All fresh meat, poultry, fish and dairy products, fruit and vegetables, and other single-ingredient products should carry labels indicating their country of origin, argued parliamentarians yesterday.
Country-of-origin labels should also be carried when meat, poultry and fish is used in processed food products, they decided.
MEPs in the EU assembly's environment and public health (ENVI) committee approve by 57 votes in favour and four against over 400 amendments to a report drafted by German centre-right MEP Renate Sommer (European People's Party), which will form the European Parliament's position on new EU food information rules (see 'Background').
The new regulation aims to modernise, clarify and simplify food labelling within the EU. MEPs want to add key nutritional data and a 'date of first freezing' to a list of information that is compulsory on food labels, which currently includes name, list of ingredients, 'best before' and 'use by' dates.
Among the data that the ENVI committee wants companies to be obliged to display in a table on the back of packaging are details of energy content and amounts of fat, saturated fat, transfats, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins and salt.
All this information would have to be expressed per 100g or 100ml as well as per portion.
Yesterday's second-reading vote saw MEPs back three compromise agreements struck between the Parliament's political groups.
The first of these, on legibility of mandatory information, saw parliamentarians call for a minimum font size of 1.5mm (0.9mm for packs under 8cm in size). Secondly, MEPs want to see clearer labelling of allergens, and thirdly, they want the freezing date to be displayed on fish, meat and poultry products.
New rules major headache for SMEs, MEP warns
Representatives of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council – which represents the EU's 27 member states – will now seek to agree on the regulation ahead of a second-reading vote in the Parliament plenary in July.
So-called 'trialogue' negotiations between the three institutions will kick off on 10 May.
"Country-of-origin labelling will be the most controversial issue in the trialogue negotiations. It will be technically difficult for SMEs to achieve, won't benefit consumers and will cause us major problems with the Council," warned Parliament rapporteur Renate Sommer (EPP; Germany).
She believes that country-of-origin labelling would have to be "realistic and manageable" if SMEs are to cope with the new rules, warning that some fish, meat or poultry is born, raised and processed in three different countries, meaning all three would have to be listed on its packaging as the regulation currently stands.
"SMEs now have a task that is beyond them," Sommer told journalists yesterday, warning that the regulation as it stands would "allow big companies to squeeze smaller ones without helping consumers".
The German MEP called on the European Commission to carry out an impact assessment to assess the implications of introducing country-of-origin labelling in Europe. "We don't know whether consumers want it. It is all just speculation. I personally doubt there is any extra value of it for them," she said.
Citing the example of strawberry jam, Sommer said companies often source strawberries from different countries over the course of the year according to season, quality and price, leading her to question the benefit to the consumer of requiring manufacturers to print "20 different labels" for the same product. "That won't help anyone," she said.
'Shameful' voting on national lines
The German MEP accused some colleagues of "shameful" voting along national lines in the hope that origin labels will protect domestic industry. "Very broad country-of-origin labelling could lead to discrimination against certain countries. I want to stop that," she said.
"If the consumer really wants to know the country of origin, that will happen through market forces," Sommer said, pointing out that companies were already free to detail the origin of their products on a voluntary basis, for example when wanting to highlight their specific local appeal.
Green MEPs, however, hailed the decision to back country-of-origin labelling.
"This will ensure that consumers now know where their meat or dairy products come from, as well as when foods involve the long distance transportation of animals, so they can choose to avoid buying them," said ENVI committee vice-chair and Swedish Green MEP Carl Schlyter.
The committee also called for mandatory labelling of transfats on the back of packaging.
"Transfats are already banned in some countries because they are linked to diseases like Alzheimer's and infertility. Consumers need to know when they are added artificially," said UK Labour MEP Glenis Willmott, shadow rapporteur on the legislation for the Socialists & Democrats (S&D) group in the EU assembly.
S&D members had also wanted front-of-pack labelling detailing calories, fats, saturated fats, sugar and salt, but their plans were rejected by a conservative-led majority in the committee.
"I am very disappointed. People have the right to know what's in the food they buy. They need to be able to do it easily and quickly so that they can make healthy choices for them and their family," said Willmott.
Meanwhile, MEPs also backed stronger rules against deceptive labelling of 'fake' foods, such as artificial cheeses, and opted to ban misleading depictions of fruit or other foods on labels even if they are not present in the product itself.
"We must put an end to the various and inconsistent national requirements and provide for an EU-wide set of rules. I hope we can strike a deal by July", said Parliament rapporteur Sommer.
Alcohol – including alcopops until the European Commission has come up with a satisfactory definition of them – non-prepacked food destined for immediate consumption and seasonal confectionery like Easter eggs should be exempt from the new rules, MEPs decided.
It remains to be seen, however, how many of the committee's proposals will be retained during upcoming trialogue negotiations ahead of July's second-reading vote in the Parliament plenary.
Once adopted, companies will have three years to adapt to the new rules. They will have two more years – five years in total – to apply the new nutritional declaration requirements.
