CFG
32/05
Foodaware comments
on the Food Standards Agency's Consultation on Draft Guidance on Allergen
Control and Consumer Information
General Comments
Comments on specific questions concerning
the Draft Guidance
Future considerations – non-prepacked
foods and those prepacked for direct sale
1. General Comments
1.1 Foodaware supports the FSA commitment to improve
the information available to consumers on food allergens and recognises
the need to extend labelling of allergenic ingredients to foods pre-packed
for direct sale and those sold loose, so that those who suffer from
allergic reactions can avoid foods containing those ingredients. New
legislation governing labelling of pre-packed foods came into effect
in November 2005, but this did not cover cross-contamination, foods
pre-packed for direct sale or sold loose. For those who are affected
by serious adverse reactions, any exemptions from statutory labelling
are unacceptable.
1.2 Labelling is only a partial response to the increase
in allergies. We are concerned that the FSA seems to accept the increase
as inevitable. Members want the FSA to work with other government
departments, including education and health, to improve understanding
of the causes, the foods affected and actions that might prevent further
increases. Collaboration amongst public health and food authorities
at European level should also be encouraged.
2. Comments on
specific questions concerning the Draft Guidance
2.1 Should the guidance be voluntary or should
some form of statutory control be introduced? If so what form should
this take? The FSA states that the number of people who have
adverse reactions to foods such as cows’ milk, tree nuts and
peanuts is increasing. At present 1-2% of adults and 5-8% of children
(1.5 million people) have a food allergy and reactions can be triggered
by very small amounts of the substance. The guidance is meant to indicate
best practice on controlling food allergens and aims to reduce the
risk of cross-contamination and improve labelling of allergenic ingredients.
2.2 Much of the information contained in the guidance
is factual in nature and designed to inform suppliers of the issues
and the requirements of existing legislation. It also aims to achieve
a consistent approach to labelling which would be helpful for consumers.
2.3 Where consumer safety is threatened by the inclusion
of specific ingredients that can cause serious adverse reactions and
even death, we see no satisfactory alternative to statutory requirements
which can be legally enforced. The guidance refers to the EU list
of allergens and says that this information ‘can be used in
the case-by-case risk assessment process. We do not think that small
suppliers can assess the risk to individual human health from the
inclusion of different levels of particular ingredients. The need
to consider the necessity for including allergenic substances that
cause serious reactions is good counsel and limiting cross-contamination
risk is good practice in any situation.
2.4 Should the guidance only apply to the allergens
previously associated with this type of advisory labelling (peanuts,
tree nuts and seeds) or should it apply to all the allergens covered
by the statutory labelling? It should apply to all, since there
is an EU agreed list and the numbers of people affected are significant.
The level of information supplied in the Table of allergens seems
clear and valuable and we would want to see these allergens listed
on products whenever they are used. We have, however, previously expressed
concern that individuals can be allergic to any food, such as fruit,
vegetables and meats. In the main, however, people will know and be
able to recognise the whole (unprocessed) fresh foods to which they
may be allergic (e.g. celery or strawberries). The emphasis should
be on processed products. The Commission list creates two categories
of allergy sufferer – those who experience reactions for the
most common substances, and others. As new allergies are emerging,
the published list will always lag behind. Producers should be advised
where they can get up to date information on new and emerging allergens.
2.5 Is the choice of words appropriate? Do you
have a preference for ‘May contain’ or Not suitable for’?
Should the wording indicate that the cross-contamination is likely
to be present only on some occasions? Consumers have expressed
concern about the use of ‘may contain’ to cover cross-contamination
risks, and appreciate it can confuse some consumers about the level
of risk. It is vitally important that people suffering from food allergies
have access to full and accurate information. Specific statements
such as ‘Does not contain x’ or ‘contains y’
are necessary to avoid confusion.
2.6 Should a single ‘allergen symbol’
be developed to help consumers locate allergen labelling information?
Members support the introduction of a simple alert label and would
value a symbol showing the class of allergenic ingredient like the
crossed grain symbol for those who need a gluten-free diet.
2.7 What would the impact be if the guidance
remains voluntary? What are the implications for consumers, enforcement
officers and businesses? While the factual guidance may raise
levels of awareness of this problem, and help to standardise the approach
to labelling among smaller food producers, the scheme is voluntary
and will as a result not cover all foods. We would like to see more
emphasis on the application of this guidance within the catering sector
and believe that those involved in public procurement contracts such
as Local Authorities and the National Health Service should include
specifications regarding allergens as well as nutrients. This is particularly
important for those providing school meals as child allergies are
increasing. By encouraging public sector bodies to support this voluntary
guidance, the coverage should be increased. Consumers with allergies
will need to continue to be vigilant and check the accuracy of the
information provided. Advice to firms to label when recipes change
will be helpful in drawing consumers’ attention to possible
risks and the need to check for changes. As the FSA is increasingly
using guidance to inform producers of good practice, it is important
that it assesses the effectiveness of this approach, and reports back
on whether manufacturers do take the guidance into account.
3. Future considerations
– non-prepacked foods and those prepacked for direct sale
3.1 Foodaware has also considered the issues for
the future on which the FSA has requested views. The FSA says that
there is agreement among stakeholders on a range of issues including
acceptance of the need to improve information on loose foods and that
the focus of guidance should be on deliberate ingredients, rather
than cross-contamination. The need to improve dialogue between staff
and consumers to ensure that the information they receive is clear
and accurate was also recognised. We support these conclusions.
Foods sold pre-packed for direct sale (e.g. from deli counters, bread
and bakery products sold direct, sandwiches, ice-creams, items sold
loose and those in catering establishments are exempt from most of
the general labelling requirements. The FSA Survey of Consumers Attitudes
to Food Standards (FSA 2004) found that 12% of people check labels
of pre-packed foods for allergen information and it assumes that a
similar proportion would welcome such information on these foods too.
Again the approach is likely to be the preparation of draft guidance
and a voluntary approach. The FSA has asked for responses to a number
of questions, including :
3.3 Would we favour this approach or should the
guidance be statutory? Article 14 of Directive 2000/13/EEC gives
Member States the option not to apply EC labelling rules to these
foods. Optional requirements provide flexibility to Member States
and enable countries to meet the specific needs of their own populations
or cater for differences in purchasing behaviour. We believe, however,
that where consumer safety is at risk an optional approach cannot
be justified. Since people increasingly move around the European Community,
this approach poses additional risk to people on holiday or business
travellers. The government should seek to make these requirements
obligatory throughout the Community, but in the interim seek to improve
the position for UK consumers by encouraging voluntary labelling.
3.4 What are the greatest risks? Should all foods
be included or is such information unnecessary e.g. for loose fruit
and vegetables in their natural state? Members felt that it is
not necessary for fruit and vegetables to be included.
3.5 Should cross-contamination be included?
Our understanding is that this is not the main risk and that severe
reactions tend to arise from the inability to identify specific ingredients
in food rather than cross-contamination.
3.6 How should the guidance be made available?
Should it cover each sector separately? As the volume of general
guidance to industry is increasing all the time, there is a serious
risk that it will be overlooked because it is too detailed. A sector
specific approach could help overcome this problem.
3.7 What would be the consumer benefits?
If up to 12% of the population regularly seek information on allergens
and other groups in society such as religious groups seek information
on e.g. milk products and eggs, this information would be of value
to a much larger group than those who suffer from allergic and intolerant
reactions. As far as we know the size of this group has not been quantified,
but would, we believe, warrant the extra cost. Suppliers should know
and be able to trace the ingredients in their foods, and providing
that information to customers should not be unduly onerous. Indeed,
an increasing number of small suppliers are proud of their produce
and want to inform consumers about its content and method of production.
December 2005
|
