VIEWS
OF WITNESSES
Why use non-cocoa-butter
vegetable fats
12. Non-cocoa fats have been used
in chocolate making in the United Kingdom and elsewhere since
the 1950s. The industry was at that time not regulated, but five
per cent was the commonly agreed maximum (Q 11). The main non-cocoa
fats used are shea nut butter, illipe butter and palm oil. Chocolate
makers sought to develop their products by exploiting new technical
opportunities made possible through the use of these non-cocoa
fats.
13. The non-cocoa fats change
the physical properties of the chocolate. The melting point is
raised: this allows for room-temperature storage and the opening
of markets in the southern Member States. Shelf life is extended
as fats reduce "bloom": the harmless but unattractive
white discoloration of chocolate which occurs after a period in
storage. The chocolate gains increased hardness, particularly
useful for milk chocolate with a high milk content where the milk
makes the chocolate soft; and some manufacturers perceive consumer
preference for harder chocolate. It is also suggested that there
is consumer preference for the increased snap gained by adding
non-cocoa fats, and for the different "mouth-feel" (pp
1, 14, 18, 19-20).
14. The use of non-cocoa fats
can reduce the cost of production (p 1), and so bring chocolate
to a market wider than that for luxury goods. Thorntons, a representative
of the luxury market in the United Kingdom, use no non-cocoa fats
and perceive this to be a strength of their brand. This is also
so that their products can be sold world-wide with no adaptations
(the United States does not permit the use of non-cocoa fats)
(p 23). This was also George Payne & Co.'s reason for
not using non-cocoa fats (p 20). Test Achats (the Belgian
consumers' association) considered that non-cocoa fats detrimentally
affected the taste of chocolate (p 22), but the effect of their
presence on taste (as opposed to mouth-feel) was not noted by
any other witness.
Community circulation
15. Of our witnesses, the industry
representatives unanimously advocated the free circulation of
chocolate containing non-cocoa fats (pp 13, 14, 18).
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) considered
the proposal to be a "long overdue" single market measure
(p 19). The manufacturers in the United Kingdom who do not
use non-cocoa fats considered that their consumers were aware
of the quality of their product and so were not opposed to the
permission to use non-cocoa fats (Thorntons, p 23). Of the
consumers' evidence which we received, the Consumers' Association
was of the opinion that "one recipe is not inferior to the
other, they are just different" (p 17). Test Achats, in contrast
to the Belgian chocolate industry, was thoroughly opposed to the
proposal. They considered it the thin end of the wedge which would
lead manufacturers to cut quality, and, that in comparison, the
luxury product with which Belgians are familiar would become more
expensive (p 22).
16. The Seed Crushers' and Oil
Processors' Association (SCOPA) noted that the Directive did not
provide for full freedom of manufacture, as Member States could
still restrict their domestic industry by banning the manufacture
of chocolate products containing non-cocoa fats, even though the
Directive would permit the import and sale of products made in
other Member States (p 21).
Labelling
17. The Italian industry argued
that as the provision would be a sensitive novelty for several
states an additional labelling statement was in this instance
appropriate (p 13). The Consumers' Association also considered
that the presence of non-cocoa fats should be clearly stated on
the packet (p 17). Test Achats argued that the statement should
not only be separate, but in large characters (p 22). The
Cocoa Campaign, representing European cocoa pressers and pressers
in cocoa producing countries, argued that the statement must be
on the front of the packet: they advocated adding to the sales
name "contains vegetable fats". They noted that, as
the majority of products are sold under brand names, it was not
the term "chocolate" that mattered (p 16). The
Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance (BCCCA) in
part acknowledged this (QQ 3-4). Double labelling (the printing
of a separate statement that a product contains non-cocoa fats
in addition to this being recorded in the list of ingredients)
would probably not affect the market security of existing brands,
but could very well hinder new products from gaining consumer
acceptance (Dairy Industry Federation, p 18). MAFF considered
that the consumer needed to be informed, but that double labelling
was objectionable (p 20).
18. The BCCCA and the European
Association of the Chocolate, Biscuit and Confectionery Industries
(CAOBISCO) argued that the Directive's requirement for a "clear,
neutral and objective statement" of the presence of non-cocoa
fats was the appropriate way to resolve the issue (pp 1, 14).
A statement on the front of the packet, however, would make the
product appear inferior and so did not meet the Directive's intention
(p 1). This was reinforced by the Dairy Industry Federation
(p 18). A statement next to the ingredients list was acceptable
but unnecessary (QQ 20-1). Under the forthcoming QUID[3]
rules, all chocolate products will have to have an ingredients
list with stated quantities for the main ingredients. The Food
and Drink Federation (FDF) considered that double labelling undermined
the ingredients list (p 18). SCOPA considered a separate
statement to be quite exceptional as the non-cocoa fats used in
chocolate manufacture are also used in thousands of other food
products with no such labelling requirement (p 22). The BCCCA
noted that front-of-face labels are currently used only for health
warnings, for example with some sugar substitutes which the body
does not easily absorb (Q 24).
Consumer choice
19. Test Achats objected
to the permission to use non-cocoa fats on the grounds that Belgian
consumers did not want any change to the composition of their
chocolate (p 22). SCOPA, amongst others, dismissed this concern,
saying that the permission was only a permission, it was not an
order to use non-cocoa fats (p 21). The FDF noted that far
from all manufacturers would use the permission, as their markets
were secure. Manufacturers would make their choices based on consumer
demand (p 19). This was reinforced by MAFF, who were firmly
in favour of all products being able to compete fairly and that
the industry should respond to shifts in consumer demand (pp 19-20).
Delayed implementation
- Testing
20. Test Achats were opposed
to the implementation of the Directive until a test was available
for the presence of non-cocoa fats in the finished product (p 22).
This case was also put by the Cocoa Campaign (pp 15-16). The BCCCA
argued that one of the attractions of non-cocoa fats was their
chemical similarity to cocoa butter. A test made on the finished
product would be difficult, but the regulation could be enforced
through existing factory inspections and their verification of
recipes (Q 63).
- Minimising costs
21. George Payne noted that
the cost to their business of any change in labelling requirements
would be in excess of £100,000 and this could be increased
if existing packaging had to be written off (p 20). The BCCCA
could not estimate the scale of costs for the industry as a whole,
but noted that a single print roller costs several hundred pounds
(Q 33). They pleaded that any new requirement be announced
in good time so that the industry could prepare itself and minimise
the cost of change (Q 28). Additional costs could then largely
be lost in the continual process of packaging change and development.
Effect on developing
countries
22. The Cocoa Campaign argued
that the general use of non-cocoa fats would lead to a fall in
demand for cocoa beans of between 130,000 and 200,000 tons in
the Community market, and a drop in prices of up to 20 per cent,
which would severely affect the economies of the developing countries
which supply cocoa beans (p 16). The BCCCA, however, put
the worst case figure as a reduction of 60,000 tonnes within the
total consumption of 2 million (three per cent of the current
annual tonnage) (Q 52), and CAOBISCO argued that, even with
such a scenario, the producers' revenues would rise by 15 per
cent owing to the continual annual growth in demand for cocoa
(p 15). The BCCCA noted that a more relevant effect on the
cocoa market was that the world's largest supplier, Brazil, had
been badly affected by Witches' Broom disease and that other suppliers,
predominantly African, were as a consequence receiving much higher
prices for their products (Q 50). SCOPA claimed that, generally,
the lower the cocoa content, the higher the demand for the product.
The permission to use non-cocoa fats would also encourage new
product development and as a consequence demand for cocoa (p 21).
The BCCCA also argued that permission did not necessarily imply
change (Q 50). Many producers would ask themselves "why
change a winning formula?" and continue without using non-cocoa
fats (p 2). This case was also put by Thorntons, who are
in such a position themselves (p 23). In any event, SCOPA
noted that the raw materials for the non-cocoa fats also came
from developing countries, including Burkina Faso and Mali (p 21).
23. MAFF did not believe
that the cocoa producers would be severely affected and nor, they
argued, did the Commission take this view. Non-cocoa fat content
was in addition to the minimum cocoa content and was not a substitute
for any part of it. Several developing countries would benefit
from any increase in non-cocoa fat sales. In any event, it was
consumer demand which should determine the market composition
(p 20).
OPINION
Single market
24. We consider that the
Directive, insofar as it is designed to secure the free circulation
of chocolate containing non-cocoa fats, is a welcome, if belated,
measure to implement the single market. Non-cocoa fats used in
the manufacture of chocolate are also used in the manufacture
of many other products, and there is no reason why they should
not be present in chocolate. They provide many technical advantages
(see paragraphs 12-14 above), and many consumers prefer chocolate
in which they are an ingredient. Chocolate with up to 5 per cent
non-cocoa fat content is not in our opinion an inferior product,
and there are no good grounds for excluding it from any market
within the Community.
Labelling
25. In our opinion, there
should be no double-labelling requirement for chocolate containing
up to 5 per cent non-cocoa fats. By February 2000, when the QUID
rules come into effect, the ingredient list will specify the quantities
of principal ingredients. The imposition of additional labelling
requirements for no good reason is an unnecessary burden on the
industry.
26. For the sake of securing
an agreement in Council, however, and out of sympathy for the
argument that for several Member States, chocolate containing
non-cocoa fats will be a new and unfamiliar product, we would
acknowledge that some form of additional labelling, apart from
the ingredients list, may be required. Such a requirement should
have a strict end date. Any additional label should not be on
the front of the package, as would be required by the European
Parliament's amendment. Front-of-package labelling should be avoided
for all but health warnings-and health warnings will be more effective
if front-of-package labels are not made commonplace.
27. Moreover we strongly
consider that any new labelling requirements should only come
into force after the industry has received adequate notice. The
industry will then be able to lose most of the costs involved
through the normal process of the change and development of packaging.
Effect on developing
countries
28. We consider ill-founded
the argument that freedom to use non-cocoa fats in the manufacture
of chocolate throughout the Community will necessarily be to the
detriment of those developing countries which produce cocoa beans.
World demand for cocoa has been outstripping supply and the price
for cocoa beans has been rising. The European demand for cocoa
has increased by 50 per cent in the last ten years and the industry
has predicted that growth will continue. The degree to which as
a result of this directive the use of cocoa diminishes is likely
in our view to be more than offset by overall continued rise in
demand. As far as those developing countries who produce non-cocoa
fats are concerned, they will benefit from the Directive. In general
we believe, however, that the use of commodities should not, if
possible, be viewed as an aspect of aid policy. Product-tied aid
is notorious for the seemingly almost insurmountable rigidities
and states of dependency it creates.
Verification
29. The availability of a
chemical test for the presence of non-cocoa fats in the finished
product, as proposed by the Cocoa Campaign and taken up by the
European Parliament, is, in our opinion, an irrelevant issue.
There is no need to delay the implementation of the proposed Directive
until such a test becomes available. Testing can be carried out
quite simply through existing powers for factory inspection and
recipe verification.
3 Quantitative Ingredient Declaration (QUID), Directive
97/4/EC, OJ L43 (14 February 1997) p 21. The Directive states
that the quantity of the main ingredients will have to be included
as part of the ingredients list. Back