A self-regulatory proposal is exactly that - a solution to a problem designed by those that least want a solution in the first place. It was disappointing to see Parliament’s environment, public health and food safety committee reject amendments calling for nutritional declarations on spirit drinks. However, it was in no way surprising, given the faith some MEPs have in industry-initiated solutions.
This is something we should be demanding on behalf of the people we are here to represent. We are talking about what we put into our bodies - all consumers should have the right to be able to fully inform themselves about what they are ingesting. We cannot create a false differentiation between drinks and food just on the basis of somewhat ‘burdening’ the industry.
The current situation is that spirits, along with wine and beer, slip through the net of the food information to consumers regulation, and this exceptionalism is not justified. We need to seriously think about what we are prioritising here when we are asking the industry to self-regulate.
What I would really like to see, and I am not holding my breath, is the drinks industry recognising the desire among consumers for nutritional declaration labelling and committing to placing this information on the labelling.
This desire, which is not a revelation at this stage, was clear from the Commission’s March 2017 report, which also found a concerning consumer knowledge deficit regarding nutritional content.
My fears and expectations merge, however, in that I anticipate that the industry would rather complicate this simple problem and provide an ‘innovative solution’ that will leave the labelling free of nutritional information.
It is true that the drinks industry is already quite regulated, but for good reason. These are important and legitimate public policy goals, such as protecting minors from alcohol advertising.
However, to somehow conceptualise mandatory nutritional labelling as an impingement on the operations of the industry is nothing but absurd. All we are asking for is clear nutritional information on the labelling. All that the industry wants is bigger branding, fearing that overcrowding the labels will impact profits.
With these clearly diverging interests it is nonsensical to approach the industry for a solution to a problem that is painlessly straightforward. The Commission, in kicking the can down the road by asking for a self-regulatory proposal, is placing more weight on the profits of businesses balanced against the concerns of consumers. I find this wholly unacceptable.
Tobacco was another industry that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to simply affix mandatory health warnings on the packaging of their products. Would a so-called ‘innovative solution’, such as a QR code, have sufficed in this situation? Certainly not.
It is unquestionable to think that an imaginative solution (meaning virtual, not tangible) in comparison to plain labelling could do the job of achieving the public policy goal of informing consumers of the dangers of smoking.
In this case, consumers reacted to clear information on the packaging and it was proven to get the message across, from Uruguay to Ireland.
Given how non-complex these demands and results are, can the Commission seriously not build up the courage to tell the drinks industry that it is time to join the club and have nutritional information labelling? The evidence is there, consumers want it, the clock is ticking.