6 Addition of vitamins and minerals to
foods
| (25057)
14842/03
COM(03)671
| Draft Regulation on the additions of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods.
|
| Legal base | Article 95 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Food Standards Agency
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 1 July 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-iii (2003-04), para 4 (17 December 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | First half of 2005
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
6.1 According to the Commission, vitamins and minerals are added
to food for three purposes —
to restore nutrients lost during manufacture; to produce substitute
foods which resemble common food in appearance, smell, taste and
nutrititive value; and to fortify or enrich foods. It also says
that, although the addition of such nutrients is generally practised
either voluntarily or because of the requirements of national[21]
or Community rules, national rules on their voluntary addition
vary widely. It therefore brought forward this proposal in November
2003, in order to harmonise those rules —
a step which it sees as
contributing both to the smooth functioning of the internal market
and to consumer protection.
6.2 In particular, the proposed Regulation would
define the purposes for which vitamins and minerals may be added;
list those which may be added, whilst prohibiting their addition
to fresh products and drinks with an alcoholic content above 1.2%;
lay down certain restrictions relating to the foods concerned;
set criteria for establishing in due course maximum and minimum
levels of additive; and provide for rules on labelling, presentation
and advertising. The proposal would not apply to food supplements,
and it would apply without prejudice to existing legislation on
food for particular nutritional use, novel foods, food additives
and flavourings, and provisions on wine-making practices and processes.
However, it would introduce powers enabling action to be taken
at Community level to restrict other substances which may be added
to food where there are safety concerns, and it would permit Community
(and, where appropriate, national) provisions providing for the
mandatory addition of vitamins and minerals to specified foods.
6.3 As we noted in our Report of 17 December 2003,
the Government accepts that harmonisation is justified, but has
said that it needs to be convinced that the proposed controls
are proportionate, being satisfied that current UK controls are
sufficient to protect consumers, whilst allowing the development
of a wide range of fortified foods. It believes that any restrictions
need to be justified on public health grounds, and, although it
has pointed out that current UK approach appears to be unaffected
by the proposal, it says that some other Member States are known
to favour a more restrictive approach based on supposed nutritional
need. The Government also suggested that the labelling requirement
would impose on businesses a cost of about £1,000 per product
(offset by a transitional period), and that there would also be
costs arising from the reformulation of products, although it
was not possible at that stage to provide a Regulatory Impact
Assessment. We therefore said that, before we took a firm view
on the proposal, we thought it sensible to await such an Assessment,
though in the meantime we noted the Government's reservations
over the proportionality of the controls envisaged.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 1 July
2004
6.4 We have now received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for Health at the Department of Health (Miss Melanie
Johnson) a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 1 July 2004,
together with the promised Regulatory Impact Assessment. This
suggests that the cost of any labelling requirement is likely
to be mitigated by increasing the transition period to two years,
which would take into account the shelf life of most products
and allow industry more time to bring products into line with
the new provisions. That being so, two main concerns would still
arise —
the introduction of positive lists of permitted vitamins and minerals
could exclude one mineral source not currently on the proposed
list (sodium glycerophosphate) which is added to tonic wine and
used by one soft drinks manufacturer in the UK, whilst the proposed
prohibition on the addition of vitamins and minerals to alcoholic
drinks would also affect tonic wine production. The Minister points
out that, in the former case, existing additives not on the positive
list may be used for a further seven years, and that there is
a provision enabling subsequent additions to the list, but says
that the UK is seeking an amendment allowing the continued addition
of small amounts of vitamin and mineral sources to traditional
products such as tonic wine and the soft drink products made by
the other affected business. If successful, this would avoid costs
to the manufacturers arising either from the need to make a case
for an extension of the positive list or from the reformulation
of the products in question (which, in one instance, could be
substantial).
Conclusion
6.5 We are grateful to the Minister for this further
information, from which it would seem that most of the Government's
earlier concerns about the proportionality of this proposal have
now been met as a result of the clarifications it has obtained
during the discussions on it. However, we note that there is
still one outstanding area of concern relating to tonic wine and
soft drinks manufacture, and, for that reason, we are holding
the document under scrutiny, pending further clarification on
this point.
21 As, for example, those in the UK applying to margarine
and flour. Back
|
