Shoppers are demanding more detailed information on their food packaging but for those making the decisions, this is proving to be a thorny issue.

It’s difficult to ignore the furore surrounding food labelling at the moment. Most recognise that changes need to be made but no one seems to be able to agree on how these changes should be brought about.

Much of the commotion surrounds nutrition labelling. Ever expanding waistlines and unhealthy diets seen in many parts of the world would suggest that clearer information for shoppers would be a good idea. It might not stop them eating unhealthy foods but at least it would enable them to make an informed choice about what they’re putting into their shopping trolleys, and ultimately, their bodies.

Environment Committee MEPs decided recently that food labels should provide information on energy content and nutritional value, and should be easier to understand. However, they stopped short of implementing a mandatory EU-wide traffic light system to show the important nutritional data.

This decision has angered groups who were optimistic about seeing a compulsory system imposed on EU countries. BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organisation was one of the voices condemning the EU for not going far enough.

Its Director General, Monique Goyens, says, "Research from across Europe has told us that consumers find colour coding the easiest and simplest way to make informed and healthy choices."

"When we clearly have an obesity epidemic spreading across Europe, and when consumers clearly want to make healthier choices about their diet, we really should give them the tools that work best and which they want. MEPs have missed the opportunity to make healthy food more accessible.”

Although an EU-wide policy wasn’t introduced as an enforced measure, MEPs left the door open for member states to adopt their own national rules for front of pack labels. However, with numerous systems already in place, the current infrastructure is serving only to confuse shoppers.

Another major concern is food labelling which may mislead consumers by inaccurate nutritional claims. The decision by MEPs to ditch nutrient profiling - the system to determine which foods can carry health claims - was met with derision by some groups who fear a fall in standards. Which?, the UK consumer group, is campaigning to see the European Commission adopt stricter criteria for nutrient profiling, as foods such as doughnuts, chocolate milkshakes and pork sausages could all claim to be healthy under the existing draft proposal.

Peter Vicary-Smith, Which? Chief Executive, says, “When foods like jam doughnuts can make health claims, then it’s time to go back to the drawing board."

"The only way to address this is to keep nutrient profiles, but with more scientifically robust criteria to ensure that consumers aren’t misled by foods making spurious health claims.”

Elsewhere, other countries are currently reviewing their regulations on food labelling to avoid consumers being misled. For instance, in the US, the FDA is considering a more stringent strategy, while in Australia, the National Review of Food Labelling is due for completion next year.

New statistics from the FSA show that tonnes of food is thrown away because of consumers misunderstanding date marks on food packaging. This concern itself isn’t new but this information puts into focus the scale of this problem, which is prompting suggestions for an overhaul in the system. To prevent confusions with ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates, the FSA thinks manufacturers should ditch ‘best before’ dates on perishable goods so that only one date appears on the packaging - the date when the food is no longer safe to eat.

Also, as part of the FSA suggestions, for products such as tinned foods, ‘best before’ dates would still be used but the packaging would also carry a message informing consumers that the food is still safe to eat after that date.

The food and drink industry is optimistic about the proposed improvements to the supply chain with the implementation of next generation barcodes. Many companies are already using technologies such as RFID but until a universal barcoding scheme is put in place, there will still be work to do.

There are plans for the DataBar to be used as the standard barcode for retail worldwide by 2014 and would enable more products to carry more information than ever before. GS1, the not-for-profit supply chain standards and solutions organisation, has set the ball rolling by starting an awareness programme to ensure that retailers are ready for its implementation.

The smaller size of the DataBar, potentially half the size of the current EAN-13 bar code, allows it to be attached to items that are often not bar coded such as fresh and loose produce. The product codes for these items often have to be entered manually at the point-of-sale, which takes time and is subject to human error. The DataBar can speed up these transactions at the checkout, enabling stores to offer a better level of customer service.

But even before foods arrive at retail outlets, the accurate application of labels is vital. A new coder or labeller won’t stop product withdrawals. Important though good quality coding and labelling is in order to ensure the efficient and reliable printing of codes and accurate positioning of labels, it cannot ensure that the perfectly printed data code is accurate, or that the perfectly positioned label is the correct one.

Coding and labelling non-compliances collectively amount to the greatest reason for product withdrawals, causing rework and rectification costs, wastage, scrap, penalties (fines from retailers), damage to customer relationships and even de-listing.

According to Roy Green, Managing Director of Harford Control, a change of approach is needed to introduce consistent accuracy. He says, “So long as date coder set-up and correct label application is people dependant, the risk of non conformance will remain high, especially during very busy periods with frequent product and label changes."

"We have seen manually dependant systems where no less than six people have checked the date code for accuracy and still got it wrong. The main reasons for such manually dependant conformance issues include ‘seeing’ what is expected, rather than what’s there, loss of awareness, and errors of judgement.”

The challenge for his company has been the development of automation to minimise the risks that production and process operational personnel face on a daily basis. Investing into coding and labelling is just one of the ways to make progress even if in isolation it’s hard to show a quantifiable ROI.

Roy adds, “We believe that coding and labelling compliance, whilst essential, should be an integrated part of a factory performance improvement system geared to providing maximum compliance at lowest manufactured cost."

”Where such integrated solutions have been installed we have seen compliance issues totally eliminated, together with efficiency improvements of more than 50%.”

For all the issues connected to labelling, coding and barcoding, accuracy and transparency are the desired traits that are sought to better inform consumers, minimise errors and reduce waste. Discussions continue to take place to unearth the most efficient ways of securing these goals but with mounting pressure from all involved parties, forthcoming announcements of future developments will be closely scrutinised.

Steve Williams, Food & Drink International, 29 April 2010

For the original story link please click here.