Voluntary vs compulsory -- what's what?

It's been a while since I touched on claims, mainly due to the fact that we have been awaiting the second parliamentary reading of the proposal on nutrition and health claims made on foods.

However, there has been significant activity on signposting in the UK, and it all now appears to be coming to a head.

To fill in some of the background, the UK and Sweden lobbied hard to include a clause in the preamble of the European Common Position (point 5), which allowed for non-beneficial nutrition claims to fall outside the scope of the Regulation. This allowed the UK to continue with its signposting scheme, while Sweden used a key-hole system.

However, parliament had different ideas and has proposed to remove this clause on the basis that all nutrition claims, both beneficial and non-beneficial, should be covered by the Regulation.

Meanwhile, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) announced its voluntary multiple traffic light labelling scheme and it became clear that companies in the UK were taking a mixed view. Certain academics and lawyers have been reported attacking the scheme for being confusing, and therefore not helpful, to consumers.

But on the other hand, it could be argued that the merits of the scheme undoubtedly lie in the easily recognisable colour symbols that we use in everyday life. Perhaps this argument really has raged for too long, and the sooner the European Union regulatory situation is clarified, the sooner industry can get on with making key decisions concerning claims.

There is no getting away from the fact that key elements of claims will be regulated. But a lack of direction is not helping the industry as companies don't want to commit resources to costly strategy changes, unless they are long term.

Jean Feord​ is Business manager for legislation, Leatherhead Food International​​