But in recent years, consumer groups have raised concerns over the phrase that appears on many food labels. Some believe that it is overused, and that unnecessary use of the phrase on certain products can undermine valid warnings.
As a result, the FSA recently launched a study into appropriate labelling. This focused on nut trace contamination (NTC) labelling, as nuts and peanuts are recognised as the most likely food allergens to trigger serious allergic symptoms. Many UK manufacturers and retailers already indicate their presence on the packet, especially if there is a risk of contamination during processing.
The report attempted to determine the prevalence of such labelling. In a basket of everyday food items (selected because they do not normally contain nuts as ingredients), the FSA found that 56 per cent of the products indicated a risk of nut trace contamination. At the same time however, nut-allergic consumers were unable to buy a match or substitute for 18 per cent of the items listed. In addition, in many cases, they were forced to accept a substitute or poorer quality product. As a result, they took 39 per cent longer to shop and, incredibly, paid 11 per cent more on average.
On products examined, the FSA found that ingredient information was allocated an average of 2.6 per cent of the packaging area. Additional allergen information covered an average of 0.53 per cent. In addition, it would appear that long-established industry guidelines to make labelling clear are often ignored. Over a third of all products examined had key information in poor colour combinations and the FSA found that there was little consistency in labelling style between different retailers or manufacturers. These and other factors make it very difficult for allergic consumers to find and read essential information.
Biscuits, cereals and confectionery are most commonly cited by nut allergic consumers as those products that are hard to find without nut trace contamination information. Packaging examined often displayed nut trace contamination information that was not always noticed by the shoppers or sorters. Similar allergen warnings on a variety of products may reflect very different degrees of risk to the allergic consumer.
Following completion of the study, a number of key recommendations have been made. These include improved labelling of all ingredients on all foods, clearer allergen information, and support for manufacturers who are determined to remove nuts from their production. The FSA also believes that it is important to undertake regular reviews of the quality and legibility of all essential information on pre-packed foods.
A number of alternative phrases have also been developed. At present the Food Standards Agency is consulting on the following alternative warnings: Not suitable for peanut/nut/sesame allergic consumers and Not suitable for people with peanut/nut/sesame allergy. Although it is not a legal requirement for manufacturers to label in this way, manufacturers will be encouraged to use the appropriate phrases in the future.
These latest developments will be under the spotlight when the Food Labelling Forum holds its next meeting on 21 January 2004. The meeting will provide manufacturers and consumer bodies with the opportunity to debate current labelling issues. Presentations will be given on health and nutrition claims, food authenticity, and allergen labelling. There will also be a question and answer session on general labelling issues.
