Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

This report on European Scrutiny, No. 21, Provision of Food Information to Consumers, which is led by the Department of Health and Children, is effectively a review of the entire area of food labelling legislation. Its aim is to modernise and improve European Union food labelling rules, so that consumers have the essential information, presented in a legible and understandable manner, that they need to make informed purchasing choices. I welcome those aspects of the proposals which extend the information available to consumers, who are entitled to full information on the food they purchase.

My Department has a particular interest in the issues of country of origin labelling and substantial transformation — Members will be familiar with the latter from previous debates - which come within the remit of this proposal. In 2007, my Department submitted to the European Commission draft national legislation that would require the country of origin to be indicated on pigmeat, poultrymeat, sheepmeat and food products containing more than 70% of these meats. In the past year, the Department has been in extensive communication with the Commission with a view to justifying and pressing the case for this proposed legislation.

However, the Commission adopted a negative opinion in regard to our proposal on the grounds that it was not consistent with the European Union labelling directive. The Commission's main contention is that only harmonised rules with Union-wide applicability may be applied to food labelling other than in exceptional circumstances. This negative opinion was formally adopted at a meeting of the European Union Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in December 2008.

As part of the process of examining this proposal, my Department, together with the Department of Health and Children, has sought the use of compulsory country of origin labelling for all meats. The proposal states that where the country of origin, as displayed on the label, is different from the country of birth, rearing or slaughter, each country must be displayed on the label. At present, compulsory origin labelling applies only to beef and some poultry products. However, we have received little or no support for this view from other member states other than Italy. The latter has been single-minded in its approach and has subsequently got into trouble. The Minister, Deputy Smith, has been in discussion recently with his British counterpart as there appears to be indications of a change in the United Kingdom position on origin labelling.

The issue of substantial transformation is closely linked to the country of origin issue. Substantial transformation is a concept used in the customs area to determine the origin of goods for the application of taxes and duties. Origin is determined as the last place where a significant process was performed on the goods. This has allowed some operators to carry out relatively simple processes such as adding breadcrumbs to chicken and declaring the finished product as originating in the member state where the last process took place. This can mislead consumers as to the true origin of raw materials. Compulsory country of origin labelling would give full information to consumers. Ireland will, therefore, continue to seek to have compulsory origin labelling included in the new labelling regulations. We are also seeking a clearer definition of the term "substantial transformation".

I will now deal with the other issues that form part of this proposed legislation. As I said at the outset, the Department of Health and Children, being the lead Department, has been representing Ireland's views on these matters. However, I will advise Members of Ireland's position on the other issues involved. The national scheme proposal allows for the development of national schemes aimed at ensuring the application of additional forms and presentation of nutritional declarations. Ireland shares the concerns of a significant number of other member states with regard to these schemes. Our justification for this position is that the provision for such schemes may undermine the proposal's objectives of consistency and harmonisation. It is also possible that the schemes will create a barrier to intra-Union trade, with different member states having different information requirements. The extent of our export dependency makes this a serious consideration. Our view is that the provision for such schemes will increase the burden on business as it may be necessary for food business operators to produce different labels for different markets. In addition, the existence of several different schemes may confuse the consumer, making it somewhat counterproductive.

While Ireland welcomes the proposal on allergen labelling, we have indicated our support for suggestions from other member states that the allergen "be written in characters that can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the text by the font colour or style". It is important to ensure that allergen information, which may be essential to certain consumers, is highlighted in such a way as to ensure it is not overlooked.

In regard to alcohol labelling, Ireland considers that all alcohol products should be treated equally. It is important to ensure that the proposal does not result in any anti-competitive outcomes. Ireland also believes that consideration should be given to bringing alcohol products into the scope of the legislation. Our reasoning for this is that the report of the Irish strategic task force on alcohol in 2004 recommended that the consumer information on labels of alcohol products should contain information on the calorie content and the ingredients of the product.

A Commission informal discussion paper on the EU strategy on alcohol, prepared in March 2006, recommends that information be provided to consumers on ingredients and caloric value of alcoholic beverages. Ireland considers that consumers of alcohol products should be as well-informed regarding nutrients, ingredients etc. as consumers of any other product.

In regard to mandatory nutrition labelling, Ireland supports the retention of the Commission's proposal on the use of "per portion" expression as an alternative to the "per 100 ml/100g" expression in certain cases. With such an expression, Ireland considers that the number of portions per package must be specified and that standard definitions of portion sizes should be developed where required. Our rationale for this support is that there is substantial Irish consumer support for the use of "per portion" expression. Many consumers find "per portion" expression easier to comprehend. For single portion products or for products containing multiple portions, for example, chewing gum, the "per portion" expression is more meaningful.

Ireland does not support the proposal for a minimum font size of 3 mm for display of mandatory particulars. Ireland suggests that other aids to legibility, such as contrasting background, be explored. Account has been taken of Ireland's position and those of other member states and the latest working group meeting on 26 January included a suggestion of a minimum font size of 1.2 mm.

Ireland shares the concerns of some other member states regarding possible flaws in the calculation of reference intakes. It agrees that EFSA should play a role in developing correct reference intakes. Our justification for this position is that incorrect inputs will lead to the consumer being misled.

In regard to significant amounts, this part of the proposal deals with the voluntary nutritional declarations and the definition of the phrase "significant amounts". Ireland believes that a lower "significant amount", possibly 10%, should be stipulated for foods and beverages with low contents of dried matter, for example, milk, fruits and vegetables. Our reasoning for this point of view is that the existing value of 15% of the recommended dairy amount does not consider some natural sources of nutrients. For example, the calcium content of cow's milk is 14.7%. In addition, recent evidence in Ireland suggests that fortification of foods, aimed at reaching the 15% mark, may lead to excessive intakes of certain micronutrients, for example, folic acid.

For foods with large water content, the comparison with other foods is inconsistent. Ireland believes that as well as the energy value, fats, saturates, carbohydrates with specific reference to sugars and salt, the amounts of trans fats, fibre, folic acid, calcium, iron and vitamin D should be included in the mandatory nutrition declaration. We believe that the inclusion of these additional nutrients will help to provide a more complete picture of the composition of the foodstuff. Specifically, trans fats should be included as they increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and may be used as a substitute for saturated fats, thus misleading the consumer. Fibre should be included as surveys indicate there is an inadequate intake of this nutrient across Europe. Folic acid should be included as it is critical for a healthy pregnancy. Calcium, iron and vitamin D should be included as there is an inadequate intake of these micronutrients across Europe.

I understand that small industries will be provided with an extension to the implementation time for this proposal when it is adopted. An Oireachtas joint committee has sought an exemption to some of the proposals for artisan producers. The Department of Health and Children has indicated that further analysis is needed on this issue before a final position can be taken by Ireland. However it pointed out that it would be difficult to justify a case for this sector on the basis of health grounds.

In regard to the traffic light system of labelling, I also understand that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland will conduct a consumer review, mainly targeted at the traffic light system of labelling as against the use of guideline daily amounts, GDAs, and it hopes to commence this early this year. Discussions on these proposals are still ongoing among working groups in Brussels.

I hope I have outlined the main points of the proposal and I look forward to hearing Members' responses to it.