Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Industry lobbying on Nutri-Score'.


COPA AND COGECA’S 
PROPOSAL ON THE USE 
OF FRONT OF PACK (FOP) 
NUTRITIONAL LABELLING 
SYSTEMS
Brussels, 5th June 2020
Feed and Food


INTRODUCTION
In its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission states that 
they will propose a harmonised mandatory front-of-
pack nutrition labelling, also referred to as the FOPNL 
system, by 2020 to “enable consumers to make health 
conscious food choices”. Furthermore, in its report 
“regarding the use of additional forms of expression and 
presentation of the nutrition declaration” published on 
the same day, the Commission seems to give its favor 
towards the use of a colour-coded system of FOPNL. 
As farmers and also as consumers we welcome 
the opportunity to support a measure improving 
citizens’ health, transparency and food information 
to consumers. More than that, we believe that the 
high nutritional quality of the food we take pride in 
producing can contribute to it. However, we are afraid 
that a mandatory colour-coded FOPNL system would 
not allow to achieve this objective and would penalise 
hard working farmers by discriminating many quality 
and highly nutritionally valuable products.
Therefore, EU farmers calls on the European Institutions 
and on the Member States to take into account the 
basic concept of “Informing without misleading” when 
implementing a EU-wide FOPNL scheme.




Copa and Cogeca recognise the importance 
stigmatisation  of  specific  products  that  are 
of the Front of Pack (FOP) nutritional labelling 
historically part of our gastronomy and rural 
topic in the current discussions taking place 
traditions, and that, eaten in the appropriate 
in the European institutions, as do European 
amounts, can play a key role in a balanced diet. 
consumers. 
Therefore, we support a FOP labelling scheme 
Many Member States have adopted some 
that  does  not  stigmatise  any  specific  food 
voluntary FOP nutritional labelling systems 
products. In particular, an EU system should 
within their territory, and the topic is in the 
not endanger, neither directly nor indirectly, 
spotlight as one of the priorities of the Farm 
EU quality food products – e.g. PDOs, PGIs 
to Fork strategy1. Therefore, Copa and Cogeca 
and TSGs – that, unlike highly processed 
would like to reiterate the following key 
products, cannot be reformulated and have 
principles that should underpin any future 
to follow strict and traditional production 
FOP labelling system:
disciplinary codes. Moreover, jeopardising EU 
quality schemes would mean nullifying the 
• Positive & non-discriminatory colour-
European Commission’s efforts to promote 
coding systems
these products both within the European 
Union and abroad.
The colour-coding systems that are currently 
used discriminate against certain categories of 
• Science-based & independent
food products because they divide foodstuffs 
into those that are good or bad in a questionable 
Nutrition is indeed a scientific discipline, thus 
manner. While any labelling system should be 
it should be addressed as an individual topic, 
informative and easy to understand, it should 
separately from other factors (e.g. personal 
not be overly simplistic. Using a system that 
beliefs). Copa and Cogeca is convinced that the 
categorises food products as either good 
role that the European Food Safety Authority 
or bad risks high-quality and nutritious 
(EFSA) plays in the field of nutrition is of the 
products, such as olive oil, being shunned. 
utmost importance in order to provide EU 
Such products have beneficial consequences 
policy-makers with solid, independent and 
for human health and are recommended in 
trustworthy input necessary to develop EU-
many diets that have been carefully studied 
wide dietary guidelines. We cannot accept 
from a nutritional point of view. This type of 
FOP systems developed by private actors 
contradictory FOP labelling also implies a 
within the food chain. Independence is 
1 - European Commission Communication on the Farm to Fork Strategy released on 20th May 2020: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-annex-farm-fork-green-deal_en.pdf

pivotal, as proper nutrition is the baseline for 
the individual ingested nutrients alone cannot 
preserving human health. 
determine  the  health  benefits  of  a  product, 
which are rather the result of synergies and 
• Harmonised & EU-wide
connections within the overall “food matrix”2  
of the product itself.
We are currently witnessing the emergence 
of country-specific FOP labelling systems and 
• Portion-based
as a result a proliferation of different national 
algorithms that are disrupting the internal 
People consume portions, the size of which 
market. This situation is creating several 
varies from one product category to another. 
problems for the free movement of goods, as 
Therefore, any FOP labelling scheme should 
each label has to be adapted to each Member 
address the portion concretely recommended 
State in which the product is expected to be 
by dietary guidelines for each product 
sold. The lack of harmonisation is also a clear 
category and in a way that is harmonised 
sign of weakness of the FOP labelling schemes 
across the whole European Union, clearly 
currently in place. Any European FOP labelling 
stating that the label is referring to a specific 
system must be harmonised across the entire 
amount  of  the  product  (e.g.  “X”  grammes). 
EU territory and developed according to the 
These portions should be established 
science-based instructions laid out by EFSA.
by  a  scientific  and  independent  agency, 
such as EFSA, taking into account dietary 
• Based on dietary guidelines
guidelines and consumers’ eating habits. 
Assessing a product based on the standard 
Although national and international dietary 
100 grammes, when it is consumed in much 
guidelines may differ slightly as regards 
smaller quantities, is misleading and does 
specific products, quantities and consumption 
not allow for a clear understanding of the 
patterns, there is broad consensus on the 
dietary guidelines. Therefore, the nutritional 
food groups considered essential for a proper 
assessment of a product should be based 
diet. It is worth mentioning that the science 
on portions. Moreover, if the 100 grammes 
of  nutrition  has  increasingly  expanded  the 
reference for nutrient content is still useful 
knowledge  and  scientific  literature  available 
for calculations related to cooking purposes 
on the topic, which should therefore be 
or  very  specific  diets,  it  will  still  be  provided 
properly assessed and taken into account. 
on the back of the packaging as required by 
We are currently witnessing a proliferation 
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011.
of positive labels on food and drink products 
that are not even included in the dietary 
• Voluntary
recommendations. It is clear that some 
food and drink categories are recognised 
Any additional label may increase costs and 
as necessary to sustain human health and 
heighten administrative burdens for the 
as irreplaceable, whereas others are not. A 
operators in the food chain. In addition, some 
positive label should only be allowed on food 
products may vary slightly from one batch to 
and drink products that fall within science-
another (given e.g. their nature or the farming 
based dietary guidelines.
conditions)  making  it  difficult  to  apply  the 
same FOP label to all the products within that 
• Based on a complete assessment of 
category. Therefore, it should be left to the 
the “food matrix”
operator in the food chain to establish if it is 
relevant and coherent to apply any FOP label 
Each food and drink product contains different 
or not, according to the added value that is 
macronutrients and micronutrients. When 
returned to the food chain.
establishing nutritional labelling, a complete 
Copa and Cogeca would like to conclude by 
evaluation of the food should be carried out, 
underlying that consumers should not rely 
without  being  based  exclusively  on  certain 
exclusively  on  labels  in  order  to  purchase 
nutrients. Notably, recent studies show that 
products. Taking care of their own diet is a 
 2 - “The food matrix may be viewed as a physical domain that contains and/or interacts with specific constituents of a food (e.g. a nutrient) providing 
functionalities and behaviors which are different from those exhibited by the components in isolation or a free state” (Aguilera, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1
080/10408398.2018.1502743)

conditio sine qua non for taking care of their 
own health.
Therefore, we reiterate that educating 
consumers is pivotal to properly understand 
the  benefits  of  eating  agricultural  products, 
when integrated into diets according to 
the  patterns  and  quantities  specified  by 
internationally recognised guidelines, and 
with the correct interpretation of any future 
FOP labelling scheme. No label will ever be 
able to overcome the lack of understanding, 
knowledge and motivation needed to follow 
dietary guidelines necessarily developed by 
EFSA in the future. If we want consumers to 
adopt healthy diets and eating habits, we 
need large-scale nutrition education and 
awareness-raising campaigns starting from 
the earliest age possible. 
Such campaigns should also underline that a 
healthy diet is only one of several key factors 
needed to enjoy good health. A balanced 
diet should always be coupled with physical 
activity and good general life-style habits.

Key points:
we end up setting aside nutritiously valuable 
food products. Do we really want to end up 
1. 
A colour-coded  nutrition labelling 
with people disregarding honey, but feeling 
system would end up presenting an over-
good about consuming aspartame based diet 
simplistic  classification  of  food  products 
soft drinks?
between those that are “good”, in green, and 
those that are “bad”, in red. Such a dichotomy 
5. 
Farmers’ products are crafted and they 
will stigmatise highly nutritious products 
may vary slightly from one batch to another 
which are praised for their nutritional value by 
and over seasons, especially those containing 
nutritionists all over the world, 
natural ingredients like dairy products, meat or 
such as olive oil.
fish, making it difficult to apply the same FOP 
label to all the products within that category. 
2. 
A colour-coded system would be  Only industrial processed products will have 
catastrophic for Geographical Indications 
 
the same exact nutrient content every time. A 
products as the only solution for them not to 
mandatory FOPNL would penalise those small 
be discriminated against and to benefit from 
actors who are in any case not those producing 
a  better  “colour”  would  be  reformulation. 
the highly processed and unhealthy products, 
However, in order to benefit from Geographical 
but rather the ones offering consumers the 
Indications or other quality schemes, those 
best of the EU terroirs.
products have to respect very strict criteria. 
This means that any reformulation would be 
very complicated or simply impossible for 
them.  Having in mind that those products 
represent an economical value of more than 
77,15 billion euros per year, and 7% of the total 
sales value of EU food and drink products, this 
is highly concerning.
3. 
The  FOPNL  system  chosen  should 
be science based and designed by an 
independent  and  scientific  organisation 
such as EFSA, following dietary guidelines 
established in the same way. Moreover, it 
must be based on recommended portions 
harmonised at EU level If we start to base 
nutritional information and the dietary 
guidelines supporting it solely on plant-based 
diets or environmental sustainability concerns 
without taking health into account, we might 
be putting people’s health at  risk.
4. 
A  colour-coded  FOPNL  does  not 
take  into  account  the  complexity  of  food 
products when establishing their nutritional 
contribution. Indeed, each food and drink 
product contains different macronutrients and 
micronutrients. When establishing nutritional 
labelling, a complete evaluation of the food 
should be carried out, without being based 
exclusively  on  certain  nutrients.  By  focusing 
solely on a very limited number of nutrients 
(e.g. sugar, fat and salt) and the energy intake, 




Copa and Cogeca are the united voice of 
farmers and agri-cooperatives in the EU. 
Together, they ensure that EU agriculture 
is sustainable, innovative and competitive, 
guaranteeing food security to half a billion 
people throughout Europe. Copa represents 
over  23  million  farmers  and  their  families 
whilst Cogeca represents the interests 
of 22,000 agricultural cooperatives. They 
have 66 member organisations from the 
EU member states. Together, they are one 
of the biggest and most active lobbying 
organisations in Brussels.
6, Rue de Trèves
B - 1040 Bruxelles
Télephone 00 32 (0) 287 27 11
Télefax       00 32 (0) 287 27 00