Lhe European Court of Auditors releases a damning report on food labeling in the European Union (EU). An investigation which reveals a faulty system where the consumer, supposed to be protected, finds himself drowned in an ocean of contradictory information… A veritable regulatory labyrinth which finds its source at the highest level of the Union.
The Commission, which is supposed to orchestrate the harmonization of the rules resulting from the ICDA (Consumer Information on Foodstuffs) regulation, has been accumulating delays since its entry into force in 2014. Out of eleven planned regulatory updates, only four have been ultimately applied. . A neglect that allows gray areas to flourish.
The investigation by auditors of the EU Court of Auditors was carried out in three countries, Belgium, Italy and Lithuania. It reveals a system plagued by inconsistencies. First scandal: more than 2,000 health claims on botanical products awaiting scientific validation since… 2010.
ALSO READ The gap is still widening between the actors of the health system and those who claim to manage itFor example, the fact that “ginseng extract helps improve physical performance” or that it “contributes to the normal functioning of the immune system”. These are two examples from the report. In short, the system is not controlled enough and allows manufacturers to multiply health promises without any real scientific basis.
The nutritional logo bazaar
The war of nutritional logos perfectly illustrates this European cacophony. On one side, the Nutri-Score, adopted by France and Belgium, on the other the Italian NutrInform Battery or the Lithuanian Keyhole. “A fragmentation of the market which can confuse consumers,” notes the Court soberly.
According to old data from a Commission study (2013), a third of consumers found these labels confusing, another third considered them misleading. It would be interesting to update this consumer survey. The Belgian food safety authority (Afsca) carried out a vast investigation in June 2024 which revealed that 53% of labels are non-compliant in the 1,240 businesses inspected. In two out of ten cases, non-compliance presents a risk to the health of the consumer.
ALSO READ Should we (really) trust the Nutri-Score? Online commerce has all the attributes of the total Wild West. Auditors from the Court of Auditors have identified that 80% of food products sold on the Internet make environmental claims without real control. In Lithuania, the e-commerce infringement rate reaches 61.6%. A situation that is all the more alarming as national authorities struggle to sanction sites hosted outside the EU.
Ridiculous fines
The level of fines is ridiculous. In Belgium, the average fine peaks at 651 euros in distribution. In Lithuania, fines range between 16 and 600 euros. Italy is not doing much better: the average amount of fines imposed by one of the competent authorities between 2020 and 2022 amounts to 1,717 euros when the regulations provide for a ceiling of 40,000 euros for the sale of expired products.
Nutrient profiles, supposed to prohibit health claims on products that are too fatty or too sweet, have been in limbo since 2009. The ICDA regulation planned to set thresholds (limits) for nutrients such as sugar, salt or fat, at least -beyond which a product could no longer display nutritional or health claims. However, the system is abused. A product rich in sugar, for example, will boast the claim “rich in vitamin C”. A very fatty product will boast of being “rich in fiber”. In fact, the consumer is being misled.
Member States are resisting
The Commission made little progress on this file between 2009 and 2020, citing the difficulty in obtaining buy-in from Member States. If the “farm to table” food strategy put this subject back on the agenda in 2020 with a goal of implementation by the end of 2022, in September 2024, it was still not done. The Court of Auditors reports that, according to the Commission, the complex nature of the subject makes it difficult to establish a legislative proposal in the near future. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a first nutritional profile model in 2015 (updated in 2023), emphasizing the particular importance of these profiles for foods intended for children.
The means of communication to inform the consumer are derisory. What does the 5.5 million euros over four years intended, at European level, to raise public awareness of labeling, weigh? A misery compared to the marketing budgets of the agri-food giants.
What if AI helped with controls?
To discover
Kangaroo of the day
Answer
The European Court of Auditors makes five urgent recommendations: filling legal loopholes, drastically strengthening controls (particularly online), finally harmonizing nutritional labeling, improving consumer understanding and streamlining control reporting. “European consumers are today unable to make truly informed choices,” concludes the Court harshly. A situation that is all the more worrying given that public and environmental health issues have never been so crucial.
The situation is not so desperate. Italy demonstrates that effective action is possible: the country has developed a sophisticated e-commerce control system, using artificial intelligence and collaborating with major platforms (eBay, Alibaba, Amazon, Rakuten, Allegro) to track down fraud. AI at the service of food labels, we can’t stop progress.
Related News :