Laws of nature

Related tags Flavor

Proposed changes to legislation governing the use of flavours are causing concern in the industry, with fears they are misguided and could put an end to innovation. Rebecca Green takes a look

Nobody likes change - not least when it comes from Brussels. But for flavourists the proposed changes in the legislative field governing their sector (Directive 88/388/EEC) are a real cause for concern.

They are part of a new Food Improvements Agent Directive, which will include new legislation on flavourings, enzymes and additives. The European Commission is amending 88/388 to bring it up to date with technological and scientific developments.

Although very much in the early stages, as technical manager at Mastertaste Barry Welch is keen to stress, the proposal makes several major changes. It gets rid of the term 'nature identical', on the grounds that it is confusing for consumers, and 'artificial' also goes.

Instead, it proposes classifications of 'natural flavouring substances', made up from at least 90% of the named source material; 'flavouring substances', a chemically defined substance with flavouring properties; and a category of 'other flavourings' to allow companies the opportunity to develop new flavourings not covered by the other two. It also sets maximum levels for certain undesirable substances in foods which contain flavourings, and in food ingredients with flavouring properties.

The aim of the amendments is to protect consumer interests and health and to create a clear framework "that allows innovation and enables new technological developments"

Positive list

However, experts fear the exact opposite will be the case, mainly due to the establishment of a 'Positive List of Flavouring Substances' currently being compiled and already overdue, which is expected to contain about 2,600 substances.

The list will be the only flavours manufacturers can use, which Jack Knights, consultant to the flavour industry and a founding member of the British Society of Flavourists (BSF), fears will stifle innovation and discourage research into new flavours, and hence, will not work in the consumer's best interests.

"If you found a new flavour in a food and you wished to use it, it would not be on the list, so you would have to go through a clearance system, which would cost a significant amount," he bemoans. "In the US , where they have a similar system, this process costs about $20,000 per material. No single material is going to be able to return that sort of money, so it's not worth it. The list will be stuck, or at least it won't expand at a reasonable rate. It's stifled the industry in the US and it will do the same here."

David Baines, a consultant with 30 years' experience in the industry agrees: "There are still a lot of flavouring substances to be found in nature - this legislation will switch off the research tap, which would be a crying shame."

Furthermore, he claims, the new proposal reneges on an agreement with the Commission that there was to be an agreement ensuring that any new substance discovered would be kept confidential for five years - another factor that he believes will discourage research.

But it is not just the list that the industry is worried about. The basic principles of the regulations - those of consumer safety and interest - are being questioned too.

"The main aim of the regulations is safety," says Knights. "But take something like lemon oil. It contains about 30 different materials, many of which won't be on the list so won't be permitted for use as single materials - yet it is okay to use as a product in its own right."

Similarly, he asks: "How can we have a position where we can grate a nutmeg and use it, but we can't use all its components individually because some of them are 'nasty'? The use of nutmeg extracts in flavouring will be controlled, but the use of nutmeg itself won't be. It doesn't do what it aims to do, which is to increase safety."

Improved safety is also the reason why the classifications 'artificial' and 'nature identical' are removed, claims Knights, who questions the evidence this is based on. "There is no evidence that natural is safe at all, yet they are removing nature identical because it misleads consumers," he argues. Knights also queries the new classification of natural, where 90% of the flavour must be from the named source. "What about the other 10%?" he asks. "It doesn't say anything about the safety of that."

The natural debate

The new legislation appears to say that natural is better than synthetic, says Knights, but safety is about the chemistry, not whether the material is natural or synthetic, he stresses. "We've become too obsessed with natural, consumers think natural is automatically safe. But something like mustard would never be cleared through the system - consumers just don't see it that way."

The debate about whether natural is 'better for you' than something artificial also applies to smoke flavours, where the proposal is for consumers to be "informed if the smoky taste of food is due to the addition of smoke flavourings". According to Baines, there is a huge irony underpinning the inference that a natural smoke flavour is preferable to an artificial one.

"The consumer believes natural is safe and wants natural smoke flavours, but natural smoke flavours aren't actually that healthy," he says. In fact, the condensation used to create the smoke flavour from the wood (as in a natural flavour) creates the carcinogen benzopyrene, claims Baines, admittedly at very low, controlled levels. "The irony is that the industry can put together synthetic smoke flavours in a way that omits the benzopyrene. But people want natural, they don't want artificial - it flies in the face of safety."

There is another sting in the tail for firms when it comes to smoke flavours, adds Baines, which is that of the companies that currently make smoke flavours only those companies that pass a European Food Safety Authority test will be able to provide smoke flavours in the EU. To do this, they will have to submit dossiers for inspection.

But the problem, claims Baines, is the cost of this process. "One company spent £250,000 putting together its dossier," he says. "This legislation will therefore create a trade barrier as there are lots of companies producing smoke flavours that probably can't afford to [do this]."

Cost will also be a prohibitive issue for companies having to declare the amounts of flavouring substances added to food (another part of the proposal), says Knights, who believes this is an unnecessary burden.

"The flavour industry will find it quite difficult to comply as it will be expensive to provide the necessary information on the amount/concentration of flavours that are being used," he says.

But as he points out, the industry is typically very cagey about providing any information about the formulation of products. "They won't want to do this, it's quite a burden." And ultimately, Knights believes it is an unnecessary one: "The aim is to avoid manufacturers making vast changes in the concentration of materials in their products, but this is already controlled by consumers and what they can taste. The limitation is an organoleptic one," suggests Knights, who also worries about the frequency with which this data would have to be supplied.

Harmonising

However, not everyone is unhappy with the proposals. Jonathan Jones at Create Flavours suggests it clarifies what was previously "a bit of a grey area", particularly in relation to the term 'natural' flavouring. "I don't think it will do any harm. The legislation had to be harmonised across the EU."

Jones also doesn't believe it will stifle innovation, despite the extra costs involved in getting a new flavour on the list. He does, however, admit this is the "default standpoint" adopted by many of his firm's competitors. "Everybody moans about new legislation but you just have to adopt it. It just means you've got to drill down a bit deeper and look a bit further afield. Flavour manufacturers will just have to be a bit more flexible," he states.

Whatever happens, one thing is for sure - there will be a great deal more water to pass under the bridge before this proposal becomes legislation.

As Welch says: "There are a number of issues that [industry] needs to take up. This will go backwards and forwards many times before a final version comes out. It will be at least two years before it becomes a regulation." FM

Key Contacts