European Parliament Blocks Proposal for "Percentage Less" Claims

The proposal would have allowed, for example, a "15% less sugar" claim, which would be based on a previous formulation of the same product. MEPs say this would be hard to compare - or could misleadingly appear healthier - than a "reduced sugar" label.

Feb 3 2012 --- The European Parliament has blocked changes to nutrition labelling that would have allowed new "percentage less" claims on sugar, salt and fat content. The new labels could have confused or misled consumers, said a resolution voted by MEPs on Thursday.

Parliament's veto (393 votes in favour, 161 against and 21 abstentions) sends the European Commission proposal back to the drawing board.

"I am pleased that the European Parliament has defended the interests of health-conscious consumers, who need to be able to make clear comparisons when shopping for food", said Matthias Groote, Chair of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee.

The proposal would have allowed, for example, a "15% less sugar" claim, which would be based on a previous formulation of the same product. MEPs say this would be hard to compare - or could misleadingly appear healthier - than a "reduced sugar" label, which must contain 30% less than other similar products, under existing EU legislation on health and nutrition claims.

The MEPs' rejection resolution says the Commission's proposal could have provided a disincentive for companies to reformulate their products with substantially lower sugar, salt and fat content.

The UK food and drink industry has expressed disappointment and concerns about the potential impact on industry's reformulation work.

The Food and Drink Federation's Barbara Gallani, Director of Food Safety and Science, highlights the likely implications for industry and consumers. She said: “Today's result is a blow for consumers and industry alike. 'X% less' and 'no added salt' claims would have supported the food industry's drive to gradually reformulate products, even where technically challenging, by making consumers readily aware of health improvements in their favourite products."

“The European Parliament has failed to acknowledge the enormous efforts and investments that the food and drink manufacturing industry has been putting into product reformulation. The Parliament has also shown a complete lack of understanding of the technical and consumer acceptance challenges that make changing recipes to reduce energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt so difficult."

“The vote against this amendment suggests that MEPs have underestimated both consumers' ability to read food labels and desire to make informed decisions about the foods that make up their diet. The support given to the amendment by the European Commission and Member states, coupled with the fact that the ban was carried by only 15 votes, heightens our disappointment and belief that this was a missed opportunity."

“Product reformulation is an important part of industry's efforts to improve consumer health, with data indicating that two thirds of dietary changes are typically driven from reformulation rather than consumers switching products. Taking away this incentive to undertake a step-wise approach to the time and cost intensive reformulation process will have negative repercussions on progress in this area. However, in spite of today's hurdle, the food and drink industry remains committed to improving public health through reformulation, amongst other activity.”

Monique Goyens, who heads the European consumer group BEUC, said: "We welcome the European Parliament vote to veto the ‘x% less’ claim. Consumers do not need to be confronted with yet another nutrition claim especially one which is misleading and adds to confusion when trying to buy and eat more healthily. What they need is for industry to put public health first and step up their reformulation efforts.”