|
Nutrition labelling
What are saturated fats? Is there a difference between salt and sodium? These are just some of the questions you might ask yourself when reading the nutritional information on a food label.
Consumers must have a better knowledge of the nutritional content of the food they eat if they are to make an informed choice. This is especially important to avoid health problems and address the growing problem of obesity in Europe. We want obligatory labelling of the “full eight”, i.e. energy, protein, carbohydrates, sugars, fat, saturates, sodium and fibre, in a comprehensible and standardised format. We also support mandatory nutritional labelling of pre-packed products that have been processed in any way.
A simplified labelling system would help consumers understand nutritional labelling and quickly judge the nutritional quality of the food they buy. But this system should not make it harder for consumers to read and understand the full nutritional information. It is important that consumers can make healthy decisions quickly and easily. Many of us shop in a hurry and don’t have time to look at the nutrition information in much detail. It can be complicated to find out how much fat, sugar and salt foods contain. In the context of increasing obesity, and the upcoming review of EU labelling legislation, BEUC, with the support of Mrs Corbey, launched a multi-stakeholder discussion group including representatives of national governments, industry, retailers and academia. The group looked at research studies and sales data from a number of countries focusing on different simplified labelling schemes. It explored various options for harmonised simplified labelling and agreed on some important conclusions.
We expect the long-awaited Commission proposal on nutritional labelling to address these problems.
See the results of our pan-European survey on how consumers perceive food labels.
Read more on the simplified labelling discussion group:
Simpler labelling for healthier choices (press release)
An EU wide simplifed labelling scheme (leaflet)
Aims and conclusions of the simplified labelling group (presentation)
Final Report
More info...
Chemicals
What do toothpaste, a mattress and a computer have in common? Not much except that you use them every day and that they might contain chemicals which could be dangerous for your health... We are all exposed to up to 100 000 chemical substances that have never been properly assessed for their safety or impact on the environment. REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) is a proposal for assessing these chemicals.
It will take a long time to assess so many chemicals and we should start with an in-depth assessment of the ones that seem to be the most problematic (i.e. CMR – which cause cancer, genetic mutation or are a danger to our reproductive systems - as well as PBT substances - persistent, bio-accumulative (that build up in the environment), toxic -, vPvB - very persistent, very bioaccumulative - and substances of similar concern like endocrine disruptors). This is the risk-based approach proposed by BEUC.
But beware! There are other so-called risk-based approaches that should not be supported. Instead of starting with a full assessment of the most problematic substances, many industry voices argue in effect for a lighter “risk assessment” of all the substances that come within the scope of REACH. This approach could postpone for years a proper assessment of the most problematic substances.
We want all chemicals of very high concern to be registered and fully assessed as a matter of priority. Consumers must know what chemicals are present in products they use everyday, and dangerous chemicals must be replaced by safer alternatives.
We have been deeply disappointed by the European Parliament and Council position in first reading. This won’t allow for a proper in-depth assessment of the most problematic substances consumers come into contact with. Some of these chemicals, but we do not know which, almost certainly pose unacceptable risks to ourselves and our children. A “weak” REACH will not identify risks and hazards that need to be identified. It will not inspire consumer confidence in chemicals or in the chemicals industry. A “weak” REACH today will mean a new “REACH 2” in some years’ time when the shortcomings of the original proposal become obvious – and when the dangers of some substances have sadly become obvious after the damage is done.
Find out more in our Chemicals brochure and in our Chemicals leaflet addressed to MEPs ahead of the vote on REACH in first reading.
The final vote in the European Parliament took place on 13 December. See our reaction...
More info...
Television without Frontiers
Commercial promotions on television are a source of increasing pressure for consumers, and especially parents. The Commission’s proposal issued end of 2005 is not likely to help improve the situation…
The Commission proposes to lift or soften some of the current time restrictions on television advertising. This will raise the daily allowed advertising up to almost 5 hours per day. Even worse the proposal would allow hidden advertising by way of authorising product placement in television programmes (for example having a BMW car driven by TV detectives eating Dunkin’donuts and drinking coke), including in programmes that are likely to be seen by children. Product placement will be restricted for “children’s programmes”, but it will not prevent children to be very much exposed.
We oppose all these provisions: we want less, not more, advertising on television and other media. We also fear these changes would lead to more advertising of foods with high levels of sugar, salt and certain fats – products that are implicated in the current crisis of obesity and other diet-related diseases. We believe that the advertising and promotion of these products should be prohibited.
From our point of view the present quantitative and qualitative requirements on television advertising have been successful in striking a good balance between the legitimate interests of TV producers (financing themselves through advertising income) and those of users (protection against aggressive advertising practices, excessive advertising etc.). This balance should not be jeopardised. The proposal must be improved so as not to mislead consumers and pressurise parents.
The European Parliament voted in first reading on 13 December. Read our press release
See our leaflet asking for a ban on TV advertising to children of foods high in fat, sugar or salt
See also our fake TV programme illustrating our position on product placement
Read more:
It couldn’t happen here? (press release June 2006)
TWF: main concerns and misconceptions,… (Q&A)
It couldnt' happen here? - 'worst of' compilation of product integration
Excerpt 1 : Reality TV and series
Excerpt 2 : More series
Excerpt 3 : More reality TV
Excerpt 4 : 'Cookies and milk'
Excerpt 5 : News segments
Disclaimer: Neither BEUC nor WGAw are the copyright holders of the material excerpted here, and do not support to license or authorize its use for any commercial or non-commercial purpose
More info ...
Food claims (cold case)
“Helps digestion”, “good for your bones”, “90% fat-free”, “refreshes your soul”, “rejuvenative chocolate”… Too many health and nutrition claims are questionable, meaningless, ambiguous or pseudo-scientific. Consumers are getting more and more confused by the proliferation of claims on food.
European consumers want to follow a healthy diet and most rely on marketing claims when choosing what food to buy. Consumers see health and nutrition claims as an easy and quick way to identify healthy foods. Unfortunately, consumers’ faith in claims is often not justified. Current health and nutrition claims are not a good guide to healthy choices. Too often they stress only one aspect of a product – claiming a low level of sugar, for example, but not mentioning the high levels of salt, or fat. As a result, consumers base decisions on incomplete information or on a misunderstanding of the information given.
We welcomed the Commission proposal to regulate health and nutrition claims. It provides that claims on food must be scientifically proven and would not be allowed on foods identified as having high levels of certain nutrients - such as salt, fat or sugar (i.e. a product must have an “appropriate” nutrient profile). The proposal would also require prior authorisation for all health claims. Existing health claims such as “calcium is good for bones” would be placed on a positive list with other well-accepted claims to be used by food manufacturers once they comply with other provisions in the legislation. Any ‘new’ (i.e. claiming a health effect that was not previously known) health claim must be scientifically assessed and approved for use.
We regret that the proposal does not contain specific provisions for products high in fat, sugar or salt which are aimed directly or exclusively at children. On the other hand, the introduction of rules for the use of nutrition claims such as “high”, “low”, “xx-free” and “enriched in” is good news for consumers, as is the ban on the use of implied claims that make reference to overall well-being and good health, psychological functions, slimming or weight control, or advice of doctors or other health professionals.
After the vote in first reading, we urged members of the EU Parliament to join the position taken by Council and to support the introduction of nutrient profiles and the prior authorisation of new health claims. We could not accept that products high in sugar, fat or salt continue to be promoted as healthy. The prior authorisation is necessary so that consumers are not misled by meaningless statements – without it, products with unsubstantiated claims could be put on the market for a long time before action could be taken..
Find some ‘bad’ examples of food claims and why they are misleading in our brochure “Tell me what I’m eating: health claims”
More ‘bad’ examples are compiled in BEUC Black Book
More info...
Fortified foods (cold case)
Our children’s lunch boxes may contain mini-cereal packs “fortified in iron” or sugary fizzy drinks “rich in vitamin C”. Mothers who have children with difficult eating habits may turn to such snacks, thinking they are giving the right food to their children and fulfilling their dietary needs.
We fear that fortification could encourage unhealthy eating habits by allowing the addition of vitamins and/or minerals to food that can potentially contribute to the onset of diet-related diseases. Fortification of foods high in fat, sugar or salt should not be authorized.
The proposals on food fortification and health and nutrition claims are complementary and closely linked, and nutritional profiles should form the basis of both proposals. If not, producers could get around the ban on claims simply by stressing that their products contain “added calcium” or “added vitamins” or other substances that consumers associate with good health or well-being. Food would then be fortified purely for marketing reasons…
More info...
|