Déirdre de Búrca (Green Party)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss this final proposal of the European Parliament and Council on the provision of food information to consumers. Food is becoming an increasingly political issue. As elected representatives, we are all aware of the kind of issues with which we have had to deal in recent years in regard to contamination scares, food labelling, genetic modification of food, which is becoming an increasingly political issue, organic food versus intensively produced food, locally produced food versus food which has travelled long distances, allergies that are clearly diet-related and animal welfare — the list goes on. The Green Party has been always very strong on issues of food safety and security and we are very familiar with and concerned about these issues.

I congratulate the Minister of State, whose brief includes responsibility for horticulture and food, on his activities in terms of raising awareness generally about those issues of food safety and food security which are increasingly of concern to ordinary consumers. The Minister of State was even slightly subversive, if I could use that term, in his activities last year when he used the international year of the potato as an opportunity to send a potato-growing pack to every primary school to encourage young people to become interested in the origins of our food, food growing and food production. There will be many spin-off benefits from this. I hope we see these activities extended to post primary schools because many of our young people could do with a re-education, if one likes, on the importance of food and all the issues that surround its production.

With regard to this final proposal of the European Parliament and Council on the provision of food information to consumers, the EU is obviously responding to the demand of consumers for more and better information on food labels and for clear, simple, comprehensive, standardised and authoritative information. The EU's recent White Paper, "A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight, and Obesity related health issues", also stressed the need for consumers to have access to clear, consistent and evidence-based information. The original labelling information we saw emerging from the EU, and the main political will that motivated it, was to provide rules for the labelling of foods as a tool for the free circulation of foods in the Community. However, over time, the protection of consumers' rights has emerged as a very specific objective of the European Community.

The objectives of this final draft of the regulation are to modernise, simplify and clarify the current food labelling scene within the European Union. Towards this end, the Commission launched an open consultation over the Internet from 13 March to 16 June 2006. It received 175 responses, many of these from industries, but the specific issues which were highlighted in the consultation on the general issue of food labelling were as follows. First, consumers find it difficult to read and understand food labels; second, there are a number of foods from which information on allergens is missing; third, country of origin labelling is a very problematic area, but one in which individual member states want to see the EU responding in a more robust way; and, finally, the legal limbo that concerns ingredient listing of alcohol beverages.

There is also the issue of nutrition labelling. It was believed by the European Commission that the inclusion of nutrition information was an important source of information for the consumer, and this was reflected in the submissions received during the consultation process. However, there was a difference of opinion among consumers, some requiring or preferring a comprehensive overview of the nutrient content of food while others had concerns regarding only the specific nutrient that was of concern to them. However, many consumers and public health and non-governmental organisations wanted mandatory, full-nutrition labelling that was easy to understand.

On the other hand, industry is obviously concerned by what it considers the possibly prescriptive nature of food labelling legislation and the effect it would have on the design of packaging. It has been lobbying, therefore, for a more flexible, voluntary approach. Member states, while aware of the need to reduce barriers in the Internal Market, which would be facilitated by a more harmonised approach to food labelling, are increasing pressure for increased flexibility at a national level, in particular where innovative nutrition labelling systems are being used.

The proposal we are discussing in this debate seeks to update and modernise two main food labelling directives, Directive 2000/13/EC and Directive 90/496/EEC. The issue of consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union has been considered by the Commission in regard to this proposal, and it believes it to be in line with the Commission's Better Regulation policy, the overall Lisbon strategy and the EU's sustainable development strategy. The emphasis in the regulation, we are told, is on simplifying the regulatory process so as to reduce the administrative burden and to improve the competitiveness of the European food industry, while at the same time, and very importantly, ensuring the safety of food, maintaining a high level of public health protection and taking global aspects into consideration.

When the proposal was being considered, a number of basic alternative approaches were considered by the Commission. It considered the possibility of no intervention in the current EU legislative arrangements for food labelling. It felt this would maintain the current situation of scattered legislation and possible negative effects. For example, it was argued that current food labelling rules are piecemeal and confusing and that the proposal might place unjustified burdens on the food business because of outdated, redundant or unclear requirements. In addition, it was felt that labelling has been rather ineffective to date in communicating to consumers and to adapting to changing markets and consumers' legitimate demands.

The issue of improving the situation through national legislation was considered but it was felt that different national rules would impede the Internal Market. It was seen to have a possibility of distorting fair competition and increasing the administrative burden for industry, and being inconsistent in approach and, therefore, inconsistent in the content and availability of information, which would create confusion for consumers.

On the specific features of the proposal, some are to be welcomed, although I would share some of the concerns referred to by the Minister of State in his opening address, particularly in regard to country of origin provisions. It is to be welcomed that the legibility of the information provided on the labelling is to be improved, with a minimum print size for mandatory information being introduced. In addition, the information on allergenic ingredients would be available for non-prepacked foods which are sold through retail and catering outlets.

In regard to the issue of country of origin or place of provenance of the food, what we see in this proposal is that the legislation remains largely the same, which is disappointing because, in other words, such labelling is voluntary. There is a proviso that if the failure to give such information might mislead the consumer, then the labelling becomes mandatory. However, both the mandatory or voluntary indication of the country of origin or the place of provenance of the food as a marketing tool under this regulation should not deceive the consumer and will be based on the harmonised criteria. Criteria have been also introduced for the declaration of country of origin or place of provenance of multi-ingredient products, the labelling of which has become more complex, and the country of origin or place of provenance of meat other than beef and veal, which is welcome. The proposal also clarifies the conditions under which member states may adopt national rules on origin labelling.

The rules on nutrition labelling have been recast, which is another positive element of the proposal. The proposal makes nutrition labelling mandatory in the principal field of vision of a food label. A new aspect of the proposal on nutrition labelling is the mandatory declaration for energy, fat, saturates and carbohydrates, with specific reference to sugars and salts expressed as amounts per 100g, 100 ml, or per portion, in the principal field of vision, that is, on the front of the pack. Nutrients from a defined list may be declared voluntarily. In selecting the mandatory elements, account has been taken of research indicating that consumers can be somewhat overwhelmed by excessive information and the scientific advice concerning the nutrients bearing a relationship to the development of obesity and non-communicable diseases. At the same time, the mandatory elements of the proposal try to avoid an excessive burden on food businesses, especially small and medium sized enterprises.

I welcome the overall thrust of the proposal. However, the measures dealing with mandatory country of origin labelling are disappointing. Recently, at a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, at which Senator Paddy Burke and I were present, the Green Paper on agriculture products within the European Union was discussed. The possibility of developing an EU food quality symbol was also discussed. The Green Party and I could support this proposal if it were properly made. Consumers are often overwhelmed by the presence of too much information on food labels. However, a quality symbol can often act as shorthand and can provide reassurance to consumers that a certain food product meets a wide range of criteria. We should support an EU-wide food quality symbol. I support the general thrust of the regulation and look forward to the response of the Minister of State.