Resumen sobvre las disposiciones voluntarias sobre etiquetado nutricional en alimentos en la unión europea

1. Food Labelling Nutrition – Voluntary Schemes
Standard Note: SN/SC/4019
Last updated: 5 January 2012
Author: Christopher Barclay
Section Science and Environment Section
 The Coalition Government announced on 20 July 2010 that the Food Standards Agency
(FSA) would be retained, with a renewed focus on safety. The Department of Health will
become responsible for nutrition policy in England, and the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs will become responsible for Country of Origin Labelling, and
various other non-safety-related food labelling and food composition policies in England.
 FSA supported the so-called Traffic Light System favoured by some retailers, under
which foods high in fat, sugar and salt are given a red label, medium foods an orange
label and low foods a green label.
 Some manufacturers and retailers have adopted a rival scheme, using Guideline Daily
Amounts (GDAs), which take account of the fact that some foods form only a small part of
the diet. The label shows the fat, sugar, salt etc compared to the amount that a
consumer is recommended to have each day.
 The UK Government favours GDA.
 The EU Food Information regulations 2011 will come into force in 2015, requiring some
mandatory nutritional information. There is scope for introducing a voluntary GDA
scheme.
 The Coalition Government wants the food industry to fund the Change4life campaign, in
return for the Government adopting a non-regulatory approach. The Public Health
Responsibility Deal, 2011, included out of home calorie labelling.
 A study argues that nutritional information does not affect what people actually buy.
Contents
1 The FSA 2
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties
and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should
not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last
updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for
it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is
required.
This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available
online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the
content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.

2. 1.1 Early support for Traffic Light labelling 2
1.2 Support for a compromise label, March 2010 2
2 Tesco and food manufacturers support for nutritional signposts 3
3 European Commission favours Guideline Daily Amounts 4
4 The National Institute for Clinical Excellence 4
5 Andrew Lansley announces a new approach 5
6 Does nutritional labelling influences what people actually buy? 6
7 Government policy since the 2010 election 6
8 EU Food Labelling Regulations 2011 7
1 The FSA
1.1 Early support for Traffic Light labelling
The FSA announced a consultation exercise on 17 November 2005 on different ways of
presenting nutritional information on food packets.1 Two options were considered. One
option was the Traffic Light System where the product is colour coded according to whether it
is high in fat, sugar and salt, with red for high levels, amber for medium and green for low
levels. The other option was Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs), where the levels of several
nutritional elements are compared with the guideline amounts for daily consumption. After a
consultation exercise, on 9 March 2006 the FSA not only recommended the Traffic Light
System, but also lined up retailers Waitrose, Sainsbury and ASDA in support.2
1.2 Support for a compromise label, March 2010
After it became clear that manufacturers and some retailers would not voluntarily accept the
Traffic Lights System, the Food Standards Agency recommended that its Board accept a
compromise label:
The Agency has today published a paper, which will be discussed at an open Board
meeting next week, setting out proposals for front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labelling. The
Agency is proposing a flexible approach to implementing a single front-of-pack label to
help consumers make healthier choices when they buy food.
In March 2006 the Agency recommended a set of principles for FOP labelling that
would help consumers easily understand the levels of fat, saturated fat, salt and sugars
in food products. Currently, the majority of UK food manufacturers and retailers are
voluntarily using FOP schemes.
The various FOP labels being used meet some or all of the Agency‟s existing
recommendations in how the amount of each nutrient (fat, saturated fat, salt and
sugars) is displayed. Some schemes also use colours other than the Agency‟s
1
FSA Press Notice, Agency consults on front of pack labelling scheme to help consumers make healthier
choices, 16 November 2005
2
Food Standards Agency Press Release, Board agrees principles for front of pack labelling, 9 March 2006
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/mar/signpostnewsmarch
2

3. recommended 'traffic lights' or use colours as a design feature simply to highlight the
different nutrients: for example, green for fat and yellow for salt.
An independent evaluation of the effectiveness of these schemes was published in
May 2009. This robust study found that the co-existence of different FOP labels
confused consumers. It concluded that the words „high, medium and low‟ were
understood best, and combining this text with traffic light colours and percentage
Guideline Daily Amounts (% GDAs) would enable more people to make healthier
choices easily. However, consumers in 'citizens‟ forums' subsequently run by the
Agency, particularly liked traffic light colours as an 'at a glance' cue. In the light of this
evidence, together with feedback from a public consultation, the Agency has
developed proposals to implement a single approach to FOP labelling.
The Board paper proposes that the way information about the amount of fat, saturated
fat, salt and sugars in a product is presented should use three elements: traffic light
colours, text and % GDAs. Some companies are already using this approach whereas
others are using FOP schemes that provide some of these elements. To assist the
transition to this single approach, some flexibility has been included within the
proposals, which allow a minimum of two elements [to] be used initially.3
That decision partly reflected consumer views on the need for a single system of labelling but
also wanting a greater range of information than is contained in the Traffic Lights System.4
2 Tesco and food manufacturers support for nutritional signposts
Tesco and several major food manufacturers support a different system of nutritional
labelling. Tesco explained its system of signposts in November 2005:
The signposts clearly show the amount of salt, fat, saturates, sugar and calories in a
serving of each product in grams. Crucially, labels also show how much of the
guideline daily amount this makes up – so customers can get an idea of how this fits
into their diet as a whole…By separating the key nutrients the labels help shoppers
monitor any or all of the areas they are concerned about depending on the individual
eg salt if they have high blood pressure or calories if they are watching their waistlines.
The simple lay out means it is easy for customers to stay within their recommended
amount without doing complicated calculations.5
On 9 February 2006 five of the UK‟s largest food firms announced their own plan, also with
GDAs, similar to the Tesco scheme.6 Welcoming this initiative, Tesco explained why it did
not favour the Traffic Light System:
Earlier customer research by Tesco found that Traffic Light labelling is simplistic and
could mislead customers for example; both cola and apple juice would be colour coded
amber for sugar – this is likely to confuse customers who are choosing between these
products. Tesco also found that „Red‟ is taken by customers to mean stop/danger
rather than warning/consider and could mean that people eliminate certain foods from
their diet. Whereas by separating the key nutrients in a simple format the labels help
3
FSA News Release, Agency pushes proposals for better labels, 5 March 2010
4
FSA News Release, Citizens' forum findings on nutrition labelling, 28 January 2010
5
Tesco Press Release, Tesco underlines commitment to providing customers with clear nutritional labelling, 16
November 2005
6
Nestle Press Release, Leading food manufacturers unite on common front-of-pack nutrition labels,
9 February 2006
3

4. shoppers to monitor parts of the diet that they are concerned about e.g. salt if they
have high blood pressure.7
3 European Commission favours Guideline Daily Amounts
In January 2008 the European Commission perhaps complicated the position:
The European Commission has come out in favour of a system of food labelling
opposed by the UK regulator. The commission is proposing it should be mandatory to
have guideline daily amounts on the front of packs - a system backed by some UK
supermarkets. But the UK Food Standards Agency favours a traffic light system,
where red means fat or sugar levels are high. (…)
The commission said the draft regulation was simply setting out general requirements
on how nutritional information on calorie content and fat, sugar and salt levels should
be displayed. If approved by EU ministers, the proposal would require that the energy,
fat, saturated fat and carbohydrates content of food per 100mg or per portion are
displayed clearly on the front of the packet. The labelling would also have to include
the proportion of those contents in relation to the recommended daily allowance of
each one. But the commission said there was still scope for each country to promote
additional national schemes "provided they do not undermine the EU rules".8
It will not be easy to reach agreement within the EU, with many MEPs opposed to the
Commission‟s idea of allowing national labels, amongst other aspects of the scheme.
However, in August 2009, German health insurance firms sent an open letter to the
European Commission and the German Government calling for EU-wide Traffic Light
labelling.9
4 The National Institute for Clinical Excellence
In June 2010 NICE published a report, Prevention of cardiovascular disease at population
level.
Recommendation 6 Product labelling
Clear labelling which describes the content of food and drink products is important
because it helps consumers to make informed choices. It may also be an important
means of encouraging manufacturers and retailers to reformulate processed foods
high in saturated fats, salt and added sugars. Evidence shows that simple traffic light
labelling consistently works better than more complex schemes .
Policy goals
 Ensure the Food Standards Agency‟s integrated front-of-pack labelling system is
rapidly implemented.
 Ensure labelling regulations in England are not adversely influenced by EU
regulation.
To achieve this, the evidence suggests that the following are among the measures that
should be considered.
What action should be taken?
7
Tesco Press Release, Nutritional signposts welcomed by customers, 9 February 2006
8
“EU backs rival food label scheme”, BBC News Online, 30 January 2008
9
“German health insurance schemes call for traffic lights”, EU Food Law, 28 August 2009 p1
4

5.  Establish the Food Standards Agency‟s single, integrated, front-of-pack traffic light
colour-coded system as the national standard for food and drink products sold in
England. This includes the simple, traffic light, colour-coding visual icon and text
which indicates whether food or drink contains a „high‟, „medium‟ or „low‟ level of
salt, fat or sugar. It also includes text to indicate the product‟s percentage
contribution to the guideline daily amount (GDA) from each category.
 Consider using legislation to ensure universal implementation of the Food
Standards Agency‟s front-of-pack traffic light labelling system.
 Develop and implement nutritional labelling for use on shelves or packaging for
bread, cakes, meat and dairy products displayed in a loose or unwrapped state or
packed on the premises. The labelling should be consistent with the Food
Standards Agency‟s traffic light labelling system.
 Ensure food and drink labelling is consistent in format and content. In particular, it
should refer to salt (as opposed to sodium), the content per 100 g and use kcals as
the measure of energy.
 Continue to support the Food Standards Agency in providing clear information
about healthy eating.
 Ensure the UK continues to set the standard of best practice by pursuing
exemption from potentially less effective EU food labelling regulations when
appropriate.
5 Andrew Lansley announces a new approach
The Guardian reported on 8 July 2010 a speech by Andrew Lansley:
Food and alcohol companies will fund government's healthy lifestyle ad campaign in
exchange for a 'non-regulatory approach'
Beer companies, confectionery firms and crisp-makers will be asked to fund the
government's advertising campaign to persuade people to switch to a healthier lifestyle
and, in return, will not face new legislation outlawing excessively fatty, sugary and salty
food, the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, announced today... Lansley told a
conference of public health experts that he wanted a new partnership with food and
drink firms. In exchange for a "non-regulatory approach", the private sector would put
up cash to fund the Change4Life campaign to improve diets and boost levels of
physical activity among young people.(...)
Conceived by Labour, the Change4Life campaign was costed at £75m over three
years and was already backed by industry, with high street names such as Tesco,
Coca-Cola, Nestle and Pepsi all offering expertise and support. However, Lansley is
proposing a radical scaling back of the public contribution to allow "charities, the
commercial sector, and local authorities to fill the gap". (...)
Speaking to reporters after his speech to the Faculty of Public Health conference in
central London, Lansley said Change4Life would also be expanded, to cover alcohol
misuse which costs the NHS £17bn a year – the same as obesity, which now affects
one in four Britons.10
10
“No anti-junk food laws, health secretary promises”, Guardian, 8 July 2010
5

6. 6 Does nutritional labelling influences what people actually buy?
In February 2011, the Daily Telegraph reported on an American study that challenged the
benefits of nutritional labelling:
Researchers discovered that even though customers became more aware of how
much they were eating, it had little effect on what they purchased. Price and taste
were so powerful motivators that they counteracted any desire to be healthy, it was
concluded.
Dr Brian Elbel, who carried out the research for New York University, said that other
ways of reducing calorie intake were needed.
"It is important to understand that labelling is not likely to be enough to influence
obesity in a large scale way," he said.
Dr Elbel, and his team, carried out the research when New York City introduced a
blanket policy of calorie labelling at all its fast food outlets. He compared how much it
changed eating habits compared with similar outlets nearby in New Jersey that did not
have to label their food.
He found that teenagers and parents of young children, questioned at the door,
claimed they were more aware of how many calories they were buying and that it did
influence their decision. But an analysis of their receipts showed that they continued to
eat the same calories as counterparts where there was no labelling.
Dr Elbel and his colleagues gathered receipts and surveys from 427 parents and
teenagers at fast-food restaurants both before and after mandatory labelling began in
July 2008. The study did not find a change in the number of calories purchased at
fast-food restaurants after labelling went into effect. Teenagers purchased about 725
calories and parents purchased about 600 calories for their children.
The way food tastes was considered the most important reason that teenagers bought
it, while price was a consideration for slightly over 50 per cent. Just over a quarter of
the group said that they often or always limited the amount of food they ate in an effort
to control their weight. The study also reported that most teenagers underestimated
the amount of calories they had purchased, some by up to 466 calories.
The study was published in the International Journal of Obesity.11
7 Government policy since the 2010 election
Secretary of State Andrew Lansley stated his support for GDA rather than traffic lights in
evidence to the Health Committee on 20 July 2010:
Q39 David Tredinnick: Let us talk about the labelling of food and obesity. I think you
said, Secretary of State, that you favour the Guideline Daily Amounts whereas the
Food Standards Agency and NICE have come out clearly in favour of traffic lights. It
seems to me that the traffic light system of labelling food is very easy to understand on
a packet. I put it to you that most people have not got time to read instructions on the
back of a packet, they want a very simple system. If we are actually going to reduce
obesity in this country we need to recognise that the way to stop getting fat is to stop
eating fat and we need to make it simple. I would like you to comment on that, please.
11
“Calorie labelling has no effect on food choices”, Daily Telegraph, 15 February 2011
6

7. Mr Lansley: You will recall in November 2004 the previous government published a
White Paper where they said what they wanted was a single traffic light system where
it was not even traffic lights in relation to each of sugar, fats, saturated fats, salt,
calories, et cetera. I objected to that and the reason I objected was very straightforward
I thought that would have the risk of seriously distorting the nature of the information
which is provided and would be misleading. The view I took then in November 2004
was we should focus on encouraging people to have a good diet, not just to try and
categorise foods as "good" or "bad". The Labour Government subsequently
abandoned the thought of a single traffic light and moved to multiple traffic lights.
You said that the Food Standards Agency were in favour of traffic lights as distinct from
GDA but, in fact, based on their interpretation of the evidence they received their most
recent view is that what they are looking for is a front of pack food labelling system
which combines Guideline Daily Amounts and traffic light or visual symbols alongside
some textual information about the relative level of ingredients. If you were to say what
did I think about all of that, I have been on the record for years saying that the kind of
approach adopted, for example, by Asda and McCain, which combined GDA and traffic
lights, was the system I favoured.
The point, however, is we have had a government that has been talking about this and
the FSA have been talking about it, but just go out in a range of supermarkets and tell
me is there any consistency. No, there is not, so it has not worked, has it? We have no
power ourselves to mandate this. The European Union are considering the nature of a
directive. The shape of the directive is clearly from their point of view around
recommended daily amounts. Frankly, we will be doing well, which would be my
objective, if we get an opportunity through the European Union for there to be a clear
legal framework for Guideline Daily Amounts in relation to all the right components to
be specified on the front of pack in the right way with the ability for us on a voluntary
basis, on a national basis, to have a traffic light system alongside.12
On 15 March 2011, the Department of Health published the Public Health Responsibility
Deal. Pledges developed by businesses and others under this Deal are intended to
complement, not replace, Government action.
Food pledges include:
F1. Out of home calorie labelling – We will provide calorie information for food and non
alcoholic drink for our customers in out of home settings from 1 September 2011 in
accordance with the principles for calorie labelling agreed by the Responsibility Deal.
One in six meals, and around 20% of men‟s and 25% of women‟s energy respectively,
comes from food eaten outside of the home. The provision of out-of-home calorie
labelling is intended to give people some of the information they need to make
healthier choices more often when eating out, and to encourage out-of-home food
businesses to make healthier options more available.
8 EU Food Labelling Regulations 2011
REGULATION (EU) No 1169/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, requires
some mandatory and some voluntary nutritional information.
The Food Standards Agency summarised the food nutrition rules, including those for
voluntary schemes:
12
Evidence of the Secretary of State to the Health Committee, 20 July 2010, HC 2010-11
7

8. Nutrition labelling: 'back of pack' information will become mandatory on the majority of
prepacked foods, and it will be possible to voluntarily repeat on „front of pack‟
information on nutrients of importance to public health. It will also be possible to
provide voluntary nutrition information in the 'front of pack' format on food sold loose
(eg on deli counters) and in catering establishments. In addition, there remains scope
for businesses to use Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) based on reference intakes
specified in the regulations and (subject to certain conditions) additional forms of
expression and presentation.13
The following exchange in October 2011 shows different views on the new regulations:
Asked By Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are supporting the new food
nutritional labelling regulations approved by the European Parliament on 6 July;
and, if so, why.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe):
My Lords, we welcome the new regulation. The UK has led the way in Europe in
improving nutritional information for consumers. Access to nutritional information
supports consumers in choosing a balanced diet and can help in controlling calorie
intake. The regulation meets our main negotiating objectives and will give the UK
freedom to maintain and build on existing practice.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I am a little astonished by that response. Is
my noble friend aware that I have campaigned for many years in your Lordships'
House for clear, uniform food labelling on pre-packaged goods for easy comparison?
The FSA produced such labelling, which I understand was approved by all five Select
Committees but was rejected by the EU, which has now produced something futile,
pathetic and unenforceable, to put it mildly. Does my noble friend agree that it is time
for the proverbial worm to turn and to tell the EU that we do not want its version-we
prefer our own?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not sure that I would accept the epithets that my noble
friend has applied to this regulation. We have led the way in these negotiations. It is
true that it has taken some time but we have come away with most, if not all, of our key
objectives met. Nutritional information will now be displayed in a consistent manner on
the back of all pre-packed foods, which is a major plus. A voluntary approach has been
secured for front-of-pack nutrition labelling and for non-pre-packed foods, including
those sold by caterers. It will also be made easier for alcohol companies to include
energy information on their products on a voluntary basis. This will give people the
information they need to make informed choices about what they eat and drink, which
is the whole idea.14
13
Food Standards Agency, Providing Food Information for Consumers, 2011
14
HL Deb 17 October 2011 cc6-7
8