EP: Question for written answer - Subject: Nutritional labelling and WHO guidelines

27 September 2018 E-004886-18 Question for written answer E-004886-18 to the Commission Mario Borghezio (ENF)

On 27 September 2018, the Third High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases is being held in New York. The news had spread — it was immediately denied by the World Health Organisation — that a proposal would be mooted there to apply a ‘black stamp’ to particular foods such as extra virgin olive oil, Parmesan and raw ham on account of their salt or fat content.

Despite the denial, a proposal for a sort of ‘nutritional labelling’ on the French or British model (the so-called ‘traffic light’ system) remains on the table. Such a system would be very damaging for some high-quality Italian foodstuffs and could have the paradoxical effect of discouraging the consumption of natural foods in favour of sweetened products.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1.	Does it not think that recommending a nutritional labelling scheme would be misguided because a proper diet is based primarily on the balance and variety of the various foods consumed and not on individual products?
2.	Does it not consider that a proposal for a labelling of origin scheme would be more useful, even for processed products? .

E-004886/2018

Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis

on behalf of the European Commission

(23.11.2018)

1) Improving general nutrition of EU citizens is an important Commission objective. The Commission is supporting the promotion of healthy dietary patterns that are following relevant national and international dietary guidelines and nutrition recommendations. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers[1] allows, on a voluntary basis, the repetition on the front-of-pack of the information provided in the nutrition declaration, in order to help consumers to see at a glance the essential nutrition information when purchasing foods. According to Article 35, additional forms of expression and/or presentation (e.g. symbols, graphical forms) than those contained in the nutrition declaration can be used by food business operators or recommended by Member States, provided they comply with cumulative criteria set in the Regulation. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling - if meaningful and well understood by consumers - can be a useful tool to support public health objectives.

2) It shall be noted that the question does not specify how origin labelling relates to nutrition aspects. Article 26(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 requires to indicate the country of origin or place of provenance on mandatory basis, where the failure to indicate this might mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the food. Article 26(3) specifies that where the origin of the final food is given and is not the same as that of its primary ingredient, the origin of the primary ingredient shall be also given. The modalities of providing this information on the label are harmonised in an Implementing Act[2]. The Commission underlines that front-of-pack nutrition labelling cannot be replaced by origin indication due to their different purposes.

---

[1]     OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18

[2]     OJ L 131, 29.5.2018, p. 8

EP: Question for written answer - Subject: Mechanically separated meat

13 September 2018	E-004629-18
Question for written answer E-004629-18 to the Commission Rule 130 Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD) , Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD)

‘Mechanically separated meat’ (MSM) is ‘a product obtained by removing meat from flesh-bearing bones after deboning or from poultry carcases by mechanical means’. It is used in the production of chicken hot dogs, fillings for tortellini, ready-made chicken dishes such as cutlets and croquettes, lasagne, etc.

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 distinguishes between ‘high’ and ‘low’ pressure MSM based on alterations in bone structure and calcium content. The current labelling provisions do not require the manufacturer to specify the method of production. However, high pressure MSM causes greater destruction of muscle fibres and promotes bacterial development.

With a view to promoting responsible consumption, can the Commission say:

1.	Whether it intends to introduce a requirement to declare on the label whether MSM was obtained at high or low pressure?
2.	Given that technological progress in the field of meat preparation has led to the creation of products which are very similar to minced meat, will the Commission set a minimum threshold for calcium content above which these products are to be classed as MSM?
3.	Does it intend to update the report of 23 September 2015 on the state of implementation of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 with regard to MSM, given that it has already identified significant shortcomings? w E-004629/2018 Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis on behalf of the European Commission (23.11.2018) 1. The Commission is not foreseeing a modification of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers[1], for declaring on the label whether mechanically separated meat (MSM) was obtained by low or high pressure treatment. The Commission considers that the obligation to label the use of any MSM should be maintained to ensure that consumers are informed about the use of MSM in general. In addition, the Commission does not support a differentiation of labelling provisions for low and high pressure MSM. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the current labelling provisions are appropriate and should not be changed. 2. As regards the calcium content, the Commission established in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005[2] the calcium content of MSM as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004[3]. Annex III, Section V, Chapter III, points 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 differentiate between the production and use of high pressure MSM, and low pressure MSM where its calcium content is not significantly higher than that of minced meat (meeting the requirements of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005). The criteria to differentiate MSM from minced meat are established in their respective definitions in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. 3. Following the judgement of the European Court of Justice in Case C-453/13[4] of 16 October 2014, the Commission invited all Member States to take all necessary actions to enforce the legislation on MSM in line with the ruling and to ensure that MSM is properly labelled when placed on the market. No update of the report on the implementation of the Regulation 853/2004 as regards MSM is envisaged. [1]     OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18–63. [2]     Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004, OJ L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 27–59. [3]     Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55–205. [4]     https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62013CA0453

AMA seeks warning labels for foods with high added sugar content

California voters overwhelmingly approved a measure (Proposition 12) on November 6 that requires stricter animal During the 2018 American Medical Association (AMA) Interim Meeting, held November 8–13, delegates adopted a new policy aimed at increasing consumer awareness of the amount of added sugars, as well as the type of allergens, in food products. Specifically, the AMA is urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop front-of-package warning labels for foods that are high in added sugars based on the established recommended daily value. The policy also encourages the FDA to limit the amount of added sugars allowed to be included in food products that also make claims about health or nutrient content on the front of their packages.

According to the AMA, many front-of-package food labels that make health claims about a particular nutrient are often placed on products that contain added sugars that are above the daily recommended value as outlined in the 2015–2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The association believes that these nutrient claims may lead consumers to think a product is healthy despite the product’s level of added sugar.

Under the new policy, the AMA is also encouraging food manufacturers to pursue more obvious packaging distinctions between products that contain the most common food allergens identified in the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act and products that do not contain these allergens.

“The AMA believes that food packaging should include more transparent information about the contents within our food, so the healthy choice can be the easy choice for consumers,” said Albert J. Osbahr, III, a member of the AMA board of trustees. “When consumers have access to the amount of sugar they are consuming, they may choose foods with less sugar—which can help prevent debilitating chronic medical conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease which affect millions of Americans.”

The AMA has existing policy to ensure Americans better understand the actual amount of sugar contained in the foods they consume, including policy in support of the FDA’s decision to include added sugars on nutrition labels.

LINK: https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-advocates-transparency-food-labeling-and-packaging

sb@icab.cat

W