This trend towards increased labelling and information for consumers has been mirrored by potentially conflicting moves to curb excessive packaging.
As the drive towards healthy living continues apace, the public has become increasingly inundated with nutritional and health claims. Regulation 1924/2006 seeks to regulate these claims and protect consumers by:
- general principles applying to all claims, such as that claims must not be false, ambiguous or misleading;
- detailed rules concerning specific types of claims — for example, as to when a claim that a food is ‘fat free’ is permitted;
- the provision of certain information on labels or in adverts;
- the creation of nutrient profiles with which food must comply to bear certain claims; and
- an authorisation process for certain claims.
While it is envisaged these measures will protect a better informed consumer from unscrupulous claims and promote healthy living, the food industry faces a number of decisions, not least the need to audit whether existing or future claims will necessitate product reformulation or re-labelling (subject to transitional measures under the Regulation).
While larger businesses may be able to absorb the resultant costs, it has been suggested that the legislation may stifle innovation as small and medium-sized enterprises struggle to find the resources to re-label products or compile expensive dossiers.
However, the vast majority of nutrition claims are likely to be unaffected because they already meet the new requirements, and there is a 15-year transition period for trademarks and brand names to comply. Further, the British Retail Consortium has estimated that the average cost for re-labelling a product is £1,000, and it has also been suggested that it may take £15,000 to prepare straightforward scientific dossiers in support of claims, although this is likely to include costs ordinarily incurred anyway.
Although there may be a cost to compliance, such compliance should prevent unsubstantiated claims and increase consumer confidence. Indeed, it is not only smaller businesses which are affected; Flora’s pro.activ blood pressure controlling drink was launched in 2006 with a £10m budget, only to be withdrawn when it was realised that the claim was not sufficiently substantiated.
The desire to increase consumer confidence and information means that Regulation 1924/2006 is unlikely to be the last of such legislation emanating from
As labelling requirements have increased, the drive towards reducing packaging has gathered corresponding momentum. Operating in conjunction with the Essential Requirements Regulations, the latest incarnation of the Producer Regulations came into force on 16 March, 2007. This implements an EC Directive which seeks to reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste by introducing recycling and recovery targets and encouraging the minimisation and re-use of packaging.
This has been paralleled by campaigns and initiatives among MPs, the press and retailers, in particular concerning the need for tighter regulation and greater enforcement. A particular bone of contention has been the lack of prosecutions and broad defences under the Essential Requirements Regulations, where extra packaging is allowed where there is ‘consumer acceptance’, a need to ‘provide identification’ or for ‘stimulating purchase’.
While the need to cut down excessive packaging is no bad thing (the oft-quoted example being Easter eggs, which can contain as much as 90% packaging), the current drive appears to be in danger of forgetting that packaging can be essential and is not necessarily ‘un-green’. Indeed, it is questionable whether the problem lies within the packaging industry or the public’s antisocial treatment of packaging — Asda recently reported a lack of enthusiasm for a scheme to reduce excessive packaging trialled at two of its stores.
It is easy to forget that packaging performs important functions, including the preservation of food. Two particularly salient features are its use as a marketing tool and to provide nutritional and other required information under food labelling law, as Regulation 1924/2006 implicitly recognises. It is unlikely that legislative developments will end there, and plainly, as labelling requirements increase, a careful balance will need to be struck between excessive and essential packaging and labelling.
Craig Shuttleworth is