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.

COOLing on mandatory origin labelling – EU Commission report published

On 20th May 2015 the EU Commission, pursuant art. 26 (5) and (6) of the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 published the “Study on the mandatory indication of country of origin or place of provenance of unprocessed foods, single ingredient products and ingredients that represent more than 50% of a food”.

More report are expected to be published about:

(a) types of meat other than beef, swine, sheep, goat and poultry;

(b) milk;

(c) milk used as an ingredient in dairy products.

The conclusions of the study are the following:

  • In terms of factors affecting consumer purchasing decisions, consumer interest in origin labelling, ranks behind price, taste, use by/best before date, convenience and/or appearance aspects. Even if consumer interest in origin labelling for unprocessed foods, single ingredient products and ingredients representing more than 50% of a food is claimed by two thirds to three quarters of consumers, it is lower than for food categories such as meat, meat products or dairy products.
  • Consumers link origin information to various product aspects, such as quality, safety, environmental concerns and also declare that they would buy national products to support the economy of their country, with important differences amongst Member States. They would prefer information on origin at the level of the country compared with a EU/non-EU level and seem more interested in the place of production compared with the place of farming of the raw material.
  • Unprocessed foods, single ingredient products and ingredients that represent more than 50% of a food are food categories that gather very different products, for which consumer interest in origin information and economic impact of imposing a mandatory origin labelling varies greatly.
  • The supply chains for the three categories of foods in the scope of the report show that the origin of ingredients varies frequently to maintain low purchasing prices and to maintain the quality of the final product. Therefore, mandatory origin labelling at the EU level and even more at the level of the country is highly complex to implement in many areas of food, leading to substantial increases of costs of production, which ultimately would be passed on to consumers.
  • Origin labelling on a voluntary basis would be the least market disruptive scenario and would maintain product cost at current levels. It would not provide a satisfactory solution to the consumer demand for systematic origin information, but consumers could, if they so wish, opt for foods where origin information is voluntarily provided for by food business operators.
  • Mandatory origin labelling at EU level (EU/non-EU or EU/third country) leads to less important production cost increases, less burden for both food business operators and Member States competent authorities, but consumer satisfaction would be not as high as with mandatory origin labelling at country level. Unlike origin labelling at EU level, origin labelling at country level would have an 13 important impact on the internal market, with a possible increase of consumption of local foods for certain markets.
  • Both mandatory origin labelling scenarios at EU and country levels could impact on international food supplies and interfere with existing trade agreements with third countries. Additional labelling rules may lower the competitiveness of EU food business operators on the international market, while food business operators from third countries are concerned about potential additional costs of production and loss of exports to the EU because consumers would prefer foods of EU origin.
  • Finally, mandatory origin labelling would represent an additional burden on Member States competent authorities, in particular in the current economic environment, if they had to cope with the imposition of possible new control tasks for such additional requirements.
  • Against this background and in view of the Commission policies in terms of better regulation, voluntary origin labelling combined with the already existing mandatory origin labelling regimes for specific foods or categories of food appears as the suitable option. It maintains selling prices at current levels and still allows consumers to choose products with specific origins if they want to, while it does not affect the competitiveness of food business operators and does not impact internal market and international trade.

The report will be presented soon to the EU Parliament, but the chance to see a legislative proposal on mandatory COOL labelling for these categories of products seems, at the moment, at least less likely.