pointed out that in Scotland there are strong farm assurance schemes in place and the criteria that these products must meet is clearly laid out.

4.1.1 Michael Gibson thanked the speakers and the delegates for their contribution to a very worthwhile event.

He concluded that both the presentations and question and answer session had raised a number of interesting issues and highlighted the complexity of food labelling.

Overall, Michael hoped that the delegates now had a much clearer understanding of the progress being made by the Agency and the scope of work that is being undertaken.