By Joe Lederman and Alexandra Jannetto On 20 February 2009, Preliminary Draft Policy Guidelines for a front-of-pack labelling scheme for Australia were released by the inter-government policy body known as the Food Regulation Standing Committee through its Working Group on the subject. This Working Group also released a Consultation Paper seeking input and comments from stakeholders. This article of 1,500 words explains the latest government moves about front-of-pack labelling and the policy options being considered by governments in Australia. Front-of-pack labelling (FOPL) is a standardised or systematic use of prominent labels (or graphics) on the front of a package informing consumers of the nutritive aspects of the food product. Different voluntary schemes operating in Australia or elsewhere have used different formats. One example of such voluntary labelling schemes is the “Daily Intake Guide Thumbnails” promoted by the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) for those of its member companies who want to put percentage values based on the Recommended Daily Intake for each nutrient and displayed on the front of the label. In our FoodLegal Bulletin November 2008 issue, we wrote about front-of-pack labelling in the context of the current food laws and regulations in Australia. Australian governments have discussed similar concepts as the basis for simplifying labelling requirements instead of some of the current labelling requirements under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (‘ANZFSC’ or ‘Food Standards Code’), especially for health or nutrition claims. Government involvement in front-of-pack labelling In October 2006, the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (the Ministerial Council) had decided that the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC) should explore whether a uniform FOPL system could offer an effective health claims strategy in guiding consumer choice towards healthier food options. (The assumption that the healthier foods are always packaged may not always be correct but this article will ignore that issue for now). In January 2007, the FRSC established the Front-of-pack Working Group to undertake this work, chaired by New South Wales Health and consisting of representatives from the Commonwealth, States and Territories of Australia, and New Zealand. The Working Group wrote to key industry, consumer and public health bodies to inform them of the work underway and requested any relevant information the working group should take into account. Different FOPL schemes currently in use, nationally and internationally, were examined as well as new and emerging schemes, to assess the effective health elements of the schemes. At its October 2008 meeting, the Ministerial Council received a report from the FRSC on front-of-pack labelling of food and the Ministerial Council directed the FRSC to provide a draft ministerial policy guideline to ministers. This guideline is to be presented at the Ministerial Council meeting in May 2009. In Australia, there are no mandatory schemes (or Ministerial Council policy guidelines) for FOPL. There are voluntary schemes such as the “Dietary Intake Guide Thumbnails” scheme mentioned above. Specific Policy Principles set by the Working Group The stated purpose of a government-approved FOPL scheme is supposed to provide consumer choice towards healthier food options. The Preliminary Draft Policy Guidelines provides Specific Policy Principles that an Australian/New Zealand FOPL scheme, as part of broader health strategies, will aim to achieve and that must be addressed in developing a scheme. These proposed Specific Policy Principles are: “1. Enable direct comparison between individual foods that, within the overall diet, may contribute to the risk factors of various diet related chronic diseases; 2. Be understandable and meaningful across socio-economic groups, culturally and linguistically diverse groups and low literacy/low numeracy groups; 3. Increase awareness of individual foods that, within the overall diet, may contribute to the risk factors of different diet related chronic diseases; 4. Support and be consistent with programs and strategies designed to reduce the risk of diet related chronic diseases; 5. Guide consumers to food and drinks consistent with the Australia and New Zealand dietary guidelines; 6. Support and be consistent with the Australia and New Zealand dietary guidelines and Nutrient Reference Values; 7. Contribute to the creation of a supportive environment that can guide consumer choice towards healthier food and drink options; and 8. Provide incentive for improvements to the healthiness of the food supply”. Policy Options According to the Food Regulation Standing Committee, it will not be the job of the Working Group to determine whether a front-of-pack labelling scheme will be introduced, or what policy option should be adopted. Its job will be to advise the Ministerial Council on a range of options for such a labelling system. For example, it is expected to provide guidance related to whether the introduction of a FOPL scheme could co-exist with current voluntary schemes. The policy options set out in the Consultation Paper may be reflected in the draft policy guidelines to be presented to the Ministerial Council in May 2009. The four options that are under consideration are as follows: 1. Maintain Status Quo As mentioned above, there is currently no Ministerial policy guidance on FOPL. Maintaining the status quo would allow market forces to prevail; however without it, there will be no clear position on what the objectives of a FOPL scheme should be. If the status quo was maintained, issues associated with the use of FOPL (such as consumer confusion on its use) would not be addressed. 2. Provide guidance only on scope, aim and matters to be taken into account if any FOPL scheme is developed The policy guideline would provide guidance on the scope, aim and matters to be taken into consideration when developing a FOPL scheme but it could remain silent on the issues of colour coded interpretative or non-interpretative FOPL schemes (see below). This would allow consideration of all schemes and more scope for stakeholder input. 3. FOPL should be a non-interpretive scheme Non-interpretive schemes are already used voluntarily in the market place. They provide the quantities or proportion of certain nutrients in a food in the form of bar charts and graphs, requiring consumers to interpret the information. For example, Daily Intake Guides and Guideline Daily Amounts are types of non-interpretive schemes. On the one hand, a FOPL scheme could benefit those food manufacturers currently using them, if the scheme developed is in line with those currently used, decreasing implementation costs. On the other hand, if the current schemes are not in line with the new scheme, costs to food manufacturers could increase. One disadvantage of this option suggested by the Working Group is that it may not address all of the proposed Specific Policy Principles. 4. FOPL should be a colour-coded interpretive scheme Colour-coded interpretative schemes interpret nutrient information for consumers to indicate the healthiness of a food. The two main types of interpretive schemes are colour-coded schemes and health marks, logos and symbols. In the UK, there is a voluntary interpretive FOPL scheme, a traffic light colour-coded scheme that uses green, amber and red to highlight low, medium or high amounts of fat, saturates, sugars and salt. This option has the potential to meet all the proposed Specific Policy Principles, allow for previous work to be built on using new information that becomes available and provide clear information to stakeholders. However, there may be adverse affects on existing schemes that are not colour-coded or non-interpretative, if such schemes are permitted to be used in conjunction with the new scheme. Issues to be addressed Should it be mandatory? The current Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code does not specify the format or place of information on a label for voluntary claims apart from what may be included in a Nutrition Information Panel. The main reference in relation to format is Standard 1.2.9 which requires any print to be legible, be strongly contrasted to the background and the label must be in English. If the FOPL scheme is made mandatory, this would change the way of labelling as we know it. The front of the label has essentially been left alone and food marketers have had the freedom to design their own labels for their products. To impose a mandatory FOPL scheme would be in stark contrast to, and a complete jump away, from current labelling requirements. If it is made mandatory, should the current voluntary FOPL schemes be permitted to stay? If a mandatory FOPL scheme is implemented in a manner that eradicates current voluntary FOPL schemes, this would increase the costs of implementation for food manufacturers. However, if current schemes are permitted to be used in conjunction with a new FOPL scheme, this might create consumer confusion, especially if any existing schemes were to be inconsistent with the maximums and minimums of nutrient levels prescribed by official guidelines. Is it cost effective? If the Ministerial Council policy guideline on FOPL is referred to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the government agency in charge of drafting food standards, the question is whether it will do better than it has in trying to formulate a health claims standard. That process has taken many years and many drafts, with few results to show other than frustration for food suppliers and consumers.
FoodLegal Lawyers and Consultants
© Lawmedia Pty Ltd, March 2009
FoodLegal Consultancy
www.foodlegal.com.au