A consultation letter was sent to all interested parties on 30 October 2000. It sought their views on a proposed draft amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, prepared by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, to introduce quantitative ingredient declarations (QUID). The closing date for responses was 5 January 2001. A list of those responding is given below.

The most notable differences between the proposed rules and those that apply in current EU and UK food labelling rules are:

• the requirement for the quantities of all ingredients present at more than 5% to be given (instead of just those that are mentioned in the name of the food or usually associated with it by the consumer);
  
  
• the specific print size requirements; and
  
  
• the lack of any exemptions (such as for ingredients used in small quantities for the purposes of flavouring).

The responses were generally from food manufacturing companies, or their representative organisations, and were largely against what was sometimes described as an "excessive" extension to the current EC application of QUID.

There were few responses from consumer organisations; those that were received were generally typical of previous responses to consultations on national legislation, in which the extension of current QUID requirements to cover all ingredients was favoured. Against this needs to be set the clear consumer preferences established in research carried out by the Scottish Consumer Council in 1996. This made clear that consumers were not interested in the quantification of all the ingredients in food products. Interest was largely restricted to the major ingredients of a product, like the meat in a pie. Information on minor ingredients was considered unhelpful, unnecessary and meaningless.

• Only two responses were received from consumer organisations. They welcomed the proposal, although there were reservations that it did not go far enough in terms of threshold level, declaration size and location.

• Manufacturers and their representative organisations were generally strongly opposed to the proposal on the following grounds:

1. It would not actually provide the consumer with information that they either wanted or needed, and would generally lead to less understanding of the information provided by food labels.
2. Huge costs would be involved in the redesign and production of labels, as well as development of new analytical testing methods.
3. The proposal would endanger the commercial confidentiality of recipes and create a disincentive to innovate, resulting in reduced consumer choice.
4. Creation of problems in terms of available space on labels for the additional information required, especially on small packages.

• There were concerns from both manufacturers and enforcement authorities that the proposal would be both difficult and expensive to enforce and that the definitions and terms used were not clear.

• Many preferred a delay in making further rules on QUID until the current EC rules had been given a chance to prove their effectiveness. Alternatively, the EC requirements should be used as a template for the new CODEX rules.

Association of Cheese Processors (ACP)
Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance (BCCCA)
Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association (BLRA)
British Dietetic Association (BDA)
British Retail Consortium (BRC)
British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA)
College of North East London and London Borough of Enfield (LBE)
Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd (CWS)
Dairy Industry Federation (DIF)
Del Monte Foods International Ltd (DMFI)
Federation of Synagogues (FS)
Food and Drink Federation (FDF)
Food Commission (FC)
Food Standards Agency (FSA).
Halal Food Authority (HFA)
Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA)
Hill Station Ltd (HSL)
Laytons Solicitors (LS)
LGC Ltd (LGCL)
Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS)
Major International Ltd (MIL)
Marks and Spencer (MS)
National Farmers Union (NFU)
Nichols Foods Ltd (NFL)
Provision Trade Federation (PTF)
Roche (R)
Science in Sport (SIS)
Scotch Whisky Association (SWA)
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Small Business Service (SBS)
Smithkline Beecham (SB)
Somerfield Stores Ltd (SST)
Southern Health and Social Services Board (SHSSB)
Surrey County Council (SCC)
Thornton PLC (TP)
UK Association of Frozen Food Producers (UKAFFP)
Wine and Spirit Association (WSA)

Main Comments:

There was a general belief amongst food manufacturers and their trade organisations that consumers do not actually want this kind of extension to the QUID requirements. Most manufacturers believe that consumers already have the level of information they need (under the EC rules) and the extension of QUID to all ingredients making up over 5% of a food would only confuse the majority of consumers. A number of manufacturers asked for evidence that there was any demand for this sort of information from actual consumers, while others stated that this extension would not actually offer any benefits to consumer choice. Some enforcement bodies also supported these views.

Several respondents were concerned that the proposals were coming too soon after the current EC QUID requirements were introduced. These only came into force in February 2000, and there are arguments that there has been insufficient time to assess their effectiveness before extending the requirements still further. Another area of concern was the burden of cost to the industry (and by implication to the consumer) especially in view of the perceived lack of real benefit to the consumer. Having just redesigned their labels to take account of the EC QUID rules, the prospect of having to change them again so soon is not relished. One supermarket chain estimated the cost of changing their own brand products alone to comply with these draft proposals would amount to over £3.4 million. It was suggested by some that the UK position should be to press for the adoption of the current EC QUID rules at CODEX level, as there is no evidence that the EC level of regulation is inadequate. An alternative to this was the suggestion that a sufficient period should be allowed to gauge consumer satisfaction with the EC requirements before formulating new CODEX rules.

Strong objections were made to this proposal on the grounds of commercial confidentiality: it would allow competitors access to precise recipe information that would allow wholesale copying of products. This in turn would discourage companies from developing new brands because of their inability to protect their formulas. Ultimately this would reduce consumer choice.

There was also concern over how this proposal would affect the length of ingredients lists, and the knock-on effects that this would have on packaging in general. Manufacturers complain that there is already difficulty in fitting all of the desirable information on to food packaging, and the provision of further information will add to this problem. It has been suggested that this may result in either smaller lettering having to be used (thereby creating problems in legibility on small packages) or the discarding of additional information which is not required by law but which consumers want and find more useful. The problems are multiplied when considering multi-lingual packaging and the reduction of the use of such packaging could, again, lead to higher production costs that would be passed on to consumers.

The lack of exemptions like those that exist in the EC rules (such as for ingredients used in small quantities for the purpose of flavouring) was also a cause for concern amongst manufacturers. This was partly because of the information it would disclose about recipes, and also on the grounds that it would either not give consumers any useful information or that the information that it would provide would be found misleading by consumers. This was emphasised by reference to ingredients (like vanilla) that had a disproportionate effect on the flavour of the final product in relation to the amounts actually used. There were, however, respondents who not only welcomed this aspect of the proposal but one even suggested that there was a need to ensure that the removal of exemptions for ingredients lists also covered processing aids.

The proposal will reduce manufacturers ability to adjust recipes according to cost / availability of ingredients, or as a result of manufacturing process. Manufacturers expect there to be tremendous difficulties in the enforcement of the new proposals. These problems include over complex requirements, difficulties and increased cost of analysis, unclear definitions (e.g. emphasis, "common name" and point of measurement) leading to problems with interpretation and comparison, and problems with accuracy of declarations (which are already difficult) will be made even worse.

Apart from the perceived problems of definition of terms (as outlined above) manufacturers were very concerned about the apparent removal of flexibility of declaration locations, as currently allowed by the existing EC rules.

There is also concern that this repetition of declarations will encourage producers to leave off other information that the consumer would find more useful. It was suggested that for the sake of consistency, all declarations should be made in the same field of vision (presumably the ingredient list).

There was some support for the regulation of lettering size on labels, but not for the proposal made here. Suggestions included: that the 50% should be of the largest lettering used on the packaging and that, rather than set a percentage size, the requirement should be for a minimum point size.

Opposition to the proposal centred on the problems it will cause in terms of available space, especially for small packages. One respondent pointed out that the additional information required by the earlier provisions would lead to a general reduction of print sizes on labels, in order to accommodate the longer ingredient lists. This would lead to greater problems in terms of legibility. Concern was also shown about whether this would lead to arguments over which declarations this would apply to. It was also suggested that voluntary guidelines would work much better and allow manufacturers more flexibility, provided that they still complied with rules about legibility and fields of vision.

Organisations responding:

Angus Council (AC)
Glasgow City Council (GCC)
Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC)
Scottish Consumer Council (SCC)
Scottish Food Co-ordinating Committee (SFCC)

Main Comments:

Clear definitions of terms need to be established (e.g. "common name").

Consideration should be given to requiring declarations to be rounded up in the case of minima, and down in other cases, to the nearest whole number. That clear and set marking is needed for legal descriptive names and all legally required declarations.

50% rule on lettering size should apply to the largest use of the "common name" on the packaging.

Concerns over cost to manufacturers, problems of implementation and piecemeal fashion of reform, and that the threshold of 5% may have been set too low.

FSA Northern Ireland reported no responses to this consultation exercise.

FSA Wales reported no responses to this consultation exercise.