Letter from Foodaware dated 15 January 2008 to Janet McKenzie, Food Labelling and Marketing Terms Branch, Food Standards Agency:


Dear Ms McKenzie

Revision of Food Standards Agency Guidance: Criteria for the use of the terms fresh, pure, natural etc in food labelling

Foodaware members discussed this revised Guidance at their December meeting. Members noted that the aims of this Guidance are similar to that of clear food labelling, namely to seek to encourage consistent, transparent labelling practice. This is important to enable consumers to make informed choices. We accept the general principle that consumers need to be able to distinguish genuine and meaningful labelling from promotional material. In this context we supported the introduction of the original Guidance and the notion that pictures should be subject to the same scrutiny as words.

We also welcome the consumer research undertaken by FSA to inform its Guidance and to clarify ‘the reasonable expectations’ of consumers in relation to the use of terms such as ‘traditional’, ‘original’ ‘real’, ‘genuine’, ‘home-made’ etc. However, members do not believe this additional Guidance will be helpful. Foodaware members are generally well informed about labelling but consider that people are totally confused about the meaning of these terms which they feel are largely used for marketing and advertising and bear little relation to the commonly understood meanings.

While we understand FSA’s desire to define these terms in the Guidance so as to encourage greater consistency in the domestic market, we are doubtful that the Guidance will achieve this. The Guidance is voluntary and is unlikely to be applied to imported produce. Since manufacturers and suppliers are using terms such as traditional, real, selected etc. for marketing purposes and to differentiate otherwise similar products from competitors, there is no incentive for them to comply with this extremely detailed Guidance.

Members felt that in general these detailed definitions could actually detract from the mandatory information which is required on labels and are unlikely to be any clearer to consumers without full explanations on pack, which is unrealistic. For example, the suggestion that ‘hand-made’ should be completely made by hand whereas ‘handmade’ could be produced in an industrial setting is really too fine a distinction for an average consumer.

We also have no confidence that, in light of FSA’s enforcement priorities and the resources available within Local Authorities, this level of detail would be taken into account in considering prosecutions. For example, the suggestion in paras 97 and 98 that ‘quality’ products should have been subject to ‘the highest quality controls’ seems like a tautology; the suggestion in para. 93 that a ‘selected’ product should have undergone a high level of quality control is also rather meaningless for products produced by large supermarkets or suppliers who could argue that all their products meet this test as part of due diligence. Similar comments could be made in relation to terms such as ‘premium', 'finest', and 'best'.

In summary, while FSA is seeking in this Guidance to clarify definitions for suppliers and help consumers, we feel that this document will achieve neither as it is unenforceable. It could even detract from the priority obligation that producers must meet the mandatory labelling requirements and not abuse the public trust through misleading and inaccurate labelling. In that regard it is important that mandatory information is clearly separated from marketing messages and advertising claims which cannot be substantiated.

Yours sincerely

Susan Knox
Chairman