The 27 EU ministers in charge of consumer affairs are set to reach a political agreement on the proposal at a meeting next Monday (6 December).
The expected deal comes after a first reading in the European Parliament last summer saw lawmakers reject calls by health and consumer groups for a traffic light system giving a visual warning for high fat, sugar or salt content in a product.
The Parliament vote was largely seen as a victory for the food industry, which had lobbied fiercely against the traffic light system, currently in force in the UK.
A final agreement on the proposal will nevertheless still be far from certain after Monday's meeting, as there are still major differences between the ministers' and the Parliament's positions.
No mandatory front-of-pack labelling
The European Commission had initially proposed a strict mandatory scheme with information provided front-of-pack for five nutrients: energy, salt, sugar, fat and saturated fats. These would have to be shown in amounts of 100g, 100 ml or per portion.
The original text also proposed approving additional national schemes – voluntary or mandatory – that would coexist with EU-level rules.
In its first reading, the European Parliament backed mandatory front-of-pack nutrient labelling but voted in June to delete the entire chapter mentioning national schemes. The House's rapporteur on the dossier, Renate Sommer MEP (European People's Party; Germany), argued that "all should be done by a pan-European regulation".
"We do not want to have additional national labelling schemes," she said.
The Council, which represents the EU's 27 member states, is likely to reject the idea that additional national labelling schemes would need pre-approval at EU level, a diplomatic source explained to EurActiv. Instead, it suggests giving food operators the freedom to use their own schemes in addition to the EU-level requirements.
These industry schemes would need to comply with criteria set out in the regulation, such as avoiding labelling that misleads consumers. But they would not need to be pre-approved at EU level.
If endorsed, this system would likely be welcomed as good news by the food industry, which has been rolling out its own voluntary scheme across Europe, based on Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs).
In addition, the Council wants to leave operators free to choose whether they want to put the nutritional information on the front or back of packaging.
The Council’s stance is likely to infuriate consumer groups, which have been calling for mandatory front-of-pack labelling of key nutrients for years. Health and consumer organisations are calling for a traffic light system giving consumers "at-a-glance information" and a visual warning for high fat, sugar or salt content of a product.
The Commission's initial proposal did not refer to nanomaterials, but the Parliament voted for mandatory labelling of foods that contain nanoparticles.
EU ministers are set to endorse the House's position at their Monday meeting.
In a recent interview with EurActiv, European consumers' organisation BEUC called on the food industry to be more transparent regarding the use of nanotechnology in food.
Ruth Veale form BEUC regretted that while the industry made big headlines a few years ago regarding the use of nanomolecules in improving the qualify of food, it has completely shut down communications on the matter since consumers started to ask questions about nanomolecules' impact on health.
Veale also noted that while the food industry across the board categorically denies using, researching or investing in nanotechnologies, a Dutch consumer group only recently found an item containing silica on a nanoscale. The group claims this powder is being used in food products to prevent it from sticking.
The Parliament is also asking for mandatory labelling of appetite-enhancing substances in products like sweeteners, and would require manufacturers to indicate that on the front of packaging.
Country of origin
Indication-of-origin labelling is currently voluntary, except where failure to provide the indication might mislead the consumer as to the true origin of a product. Regarding meat, only beef must carry an origin label. The Commission did not propose any changes to these rules.
But the Parliament asked for mandatory origin labelling to be extended to fish, poultry and dairy products, even when used as an ingredient in processed food, as well as other single-ingredient products.
The Council, in turn, is ready to support an extension of current rules to pork, lamb and poultry, but suggests that the Commission should study, within three years of the entry into force of the legislation, whether country-of-origin labelling should be extended to other products. These would include milk products, single-ingredient products, processed foods and other ingredients when they represent more than 50% of a food product.
Described as "a hard bit of work" by officials due to its technicality and complexity, the dossier will be forwarded to the Parliament for a second reading.
But Parliament officials noted that reaching a second reading deal with Council would "need a lot of compromise," in particular within the House itself, because the positions are very different between rapporteur Sommer (EPP) and the Parliament's other political groups.
"In the first reading there was a difference on pretty much all of the issues – so we will have to try to solve these," noted an official.
The Parliament will also need an absolute majority to amend the Council's common position.