A yoghurt beautifully decorated with a picture of bananas, but in the end contains only flavourings with no fruit content. Or a chocolate bar that’s supposed to be ‘healthy’ and full of vitamins, but whose label instead lists a large amount of sugar... Labels on food products are supposed to provide consumers with clear information about the content of the foodstuffs they buy. But with endless lists of ingredients, half of which are as difficult to identify as they are to pronounce, and labels that are not always uniform--when they are at least legible without a magnifying glass--it’s hard for consumers not to feel confused.
A label is defined by the EU as “any mark, sign, pictorial or other graphic representation in writing, printed, sanded, affixed, engraved or applied to the packaging or container containing a foodstuff or attached thereto,” as the Court of Auditors points out in its . In this respect, they are an advertising technique, but they must also provide concrete information on nutritional value, risks such as allergens, and safety features such as production and recommended consumption dates. At European level, several regulations apply in this area: the General Food Law of 2002, the Claims Regulation of 2006 and the Regulation on the provision of food information to consumers of 2011 (ICDA Regulation). There are also specific rules for certain products, such as wine, eggs, honey, olive oil and beef.
Compulsory information
Certain information is compulsory on a label: the name of the product, a list of its ingredients and allergens, its origin, the quality of the ingredients, instructions for use and storage conditions, the name of the food business, the nutritional declaration mentioning the quantity of additives and the date, and possibly other information for certain specific products mentioned above. Other information is considered optional. These include nutritional and health claims, an organic label, geographical indications, animal welfare claims and environmental claims. These “claims” are statements on labels that highlight certain nutritional, health or environmental characteristics.
Here is the compulsory and optional information to be found on food labels. Image: European Court of Auditors
Theoretically detailed in this way, everything seems very clear and consumers are supposed to have all the keys they need to make an informed choice about what they eat. But in reality, it’s not so easy to find one’s way through the jungle of information on these labels. In its report on the subject, the European Court of Auditors points to a number of shortcomings that are a source of difficulties for consumers, starting with the legal framework governing labelling.
It believes that “delays in updating the legal framework are limiting consumers’ ability to make informed choices.” These delays relate in particular to health claims (14 years overdue), nutritional profiles (15 years overdue) and allergen labelling. Other elements that are supposed to help consumers are still not the subject of any action to date. This is the case, for example, with the legibility of labels, which is supposed to be improved, on packaging that is tending to become smaller and smaller for environmental reasons. The European Court of Auditors also points out, among other things, that “date indication practices are ambiguous and confusing,” as well as a “lack of common standards for meat labelling.”
When labelling becomes a business argument
And because food is also a business, certain new practices adopted by the food sector have been criticised by the European Court of Auditors. This relates in particular to claims (see above) which, in addition to providing information about a product, are also an excellent way for the industry to seduce and convince consumers to choose one product over another. These claims include “low in sugar,” “source of fibre,” “recyclable packaging” and so on. But these claims are subject to European regulations to ensure that they are truthful, understandable and, above all, based on scientific evidence.
“Aware of the fact that consumers have become more sensitive to the impact that their purchasing habits can have on the environment, companies have also begun to attach all sorts of environmental claims to products. A [European] Commission study concluded that for 80% of the food products selected, online sales sites or advertisements included such claims, and that consumers could fall victim to greenwashing (the practice of marketing a product as being environmentally friendly without providing proof of this),” the ECA detailed in its report.
In addition, the multiplicity of labels, logos and labelling systems can also contribute to “losing” the consumer. For example, the Nutri-score is found on certain products in Luxembourg and neighbouring countries, but not in Italy or the Nordic countries.
Insufficient controls
While a number of regulations apply in Europe, it is also up to the member states to set up control systems and ensure that food companies apply the labelling rules correctly. However, the European Court of Auditors reports that controls are “inadequate.” This is because the member states concentrate mainly on checking compulsory information, such as the list of ingredients and the nutritional declaration. Checks on optional information, such as labels and claims, are less frequent or even non-existent, according to the ECA. This means that consumers cannot easily distinguish verified information from potentially false information.
Not to mention products that are difficult to check, when the food company in question is registered elsewhere, when a product is sold online on a site hosted outside the EU, or for products sold through other intermediaries, such as food supplements often touted on social networks.
The different levels of checks carried out by the member states on the information appearing on food labels. Image: European Court of Auditors
In Luxembourg, the compulsory information that must appear on a label must be in at least one of three languages: French, German or Luxembourgish, according to the food safety portal. Checks are carried out by the Luxembourg Veterinary and Food Administration (Alva), which verifies the conformity of labelling and the declaration of food allergens and nutritional and health claims.
The report gives the example of Lithuania, where fines generally range from €16 to €600, or up to 6% of turnover and up to €200,000 in the event of a repeat offence. Other examples include Belgium, where the average fine is €1,717.
This article was originally published in .