EU Preliminary Impact Assessment on Trans Fats policy options

The EU Commission just published an inception impact assessment about a potential upcoming Regulation about limitation of trans fats in foods (3rd quarter 2017).

Although different actions were taken in different Member States of the EU and intakes of trans fats have overall decreased over the past years, other Member States have not taken action.

Industrial trans fats are still present at levels of concern in certain foods in the EU and intakes are still excessive in certain cases (especially having in mind EFSA’s recommendation that trans fats intakes should be as low as is possible within the context of a nutritionally adequate diet). The issue is of particular relevance in certain Member States and for particular population groups. This lack of homogeneity in the EU hampers the effective functioning of the Internal Market, negatively affects the protection of consumers’ health and contributes to the perpetuation of health inequalities.

The Commission is currently considering an EU-based initiative to limit trans fats intakes, which would have the added value of coherent and simultaneous application in the entire EU. This initiative would focus on industrial trans fats, given that ruminant trans fats sources generally contribute in a limited way to the total daily energy intake and ruminant trans fats are naturally present in foods that are important in the EU diet and cannot therefore totally be avoided.

The Commission presented its first analysis on trans fats in its report to the European Parliament and the Council of 3 December 2015 regarding trans fats in foods and in the overall diet of the Union population. The report was requested by Article 30(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council on the provision of food information to consumers which stated: “By 13 December 2014, the Commission, taking into account scientific evidence and experience acquired in Member States, shall submit a report on the presence of trans fats in foods and in the overall diet of the Union population. The aim of the report shall be to assess the impact of appropriate means that could enable consumers to make healthier food and overall dietary choices or that could promote the provision of healthier food options to consumers, including, among others, the provision of information on trans fats to consumers or restrictions on their use. The Commission shall accompany this report with a legislative proposal, if appropriate”.

The report concluded that a legal limit for industrial trans fats would be the most effective measure in terms of public health, consumer protection and compatibility with the Internal Market but that further investigation is required. In accordance with Better Regulation principles, the Commission communicated its intention to carry out an impact assessment, including a public consultation on the matter, in order to take an informed policy decision in the near future.

This Inception Impact Assessment (IIA) marks the beginning of the announced work of the European Commission.

All the stakeholders that intervened in the debate on trans fats so far have welcomed the Commission’s report and/or supported an EU initiative to set legal limits to industrial trans fats in foods, both on the consumers’ side and on the industry’s side. The issue would therefore appear not controversial and the added value of an EU initiative in the field would seem undisputed.

In several platforms, EU action on industrial trans fats has been defined by consumers’ organisations and food business operators as a “low hanging fruit” that would improve consumers’ health at very limited costs. In this context, of particular note are the number of reformulation commitments to lower the content of industrial trans fats in foods made in the past years by food manufacturers in the EU Platform for Diet, Physical Activity and Health.

The positions of industry stakeholders (well summarised in a statement by Food Drink Europe of 19 November 2015) 17 indicate that the industrial trans fats content of foods can effectively be lowered without disproportionate costs (this was confirmed in Denmark, the first Member State introducing a legal limit for industrial trans fats in foods), that an EU initiative would benefit not only to consumers but also to the industry by setting a level playing field in the Internal Market, and that particular support might be needed for SMEs.

In the EU, it is of particular note that legislative measures limiting the content of industrial trans fats to 2% of the total fat content of the food were adopted in Denmark (2003), Austria (2009), Hungary (2013) and Latvia (2015). In Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK and Greece, voluntary self-regulation measures have been agreed with the food industry. Legal measures limiting the content of industrial trans fats in foods exist also outside the EU (e.g. in Switzerland, Iceland, Norway as well as in the US, where the Food and Drug Administration concluded in 2015 that partially hydrogenated oils, the primary dietary source of industrial trans fats, are no longer to be considered as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) for use in food).

EU legislation sets legal limits for trans fats in infant formula and follow-on formula (3% of the total fat content of the food, to allow for the use of milk, which naturally contains ruminant trans fats, as a source of fat). Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 requires since 13 December 2014 to specify in the ingredients list of all prepacked foods (non pre-packed foods are not covered by this provision) whether refined fats/oils are partly hydrogenated. The Regulation however does not require the indication of the exact trans fats content of foods in the nutrition declaration and they cannot even declared in the table on voluntary basis.

The options examined in this IIA, are the following:

  • Option 0 – No EU policy change (baseline scenario)
  • Option 1 – Establishment of a limit for the industrial trans fats content in foods

In this option, the EU would establish a limit for the presence of industrial trans fats in foods (both pre-packed and non-pre-packed), through voluntary agreement with relevant stakeholders or with legally binding measures.

  • Option 2 – Introduction of the obligation to indicate the trans fats content of foods in the nutrition declaration
  • Option 3 – Prohibition of the use of partly hydrogenated oils (PHO) in foods

In this option, the EU would follow the same approach as adopted in the US and would prohibit the use of PHOs in foods, on the basis of the consideration that these are the primary dietary source of industrial trans fats. As in the case of Option 1, this could be achieved through a voluntary agreement with the relevant food business operators, or a legally-binding measure

The following future consultations are planned in order to obtain further feedback in preparation for the Impact Assessment:

  • Open Public consultation (12 weeks): this consultation will be open to everyone and will be carried out on the basis of a consultation document that will take into account the comments submitted on the IIA. It will be aimed at obtaining feedback on the different policy options and the expected impacts.
  • Targeted consultation to be carried out by the contractor in the context of its study: this consultation will cover stakeholders with a specific interest in the initiative (consumers’ and health NGOs, food business operators and national authorities) and will be aimed at collecting feedback to triangulate (verify) the contractor’s findings on the expected impacts that the options finally retained for the Impact Assessment will have in a number of different areas (e.g. protection of consumers’ health, costs and regulatory burden, offer of products to consumers, functioning of the Internal Market, competitiveness, external trade, enforcement). The Commission will be particularly interested in collecting feedback at local level, from SMEs and manufacturers of non-pre-packed foods.

The last part of the IIA offers an interesting first evaluation of all the policy options impact on environment, economy, internal market, public health, SMEs, international trade and all the main stakeholders involved.

Food recalls in EU – Week 8/2016

Last week on EU RASFF (Rapid Alert System for food and feed) we can find the following relevant notifications:

1. Alerts followed by a recall from consumers:

  • Listeria monocytogenes (presence CFU/g) in organic falafel nuggets from the Netherlands, following an official control on the market. Notified by Netherlands, distributed also to Belgium, France, Ireland, Spain and United Kingdom;
  • Mercury (1.18 mg/kg – ppm) in frozen blue shark slices (Prionace glauca) from Spain, following company’s own check. Notified by Italy;
  • Salmonella (presence/25g) in raw milk brie cheese from France, following company’s own check. Notified by France, distributed also to Austria, Czech Republic, Germany and Spain;
  • Salmonella Kentucky (present) in dried parsley from Egypt, following an official control on the market. Notified by Germany, distributed also to Belgium, Finland, France and Netherlands;
  • Traces of milk (casein 0.03 mg/item) in frozen fish gratin from Sweden, with raw material from Denmark, following company’s own check. Notified by Sweden, distributed also to Norway:
  • Undeclared milk ingredient in swiss rolls from Spain, following an official control on the market. Notified by United Kingdom, distributed also to Italy and Portugal;
  • Undeclared mustard and celery in spice mix from Sweden, following company’s own check. Notified by Sweden, distributed also to Finland, Norway and Denmark.

2. Information for attention/for follow up followed by a recall from consumers:

3. Alerts followed by a withdrawal from the market:

  • Listeria monocytogenes (570 CFU/g) in frozen smoked trout from Turkey, via Bulgaria, following an official control on the market. Notified by Netherlands;
  • Mercury (1.845 mg/kg – ppm) in frozen swordfish loins from Vietnam, via Belgium, following an official control on the market. Notified by Czech Republic, distributed also to Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia;
  • Plastic fragments in candy bars from the Netherlands, following company’s own check. Notified by Netherlands, distributed also to (see links embedded to reach some of the press release-public warning): Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, GreeceHong Kong, Hungary,  Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, New Caledonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United KingdomWest Bank and Gaza Strip;
  • Unauthorised substance yohimbine in and insufficient labelling of food supplement from the United States, via Sweden, following an official control on the market. Notified by Norway;
  • Unauthorised substance yohimbine in food supplement from the United States, following an official control on the market. Notified by Norway, distributed also to Sweden.

4. Seizures:

5. Border rejections:

Country of notification Countries concerned Subject Action Taken
Italy Italy, United States (O) aflatoxins (B1 = 10.4; Tot. = 11.6 µg/kg – ppb) in shelled almonds from the United States re-dispatch
Ireland Ireland, Pakistan (O), United Kingdom aflatoxins (B1 = 15.7; Tot. = 16.4 µg/kg – ppb) in spice mix from Pakistan official detention
Italy China (O), Italy aflatoxins (B1 = 5.3; Tot. = 6.5 µg/kg – ppb) in shelled peanuts from China  
Italy Egypt (O), Italy aflatoxins (B1 = 92; Tot. = 107 / B1 = 5.1; Tot. = 5.9 µg/kg – ppb) in groundnuts from Egypt placed under customs seals
Germany Germany, Turkey (O) aflatoxins (Tot. = 51.3 µg/kg – ppb) in roasted pistachios and almonds from Turkey import not authorised
Belgium Belgium, Gambia (O) benzo(a)pyrene (7 µg/kg – ppb) in smoked sardinella (Sardinella spp.) from the Gambia import not authorised
Italy India (O), Italy cadmium (2.6 mg/kg – ppm) in frozen squid chunks from India import not authorised
United Kingdom South Korea (O), United Kingdom cadmium (2.9 mg/kg – ppm) in frozen squid (Nototodarus spp.) from South Korea import not authorised
United Kingdom Laos (O), United Kingdom, Vietnam high count of Escherichia coli (1000 CFU/g) in praew leaves (Vietnamese coriander – Polygonum odoratum) from Laos, via Vietnam destruction
Italy Italy, Thailand (O) mercury (0.11 mg/kg – ppm) in pet food from Thailand import not authorised
Italy Commission Services, Italy, Portugal, Vietnam (O) prohibited substance nitrofuran (metabolite) nitrofurazone (SEM) (1.43 µg/kg – ppb) in frozen pangasius fillets from Vietnam import not authorised
Greece Greece, India (O) Salmonella (in 1 out of 5 samples /25g) in hulled sesame seeds from India import not authorised
United Kingdom Laos (O), United Kingdom, Vietnam Salmonella (in 4 out of 5 samples /25g) and high count of Escherichia coli (620 CFU/g) in frozen perilla (Perilla frutescens) from Laos, via Vietnam destruction
Italy Italy, Vietnam (O) too high level of overall migration (141 mg/kg – ppm) from nitrile gloves (food contact materials) from Vietnam re-dispatch
Poland Japan (O), Poland unauthorised colour Rose Bengal in marinated bamboo shoots from Japan destruction
United Kingdom Thailand (O), United Kingdom unauthorised substance carbofuran (0.01 mg/kg – ppm) in aubergines from Thailand destruction
Italy India (O), Italy unauthorised substance propargite (0.29 mg/kg – ppm) in green tea from India placed under customs seals

(Source: RASFF Portal)