Transparency in food labeling-Industry vs consumers

Does "front of the packet" labeling regulations which are in vogue in most countries in the world, in one form or the other, serve any purpose at all? If one goes by the views of the manufacturing industry such restraints are unnecessary because it has the best of the intentions in protecting the well being of the consumers! Probably if one goes by such yardsticks, there is no necessity for any food safety or quality regulating laws, leaving the onus of ensuring these aspects to the "good intentions" of the industry! What a quixotic logic! Whether the industry likes it or not many consumers patronize packed foods because they believe that the regulatory system that keeps a vigil over the doings of the industry is doing a satisfactory job. Look at the recent "noodle mess" in a country like India where consumers putting faith in their regulatory regime, however idiotic it may be, are reducing buying of processed foods in a very significant way as being reported by market watchers due to belief that the product is "toxic" as being claimed by the regulator. If what is happening in a country like the US, considered food processing capital of the world, is any indication food industry seems to be bent on "cheating" the consumers of their right to know what they want to buy and eat through "money muscle" and political clout. It is a disturbing trend and consumers world over must resist such blatant attempts by the industry to manipulate food laws to make them more are opaque. Here is a take on this unfortunate events taking place in the US.  

"By all accounts, Americans want a more transparent food system. Recent polling suggests the majority of Americans favor labeling that tells them exactly how and where their food is produced. And yet, several bills are currently moving through Congress that could make it much harder to learn about the source of our food. These bills would prevent state and local governments from requiring labeling of GMOs; remove country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for most of the meat we buy; and make it harder to know where pesticides are used. The international trade agreements now being negotiated also include provisions that could make such information less available to consumers.  The food industry is spending an enormous amount of money to promote and lobby for this legislation. Food companies may have shelled out over $100 million* in the first six months of 2015 alone, according to federal lobbying disclosure reports. Businesses and trade groups promoting these policies say putting more information on food labels will send the wrong message about food safety, add costs, and pose barriers to trade. And in some cases, they worry it will open U.S. food producers and other companies to punitive import-export taxes. But good food advocates disagree. "This is basic transparency," says Patty Lovera, assistant director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch. "We're not saying anything's unsafe," says Environmental Working Group(EWG) policy analyst Libby Foley. "We're saying it's about consumer choice." Here are the numbers the food industry doesn't want you to see: So far this year, food and beverage companies have spent $51.6 million on a series of lobbying including efforts efforts to defeat GMO labeling laws such as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599), which opponents have dubbed the "Deny Americans the Right to Know" or DARK Act. According to a recent analysis by EWG, nearly a quarter of this money—$12.6 million—comes from just six companies: Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg's, Land O'Lakes, and PepsiCo. Other big spenders in these efforts include the Grocery Manufacturers Association ($5.1 million); American Farm Bureau (nearly $1 million); and the National Restaurant Association ($2 million). Many state farm bureaus have also chipped in—among them, Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon. Big name food producers, including Campbell Soup, Mars, Inc., Mondelez, Nestlé, OceanSpray, Safeway, and Unilever, are all spending significant amounts money on this issue as well."

Why is this happening in a country where literacy is almost 100%? May be it is precisely this reason that the industry is apprehensive of the consumers understanding the significance of what is presented on the label and shunning products which he considers not good, safe or environmentally unsatisfactory. An issue like declaring presence of GMO ingredients in a product has been blown out of proportion and American consumer is presently being denied this right because the regulatory authorities are overtly friendly with the powerful industry interests, ignoring the consumer feelings on this issue. Same is true with many safety related issues which invariably are loaded against the hapless consumer. In contrast in a country like India, the food safety agency is overtly antagonistic to the industry as proved by the recent unjustifiable ban on noodles with suspect testing results! What is required is a balance system that is equitable to the consumer as well as the manufacturer. May be it is an Utopian dream with least possibility of becoming a reality. 

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING"-IS IT NOT PAROCHIAL?

Is it not an irony of history that Britishers who ruled a number of countries as a colonial power till the first half of last millennium, sucking blood out of their subjects, now wants to shun food products coming from some of these very same countries through discriminatory policies? The present move to make the food industry in that country declare on the label the country of origin of the products manufactured by them is highly deplorable and the WTO must slam this move as a non-technical barrier to free trade. It is good to be patriotic and persuade citizens to buy locally made products so that the industry there develops properly providing ample employment opportunities. But carrying this philosophy too far can hurt the world trade and will certainly attract punitive measures from the affected countries who export their products to UK.

"This retailer commitment should mean that if it says British on the label then it's British in the packet and that is a huge step in the right direction," she said. She said NFUS was still hopeful Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) would be made a legal requirement at UK and EU level across a wider range of products than those that currently qualify - beef, veal, some fruit and vegetables and eggs. "Ahead of further statutory requirements, we hope that retailers fulfil the pledges made in this initiative, particularly its extension from fresh meat into processed meat products," she said. Announcing that seven major UK retailers have signed up to the guidance, British Retail Consortium food director Andrew Opie, said many grocers already go well beyond the 'high minimum standards set out in the document'. "Supermarkets are making it easy for those shoppers who want to buy British to do so. Other food service providers need to up their game," he said. The guidelines were drawn up by the BRC with other food organisations, including the British Meat Processors Association(BMPA) and the Food and Drink Federation. BMPA director Stephen Rossides said: "Where country of origin labelling is used on meat and meat products, it should be clear, honest and not mislead consumers. The BMPA urges its member companies to follow these principles and guidelines where they apply country of origin labelling". FDF Director of Communications Julian Hunt said: "We agree that consumers should not be misled with regard to the origin of a food product and our members are committed to providing clear, honest labelling." Food and Farming Minister Jim Paice, who has had a role in encouraging development of the voluntary guidance, said: "This industry code will give consumers confidence to know, for example, that if it says British on the label, it's British in the packet. Lots of food companies already do this but it's about spreading that good practice."

Why a consumer should be concerned with the country of origin if the food products manufactured by the British food industry conform to all the safety standards, evolved and administered by the safety authorities in their own country? Why is that Chinese consumer products are flooding the markets all over the world, though quality wise they are much inferior to those manufactured in western countries?. It is simply the low price which lures the consumer to such products. It is up to the country which imports these low cost products to exercise vigil on imports so that sub-standard products do not enter the country. If all the countries in the world shun British products as a retaliatory measure what will happen to their economy? Those who campaign for country of origin label must ponder over the global repercussions of such a stupid policy.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com/

ENCOURAGING CONSUMER "ATTITUDE"-GOOD "OMEN"GLOBAL FOOD TRADE

Recent clamor for including "country of origin" information on labels of processed food packs was based on the apprehension by a segment of the consumers regarding the safety of the foods originating from other countries as traceability of the supply chain is fraught with many logistical difficulties. Besides some consumers feel that the carbon foot print of products originating from far away countries could be very high while local products with minimum transportation cause lesser green house gas emission. Though these sentiments are aired by more vociferous critics, the general public does not seem to be sharing such a perception as brought out by a recent survey on the attitude of consumers to such factors in the UK.

"UK supermarket shoppers do not appear to care which country their fresh food items come from, according to research by the University of Otago. Marketing researchers from the university investigated whether the controversial "food miles" concept impacted on supermarket shoppers' food purchasing behaviour. Lead author Associate Professor John Knight said they focused on what actually leads consumers to purchase something instead of just asking consumers their opinion"."Our survey of shoppers exiting supermarkets found that country-of-origin considerations ranked extremely low among the reasons given for why they chose to buy particular fresh food items," he said.

It has been shown by many studies previously that the single most important consideration for the consumer is the price factor and if the products are offered at low cost with safety assured there may not be any reservation in buying such products, all other factors being secondary. Patriotism generally works at times of war or severe national stress, persuading people to buy local products, possibly even at a higher price. The remarkable success of Japanese products during nineteen fifties, sixties and seventies and Chinese products these days is only because of the price factor.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

LABELING "TRAUMA"-A "CATCH 24" SITUATION?

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is an issue that is hotting up in the EU because of its implications beyond Europe. One of the cardinal principles of global free trade is "non-discrimination" of products based on country where they are manufactured as it can be construed as an indirect attempt to influence the buying decisions of the consumer at the market place. If the product quality is same there is no reason why a consumer cannot buy a product made in another country and the rigorous testing systems put in place at the entry points in each country is supposed to allow only safe and quality compliant products in. The "patriotism" factor, "local produce" movements, carbon foot print figures, cheap labor cost, lack of hygiene and sanitation, etc are all invoked to shun foreign made goods and protect nonviable local industry. If the global village concept is accepted there is no place for such discriminative trade practices any where in the world.

"Supporters of the proposed COOL regulation say it would put a stop to the practice of meat imported from countries outside the EU being processed, say in Ireland, and then being labelled as produce of Irish origin. While this is it legal, they say, it seems neither fair nor equitable as it comes perilously close to misleading consumers. Opponents counter by arguing the imposition of COOL across the board would cause serious difficulties for manufacturers of complex products such as pizzas, pies and ready meals that buy ingredients from multiple sources according to factors such availability or seasonal variation. Taken to its most extreme, they warn of vast labels listing the origin of dozens of ingredients, covering swathes of food packaging. Constantly changing labels would increase costs and waste. And inevitably, these additional costs will be passed onto customers. Everyone agrees consumers shouldn't be misled about the provenance of food. But where do we draw the line between this and the heaping of questionable bureaucracy on companies that may force some players out of the market and cut customer choice? On food labelling, as with everything else, knowledge is power. Devised properly they allow us to make informed choices about what we eat. But it is vital to find the balance between serving up portion-sized information that illuminates rather than dishing up an overload of data that risks keeping consumers in the dark and placing needless strain on food manufacturers".

Looking from another perspective, indicating the country of origin should not be an issue at all, if the manufacturing countries which export their food products have nothing to fear on the quality or safety count and probably such declaration should bring honor to them. If the products are good, consumers can be expected to prefer them over the locally made ones over a period of time. It is the industry which is having a problem as illustrated by the report above. While traceability is a desired goal which will be useful in identifying the source of food contamination responsible for food poisoning as and when it occurs, practicability of any strategy that is considered must be kept in view.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com