In order to increase consistency between the proposals they plan to submit, they have decided to launch a consultation with key stakeholders.
EPHA responded to the consultation (see attached document)
Report on the responses: Labelling: Competitiveness, Consumer information and better regulation for the EU
Report on the responses received on the consultation
Between March and June 2006, 175 comments have been listed, responding to main issues, strategic goals of and views on labelling.
There have been 32 government responses from 19 members states, 82 responses from industry, 16 from consumer organisations, 12 from health related organisations, 16 from individuals, and 13 other responses. Only one clear consensus appears in the summary of results, namely that there are too many labels and that this is confusing for the consumer. All the respondents also highlighted the lack of good quality research about what consumers look for and need, or whether certain labels change behaviour.
Consumers need information, but on readable labels (i.e. minimum font/text size), which are clearly distinguished from marketing information. Nowadays, labels are too complicated to read and thus are of little use.
However, industries oppose to this demand for labels evolution the lack of printable space available on their products, and already ask for derogation. What is more, industry considers that information should not be imposed on the consumer. Instead they argue that these kind of labels are not of interest to every consumer and should therefore be made available (for example through websites, e-mail, or point of sale), but not mandatory.
This step back regarding information to consumers is of course condemned by nearly all Member States, consumer NGOs and individual consumers. This is clearly not an alternative, as fewer and fewer consumers would be informed.
On the future approach, the legislation is one of the main fields of division. Industries are in favour of finding an alternative to the current legislation and laud a self-regulation approach to maintain flexibility and allow the market to respond to consumer demand. Industry is keen to point out that they deal with consumers, not with one single consumer, and in this perspective the “one size fits all” approach may not be suitable in every case.
Unfortunately the flexibility tool, as highlighted by consumers, health and animal welfare NGOs, has, so far, not provided enough impetus to make labelling more effective for the consumer. Legislation, on the other hand, ensures the uniform and rrelevant application of labelling across the EU.
Therefore, the issue of labeling is currently split by two contrasting visions: whilst industries favour voluntary regulation, consumer, health and animal welfare NGOs call formaximum legislation requirements to be implemented, as well as mandatory regulation. Meanwhile, Member States tend to fit somewhere in between the two.
According to the summary released by the commission, the new approach for labeling favours regulation rather than a directive.
