Memorandum submitted by the National Consumer
Council
The National Consumer Council (NCC) is an independent
consumer expert, championing the consumer interest to bring about
change for the benefit of all consumers. We do this by working
with people and organisations that can make change happen—governments,
regulators, business and people and organisations who speak on
behalf of consumers.
We are independent of government and all other
interests. We conduct rigorous research and policy analysis and
draw on the experiences of consumers and other consumer organisations.
We have linked organisations in England Scotland and Wales, and
a close relationship with colleagues in Northern Ireland. And
we work with consumer organisations in Europe and worldwide to
influence governments and institutions.
We are a non-departmental body, limited by guarantee,
and funded mostly by the Department of Trade and Industry.
The NCC's forthcoming work in relation to food
information is particularly focused on public health and the particular
need to talk about the obesity crisis and other related ill health
with particular emphasis on children.
FOOD LABELLING
Food information, including labeling is very
important as it allows consumers to make informed choices. This
is imperative for public health policy so that healthier choices
can be made.
The food we consume is costing us dearly. The
health of the population is suffering and healthcare costs are
increasing—currently around £10 billion each year in
the UK. Obesity is now three times more prevalent than 20 years
ago, particularly for children, and is the main cause of a range
of health problems. Consumers are more aware of the link between
diet and health, and schemes such as the Five-a-day fruit and
vegetable target are raising awareness. However, the proliferation
of promotional labels is making it difficult for consumers to
make informed choices.
This year the National Consumer Council (NCC)
will use opportunities offered by the Government Health White
Paper consultation and the development of a Food and Health Action
Plan, UK regulation (the Advertising Code), as well as changes
in EU legislation (on nutrient claims and labelling) to focus
on practical solutions for industry to help consumers take up
more healthy diets, including more transparent and informative
labelling and better industry regulation.
In February 2003 the NCC published Bamboozled,
Baffled and Bombarded: consumers views on voluntary food labelling.
This publication reports on research carried out for the Food
Standards Agency (FSA) to develop recommendations on a proposed
code of practice for food assurance schemes.
Voluntary food labels have the potential to
deliver real benefits for consumers in terms of choice. And, as
they are often the sole source of information available to consumers
at the point of sale, it is important that they communicate clear
and honest messages to consumers to help them make informed choices.
However NCC research confirms that, in the UK, voluntary food
labelling claims, including food assurance schemes, are more likely
to confuse and mislead consumers rather than inform them.
Food labelling law has evolved into a complex
and technical area governed by both statutory and voluntary rules.
Many of the logos and claims that now appear on foods fall into
the "voluntary labelling" category. This means they
are generally not subject to specific regulation under food law.
Our research highlighted how this fragmented approach to food
labelling has led to more confusion amongst consumers.
And, as food businesses are increasingly driven
to add value and differentiate their products from the competition,
the number of voluntary food labels continues to grow. This proliferation
of labels and logos has caused confusion and information-overload
among consumers. It is clear from our research that consumers
do not understand what the majority of the labels and logos mean.
Also, food assurance schemes are most often used as a marketing
tool rather than a way of informing consumers and offering real
choice.
Consumer confidence has been undermined and
our research showed that feelings of unease and vulnerability
were prevalent, fuelled by recent scares in the food chain and
negative reports in the media.
The majority of consumers we surveyed felt that
they could not rely on many food labels to act as a safety net.
They felt they had to take personal responsibility for understanding
the true worth of each food or to accept the risks.
Low income consumers in particular were cynical
about whether labelling could be trusted and thought that manufacturers
make any claim they can "if they think they could get away
with it". They saw the food industry as being motivated purely
by profit, with manufacturers and retailers prepared to do anything
to gain a competitive advantage and increase sales.
Ultimately, tackling these problems and offering
better food labelling will benefit both consumers and industry.
Adopting good labelling practice and better governance arrangements,
should increase consumer confidence and trust in voluntary labels
and lead to improved sales.
NC REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
INCLUDED
— A good labelling guide: developed
by the FSA in partnership with its key stakeholders. This includes
better co-ordination and communication of current labelling initiatives,
agreeing and sharing best practice, and ensuring uniform application
of labelling schemes—both statutory and voluntary—through
better education of consumers and businesses, enforcement and
monitoring mechanisms. The guide should incorporate cross-cutting
issues on logos, claims and endorsements, their application, understanding
and credibility which would not be covered in a code of practice.
— A code of practice for food assurance
schemes: developed and championed by the FSA. In the absence of
statutory legislation, the FSA should encourage maximum take-up
across the food industry, and ensure that credible monitoring
and enforcement systems are set up. The code of practice and the
good labelling guide must be developed jointly so that there are
no gaps. The NCC would support enforceable codes of practice.
— Consistent definitions for food claims:
the FSA should work closely with its stakeholders to develop and
agree definitions which are consistent, both in meaning and application,
for widely used claims such as "vegetarian" and "healthy
eating". It must also encourage maximum take-up and use of
the agreed definitions by the industry.
— Clear criteria for the use of endorsements:
the FSA should set criteria that promote a particular attribute
of a product to ensure that consumers are given information about
the basis of any endorsement, for example, any existing financial
arrangements.
NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION
On 2 April 2004 the NCC, working with members
of the British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group
at the University of Oxford, took a major step forward in getting
agreement on a way to define whether some foods are unhealthy
at our seminar, Can we define unhealthy food? A full report
of this seminar will be published in mid-May. The report will
be used to feed into the Public Health White Paper and also as
part of the NCC's response to Ofcom's consultation on advertising
to children.
Although some nutritionists say there are no
good or bad ("junk") foods, only good and bad diets,
it is widely agreed that there are some foods that we shouldn't
eat often. The debate on how to define foods has also been held
at a stalemate for some time with some participants refusing to
see a way forward. The challenge is to break the stalemate and
to agree a way to identify these foods. This is vital because
it could change how food is labelled, for example, making it easier
to see if a ready meal is full of fat, or whether snacks in school
vending machines are unhealthy ones.
The NCC believes that there needs to be more
transparency in the identification of such foods in order that
consumers are equally well informed when making choices that affect
the overall balance of their diet. We want the healthy choice
to be the easy choice, and for the unhealthy choice to be equally
transparent. We do not want to dictate but we do more transparency
to enable consumers to be better informed.
The NCC supports mandatory nutritional labeling
but this must be user friendly to be effective.
FOOD ADVERTISING
AND PROMOTION
There is an imbalance in the messages that get
into food advertising in terms of information for children. Foods
with high sugar, fat and salt are promoted to excess. The NCC
supports measures to help redress this balance.
The NCC will be responding to the Ofcom consultation
on UK regulation (the Advertising Code).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The NCC has several recommendations for the
Food Standards Authority (FSA). The FSA should:
— in conjunction with the Department
of Health, provide a lead on this and prioritise the nutrients
that should be looked at;
— in consultation with stakeholders,
set criteria on what is high/medium/low levels of prioritised
nutrients;
— revisit "Guideline Daily Amounts"
(GDA's) and re-launch; and
— explore labelling options, including
a traffic light banding system.
GM FOOD
The outcome of the 2003 GM Nation? public debate
into the commercial growing of GM crops showed general public
unease about GM crops and food, and little support for early commercialisation
of GM crops. Despite this, in March 2004, the UK government gave
the go-ahead to the commercial cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant
maize. In an open letter to Tony Blair, a few days prior to the
government's announcement, the NCC and eight other national organisations
stated that the evidence available did not support current commercialisation
of GM food and crops. Furthemore, they called upon the government
to address the legitimate concerns that the public has about the
technology and to incorporate these into its decision-making.
The NCC remains unconvinced that current policy will guarantee
consumers the right to choose on GM.
Although new EU rules mean that consumers will
now have more information about the use of GM, there are still
some loopholes. Meat, milk and egg from animals and poultry reared
on GM feed don't require labelling—even though NCC research
shows that consumers place a high priority on knowing whether
food is from animals that have been fed GM.
Research amongst consumers has shown that:
— 60% of consumers have concerns about
the use of GM in food production. Top concerns are: a lack of
information and research; and fears that GM is "tampering
with nature".[80]
— Consumers want the "right to
know" whether food is made from GM crops—64%—or
the product of animals fed with GM feed—79%.[81]
— Only 31% say they trust the government
to tell the truth about GM food. [82]
— Consumers see GM companies, food
manufacturers and farmers as the potential beneficiaries of GM
technology. Only 5% see benefits for consumers. [83]
RECOMMENDATIONS
— We would like to see more retailers,
food manufacturers and caterers voluntarily declare whether products
are from animals fed GM.
— There must be monitoring for long-term
environmental or health impacts of GM.
— Consumers' concerns and values must
be taken into account in decision-making on GM issues.
— Biotech companies must accept liability
for any environmental or economic damage.
23 April 2004
80 National Consumer Council, Running Risks: summary
of research into consumers views on risk, October 2002. Back
81
National Consumer Council, GM labelling and traceability:
the consumer view, March 2002. Back
82
Poortinga W and Pidgeon NF, UEA Centre for Environmental Risk,
Public perceptions of risk, science and governance, (main
findings of a British survey on five risk cases) 2003. Back
83
National Consumer Council, GM labelling and traceability:
the consumer view, March 2002. Back
| 
