Food Label Ambush: How intense industry lobbying halted EU plans

That the agri-food lobby in Brussels wields enormous power in Brussels is not news. Over the years, it’s clear that their deep pockets, ready access to policymakers and forceful lobbying campaigns have allowed them to shape and influence EU food rules to a considerable degree.

When the Food Information to Consumers (FIC) Regulation[1] was first on the table well over a decade ago, the food industry launched an intense and ultimately successful lobbying campaign to block an EU-wide colour-coded front-of-pack nutrition label (FOPNL). Fast forward to 2023 and it looks like the second opportunity to introduce such a tool could unfortunately succumb to a similar fate.

The European Commission was due to introduce a proposal for a mandatory EU-wide FOPNL by the end of 2022. Yet, amongst a barrage of lobbying and angry protests from agri-food interests the proposal is now gathering dust in the Berlaymont.

While it’s obvious that the campaign against an EU-wide food nutrition label, – especially the most effective, the interpretive colour-coded ‘Nutri-Score’, – has been openly vociferous, it’s been less clear who precisely has been lobbying policymakers behind-the-scenes or just what they’ve been saying.

David versus Goliath?

Thanks to an access-to-documents request by Foodwatch EU for meetings in 2022 by DG AGRI and DG SANTE we have a slightly better idea of what happened behind closed doors… and it’s not always pretty.

The first thing that jumps out is the clear imbalance between commercial actors and civil society: the number of meetings with industry far outweighs those with NGOs. While DG SANTE met with food industry stakeholders seventeen times in 2022, the number of meetings with civil society was just two (and one of which was simply an event which the Commission attended). While Italian interests met with DG SANTE, DG AGRI seems to have been the central target of their lobbying efforts. E-mails, meetings with Cabinet, DG AGRI employees as well as the Commissioner himself all took place with Italian authorities (including the Minister of Agriculture) in a short timeframe.

The minutes of the meetings also shed some light on the pressure and arguments made to policymakers when the mics aren’t on. And incidentally it doesn’t always tally with what they’ve been saying in public. 

Outrageous arguments… get results

Whether it is salty ham from Parma or processed chocolate snacks from Ferrero, it’s clear that certain Italian products would not achieve top marks from a colour-coded label. So it’s no surprise that the Italian government and its agri-food lobbies have been the strongest opponents of the Nutri-Score. Indeed, it’s sometimes difficult to know where the Italian authorities end and the agri-food associations begin.

Remarkably, in October 2022 the Italian Perm Rep even requested a joint meeting with Federalimentare (the Italian Federation of Food Industries) and the Head of Cabinet in DG AGRI. Notably, the representative from Federalimentare was in fact a former Italian ambassador himself.  

Suffice to say that they got that meeting with the Cabinet and DG AGRI just three weeks later. 

The minutes of this meeting which took place on the 27^th of October showcase some of the worst disinformation in the debate around the Nutri-Score. Quite unbelievably, they told the Cabinet that there is no scientific evidence to support the Nutri-Score and that it is not useful for consumers. In reality, there is a significant body of independent scientific research (over 100 peer-reviewed papers and counting) clearly demonstrating that it is the most effective and useful FOPNL for consumers. On the contrary, the Italian NutrInform label, which the Italian Perm Rep describes as ‘having a strong scientific foundation’ has published a paltry four studies, three of which were funded by… Federalimentare themselves.[2]

Interestingly Coldiretti, an Italian agri-food lobby was a cheerleader for the NutrInform in public but in minutes of a meeting with DG SANTE in September 2022 they also admitted that it ‘was not yet properly adapted and not as simple to use’.

Even more absurdly, the Italian Perm Rep went so far as to suggest that the consumption of cacao products originating from third countries would decrease which would in turn increase immigration in Europe. The Commissioner’s Cabinet did not publicly declare that the meeting on the 27^th of October had taken place. [3]

The next day (the 28^th of October), unusually, yet another meeting took place between DG AGRI employees, the Italian Permanent Representation and Federalimentare where the same misleading arguments were made. The minutes note however that DG AGRI’s analysis of the label was ‘less radical’ and ‘Nutri-Score could be acceptable if the existing flaws in the algorithm could be fixed’.

Yet, just days later the Head of Commissioner Wojciechowski’s cabinet made clear to the Head of Health Commissioner Kyriakides Cabinet that the AGRI Commissioner did not support the Nutri-Score, claiming that ‘a single score…would be misleading and superficial’.

And the proposal which was due just weeks later…never appeared.

What now?

Let’s be clear: the Nutri-Score has been proven, including in real-life supermarket trials, to have a small yet tangible effect in improving the nutritional quality of consumers’ shopping baskets. 

What’s worrying is that although consumer information is an essential tool to prevent obesity, there are so many bolder actions which authorities urgently need to take to help consumers go for healthier, more sustainable diets.

From restricting marketing of unhealthy foods to children to transforming the way supermarkets push certain foods and beverages to shoppers and tackling the affordability of healthier foods, serious ambition is needed to change our food environments. That a behind-the-scenes misleading lobbying campaign means that the Commission cannot even publish a proposal for a food label, is disappointing to say the least.

Now that the Commission has failed to fulfill its own promise, its high time it allowed Member States the freedom to introduce their own mandatory FOPNL so at least some consumers can benefit from this useful tool when they’re buying food.

ENDS

---

[1] Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, 25 October 2011

[2] – Mazzù MF, Romani S & Gambicorti A. Effects on consumers’ subjective understanding of a new front-of-pack nutritional label: a study on Italian consumers. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2021 May; 72(3):357-66.

– Mazzù MF, Romani S, Baccelloni A & Gambicorti A. A cross-country experimental study on consumers’ subjective understanding and liking on front-of-pack nutrition labels. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2021 Sep; 72(6):833-47.

– Baccelloni A, Giambarresi A & Mazzù MF. Effects on Consumers’ Subjective Understanding and Liking of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels: A Study on Slovenian and Dutch Consumers. Foods. 2021 Dec; 10(12):2958

– He J, Mazzù MF, Baccelloni A. A 20-Country Comparative Assessment of the Effectiveness of Nutri-Score vs. NutrInform Battery Front-of-Pack Nutritional Labels on Consumer Subjective Understanding and Liking. Nutrients. 2023; 15(13):2852. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132852

[3] Although Cabinet meetings with national representatives of Member States do not have to be declared, it should have at least been declared that the Cabinet met with Federalimentare as, according to Commission Decision 2014/839/EU of 25 November 2014 on the publication of information on meetings held between Members of the Commission and organisations or self-employed individuals, ‘The Members of the Commission shall make public information on all meetings held by them and members of their Cabinet with organisations or self-employed individuals on issues relating to policy-making and implementation in the Union, in accordance with the provisions of this Decision.’