28 replies to this topic

[StevieP]

Good Morning All,

 

Until yesterday, I wasn’t aware of this standard….. may have joined the party late. One of my customers sent me link. From what I can work out it relates to PrePack Goods only?

They are telling me the following:

The primary ingredient can be interpreted as the following:

• An ingredient or ingredients of a food that represents more than 50% of that food
• An ingredient or ingredients which are usually associated with the name of the food by the consumer

 

I’m really confused, and wondered if anyone could help? We make ambient bakery products, and so if I gave the example of a oat flapjack, does it mean that I’m looking at all the ingredients to establish which one represents more than 50% of the flapjack? So lets say margarine does. But then margarine is a compound ingredient itself, and so the components of this come from various countries. Or does it mean, I’d look at margarine as a whole and the country its manufactured in?

 

Like I say, help would be appreciated! Really confused!

[Tony-C]

Hi StevieP,

 

This Regulation requires the indication of the country of origin or place of provenance where its omission could mislead consumers. In particular if the information accompanying the food or the label as a whole would otherwise imply that the food has a different country of origin.
The origin labelling requirements laid down in Article 26 do not apply to non-prepacked foods unless member states have adopted national requiring application of those requirements.

https://www.fooddrin...redient_WEB.pdf

 

Some other useful links:
https://legislationu...on-eu-2018-775/
https://eur-lex.euro...18R0775&from=EN

 

Primary Ingredient:
Regulation 2018/775 - This gives the various requirements for providing the country of origin or the place of provenance when it is not the same as that of the food. The main options are given in Article 2 of the Regulation. Note however that this Regulation applies from 1 April 2020.
http://www.reading.a...abel/origin.htm

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony

[Egas]

Hi everyone, 

 

I was wondering if anyone can help with this new change in the Regulation (EU) 2018/775.

 

Am I right to say that because our product label states "Made in Italy"  the provenance of the main ingredient needs also to be declared should this not be Italian? If so, where and how do I declare it? in the ingredients declaration? (Italian flour? Flour(EU)? EU flour? 

 

I also read somewhere that the fact that we have "Made in Italy" in the packing does not trigger the regulation however, the more I read about this the more confused I get and I can't seem to find a straight answer for this. 

 

Maybe I'm just being dumb here  .

 

Any help would be much appreciated. 

 

Thank you.  

[pHruit]

I posted a copy of the guidance from FoodDrinkEurope in a similar thread recently, so probably worth having a read of that:

https://www.ifsqn.co...ient-of-a-food/

 

(And FWIW, I think there are a lot of situations in which there is no straight answer )

[Egas]

Hi pHruit, 

 

 

Thank you for your reply. 

 

I have that document but unfortunately there are bits of it where it sounds a bit contradictory i.e. where it says that by having "product manufactured in Italy" doesn't trigger the regulation. I got 3 other people to read the document and it didn't help as we all seem to have different views.     

[pHruit]

The problem for the regulators, and for the industry bodies, is that writing a regulation and/or guidance that covers every possibility would be an enormous task - if they'd taken that route then they'd still be arguing about the wording of the reg in 2047, by which time labelling will be irrelevant as we'll (a) all get the data piped directly to our brains by our iFaceGoogle implants, and (b) possibly be on the cusp of completing Brexit so won't be subject to the regs anyway...

 

In the specific case of the "made in" type of statement, I understand the FDE's apparent ambiguity on this - there is scope for a fairly large number of different ways to use "made in", from the basic factual element that's not far off the mandatory name/address details required under Article 9(1)(h) of 1169/2011, through to a large Union Jack flag, "proudly made in Britain", a picture of Winston Churchill smoking a bulldog while riding a spitfire etc.

 

There isn't much alternative but for you to determine this on a case-by-case basis for your labels in the context of the product, presentation, artwork etc. - are you "emphasizing" the origin? Obviously that is subjective, to a degree, so there will be situations where it's genuinely somewhat ambiguous.
The advice I gave in the other thread is valid here - if you genuinely can't reach a conclusion (and aren't able to post label drafts here - which would obviously be understandable) then give your local Trading Standards folks a call and pay the small fee to get their input. If nothing else then in the event that another TSO has a different interpretation (highly possible in ambiguous areas) then having the opinion from your TSO in the form of assured advice can count for quite a lot

[Egas]

Hi, 

 

We don't have any reference to a country on the ingredients declaration nor in the product name or packaging artwork however, we do state manufactured in Italy which it is. 

 

This is where the regulation isn't clear.. just because I say its manufactured in Italy it doesn't mean that the main ingredient is Italian. 

[williamzy]

Hi,

 

according to Commision Q&A draft the statements such as "made in (country)", "manufactured in (country)", "produced in (country)", are strongly associated by consumers with an origin indication and therefore, as a rule, shall be seen as indicating the country of origin or place of provenance of a food. In fact, those terms evidently refer to production or manufacturing processes which, in the case of processed foods, could correspond to the country of origin as defined in the Regulation, i.e. the last substantial transformation of a food.

Similarly, the statement "product of (country)" imply in general for the consumer the indication of the country of origin of a food, in the meaning of Article 26(3) if the Regulation. In addition, this reference could also suggest that including the ingredients of the food in question are coming from the country indicated.

 

The statement "packed in" clearly indicates the place where a food has been packed and as such, is not likely to imply for the consumer an origin indication in the meaning of Article 26(3) of the Regulation. Consequently, despite that the term in question refers to a geographical area, it is not to be considered as giving the country of origin or place of provenance of a food.

Terms such as "produced by/manufactured by/packed by" (company name followed by address and country)" or "produced by/manufactured by X for Y" make literally reference to the relevant food business operator and, in general, as such are not likely to suggest to the consumer an origin indication of the food.

Nevertheless, the consumer's perception is influenced by all the components of the label, including its presentation. Therefore, the entire packaging must be taken into account when assessing the possible misleading character of the food with regard to its origin.

[Egas]

 

Hi,

 

according to Commision Q&A draft the statements such as "made in (country)", "manufactured in (country)", "produced in (country)", are strongly associated by consumers with an origin indication and therefore, as a rule, shall be seen as indicating the country of origin or place of provenance of a food. In fact, those terms evidently refer to production or manufacturing processes which, in the case of processed foods, could correspond to the country of origin as defined in the Regulation, i.e. the last substantial transformation of a food.

Similarly, the statement "product of (country)" imply in general for the consumer the indication of the country of origin of a food, in the meaning of Article 26(3) if the Regulation. In addition, this reference could also suggest that including the ingredients of the food in question are coming from the country indicated.

 

The statement "packed in" clearly indicates the place where a food has been packed and as such, is not likely to imply for the consumer an origin indication in the meaning of Article 26(3) of the Regulation. Consequently, despite that the term in question refers to a geographical area, it is not to be considered as giving the country of origin or place of provenance of a food.

Terms such as "produced by/manufactured by/packed by" (company name followed by address and country)" or "produced by/manufactured by X for Y" make literally reference to the relevant food business operator and, in general, as such are not likely to suggest to the consumer an origin indication of the food.

Nevertheless, the consumer's perception is influenced by all the components of the label, including its presentation. Therefore, the entire packaging must be taken into account when assessing the possible misleading character of the food with regard to its origin.

 

 

Hi Williamzi,

 

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated. 

 

What about the statement "Made in the EU".. you're not specifying a Country.. Would this trigger the regulation? :-)

Edited by Rui, 09 January 2020 - 03:46 PM.

[Egas]

Hi Williamzi,

 

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated. 

 

What about the statement "Made in the EU".. you're not specifying a Country.. Would this trigger the regulation? :-)

 

I also found this in a document shared in this forum (Guidance on the Origin Indication of the Primary Ingredient European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/7751)

 

1.Does the Implementing Regulation apply to statements such as “made in”, “manufactured in”, “produced in”?

It is the view of PFP, FoodDrinkEurope and EuroCommerce that the Implementing Regulation generally does not apply to statements such as “made in”, “manufactured in”, “produced in” and other similar statements, in particular when they are provided with the only aim to comply with mandatory (or de facto mandatory) requirements in some countries (although the food bearing the statement can also be marketed in other countries where the statements are not mandatory), and when they are not emphasized on pack by means of the position, the colour, the font-size etc. (as it would have been the case if the operator wanted to attract

the consumer’s attention to a certain origin).

 

Attached Files

•  FDE 2018-778 guidandce.pdf   505.79KB   22 downloads

Edited by Rui, 09 January 2020 - 04:14 PM.

[pHruit]

Hi Williamzi,

 

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated. 

 

What about the statement "Made in the EU".. you're not specifying a Country.. Would this trigger the regulation? :-)

Potentially, depending on context etc 
2018/775 is an implementing act for 1169/2011, and Article 2(3) of the latter advises that: 　

"For the purposes of this Regulation the country of origin of a food shall refer to the origin of a food as determined in accordance with Articles 23 to 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92."

Note that this states "the origin of the food..." rather than "the country of origin of the food...", and directs the unfortunate reader towards an the laugh-a-minute tome that is 2931/92 relating to union customs provisions. Regulators wisely decided that this regulation was just too exciting to continue, so it has been repealed by subsequent but equally thrilling masterpieces. Nonetheless the effect here is the same, and if one peruses the 162 gripping pages of 952/2013 one will find that Article 60 states: 　

"Goods wholly obtained in a single country or territory shall be regarded as having their origin in that country or territory"

[pHruit]

I also found this in a document shared in this forum (Guidance on the Origin Indication of the Primary Ingredient European Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/7751)

 

1.Does the Implementing Regulation apply to statements such as “made in”, “manufactured in”, “produced in”?

It is the view of PFP, FoodDrinkEurope and EuroCommerce that the Implementing Regulation generally does not apply to statements such as “made in”, “manufactured in”, “produced in” and other similar statements, in particular when they are provided with the only aim to comply with mandatory (or de facto mandatory) requirements in some countries (although the food bearing the statement can also be marketed in other countries where the statements are not mandatory), and when they are not emphasized on pack by means of the position, the colour, the font-size etc. (as it would have been the case if the operator wanted to attract

the consumer’s attention to a certain origin).

 

Again this comes down to the subtlety of interpretation of the context of a particular situation/use - it therefore depends how you're using your "made in the EU" statement on pack.

Simple statement in the same font as the rest of the back label? Probably wouldn't trigger a requirement.

Big EU flag on the front, picture of a map of Europe saying "proudly made here" in a special colour and font? That probably counts as extra emphasis and would trigger the additional requirement

[Egas]

Again this comes down to the subtlety of interpretation of the context of a particular situation/use - it therefore depends how you're using your "made in the EU" statement on pack.

Simple statement in the same font as the rest of the back label? Probably wouldn't trigger a requirement.

Big EU flag on the front, picture of a map of Europe saying "proudly made here" in a special colour and font? That probably counts as extra emphasis and would trigger the additional requirement

I'm attaching two pictures of our packaging. 

 

I wouldn't say we're trying to attract the customer attention for the country of origin :-) so I'd say it doesn't trigger the regulation but the last thing I want is a trading standards auditor telling me that all our packaging is not compliant :-) 

Attached Files

•  1.png   182.3KB   0 downloads
•  2.png   265.12KB   0 downloads

[pHruit]

I'm attaching two pictures of our packaging. 

 

I wouldn't say we're trying to attract the customer attention for the country of origin :-) so I'd say it doesn't trigger the regulation but the last thing I want is a trading standards auditor telling me that all our packaging is not compliant :-) 

 

I agree with your interpretation here - in my opinion this is a simple factual statement without any extra emphasis.

 

Nonetheless the best way to avoid adverse findings from Trading Standards is to talk to them. Lots of businesses try to avoid this, but genuinely it is usually the best thing to do. The regulators don't want to have to take enforcement action - they have stretched budgets and too few resources, so they just want businesses to be compliant via the easiest means possible. So if you're uncertain about something then get in touch with them and ask what they think. They'll almost always appreciate this as a proactive step by a business trying to ensure they do what they're supposed to

[williamzy]

Hi Williamzi,

 

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated. 

 

What about the statement "Made in the EU".. you're not specifying a Country.. Would this trigger the regulation? :-)

 

 

Hi Rui

 

According to definition ‘place of provenance’ means any place where a food is indicated to come from, and that is not the ‘country of origin’ as determined in accordance with Articles 23 to 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92; the name, business name or address of the food business operator on the label shall not constitute an indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of food within the meaning of this Regulation.

 

Where the country of origin or the place of provenance of a food is given and where it is not the same as that of its primary ingredient:

(a) the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient in question shall also be given; or

(b) the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient shall be indicated as being different to that of the food.

 

Acoording to that I would say EU is a place of provenance. I have checked polish legal doctrine and they also quoted EU as an place of provenance example.

 

When we speak about product’s country of origin or place of provenance, according to 1169/2011 indication of the country of origin or place of provenance is mandatory where lack of indication may be misleading, but if we speak about primary ingredient’s country of origin or place of provenance in my opinion the only trigger is that the country of origin or the place of provenance of a product is given and it is not the same as that of its primary ingredient, without any strict connection with misleading or attracting consumer.

 

On the other hand on of the main purpose of the 1169/2011 is obligation to give consumers clear and proper information about food and protect consumers against misleading, so we can debate if giving consumers place of origin of the primary ingredient if you have small indication “Made in EU” on back label is really important and necessary in this situation.

 

To sum up, in your case I would indicate country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient, but I may be a bit paranoid – polish food control authorities are super strict and reluctant to any discussion   

[Egas]

Hi Rui

 

According to definition ‘place of provenance’ means any place where a food is indicated to come from, and that is not the ‘country of origin’ as determined in accordance with Articles 23 to 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92; the name, business name or address of the food business operator on the label shall not constitute an indication of the country of origin or place of provenance of food within the meaning of this Regulation.

 

Where the country of origin or the place of provenance of a food is given and where it is not the same as that of its primary ingredient:

(a) the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient in question shall also be given; or

(b) the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient shall be indicated as being different to that of the food.

 

Acoording to that I would say EU is a place of provenance. I have checked polish legal doctrine and they also quoted EU as an place of provenance example.

 

When we speak about product’s country of origin or place of provenance, according to 1169/2011 indication of the country of origin or place of provenance is mandatory where lack of indication may be misleading, but if we speak about primary ingredient’s country of origin or place of provenance in my opinion the only trigger is that the country of origin or the place of provenance of a product is given and it is not the same as that of its primary ingredient, without any strict connection with misleading or attracting consumer.

 

On the other hand on of the main purpose of the 1169/2011 is obligation to give consumers clear and proper information about food and protect consumers against misleading, so we can debate if giving consumers place of origin of the primary ingredient if you have small indication “Made in EU” on back label is really important and necessary in this situation.

 

To sum up, in your case I would indicate country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient, but I may be a bit paranoid – polish food control authorities are super strict and reluctant to any discussion   

 

Hi Williamz,

 

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated.

 

I think that's my problem.. I'm getting paranoid with all this crap.. 

[Egas]

I agree with your interpretation here - in my opinion this is a simple factual statement without any extra emphasis.

 

Nonetheless the best way to avoid adverse findings from Trading Standards is to talk to them. Lots of businesses try to avoid this, but genuinely it is usually the best thing to do. The regulators don't want to have to take enforcement action - they have stretched budgets and too few resources, so they just want businesses to be compliant via the easiest means possible. So if you're uncertain about something then get in touch with them and ask what they think. They'll almost always appreciate this as a proactive step by a business trying to ensure they do what they're supposed to

 

Hi pHruit,

 

I asked trading standards for help once and I regret it.. 

 

There's a reason people try to avoid them.. 

 

:-) 

[Egas]

Hi Williamz,

 

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated.

 

I think that's my problem.. I'm getting paranoid with all this crap.. 

 

HI Williamz,

 

But by saying that the product is manufactured in the Eu and the main ingredient is from EU as well then I shouldn't have to state that the main ingredient if from EU as I wouldn't be misleading the consumer. 

 

 

I'm going mad with this :-( and I need an answer by tomorrow or m head will roll lololol 

[williamzy]

HI Williamz,

 

But by saying that the product is manufactured in the Eu and the main ingredient is from EU as well then I shouldn't have to state that the main ingredient if from EU as I wouldn't be misleading the consumer. 

 

 

I'm going mad with this :-( and I need an answer by tomorrow or m head will roll lololol 

 

Hi Egas,

 

if you declared on the label that product comes from EU and primary ingredient is also from EU, in my opinion you don't have to indicate that on the label. You would have to do it if your primary ingredient were from outside EU.

[Egas]

Hi Egas,

if you declared on the label that product comes from EU and primary ingredient is also from EU, in my opinion you don't have to indicate that on the label. You would have to do it if your primary ingredient were from outside EU.

 

Thanks Williamzy,

That’s what I think.

[Egas]

And here I am again... 

 

Can I please have your opinion on water as the primary ingredient? 

 

In sauces for example, the water is 75% of the product. Can this be considered the primary ingredient? Once again, this isn't very clear :-/ 

 

Any help would be much appreciated. 

 

Thank you. 

Edited by Egas, 03 February 2020 - 03:56 PM.

[pHruit]

And here I am again... 

 

Can I please have your opinion on water as the primary ingredient? 

 

In sauces for example, the water is 75% of the product. Can this be considered the primary ingredient? Once again, this isn't very clear :-/ 

 

Any help would be much appreciated. 

 

Thank you. 

 

I'd consider this in the context of Article 2(2)(q) of 1169/2011: 'Primary ingredient' means an ingredient or ingredients of a food that represent more than 50% of that food or which are usually associated with the name of the food by the consumer and for which in most cases a quantitative indication is required'.

 

There is scope for water to be a primary ingredient but the cases are quite specific. Does the water have a particular attribute or attributes that make it somehow "special", e.g. is it a named spring water? If not then I'd think it unlikely to be a primary ingredient, but there could be exceptions

Assuming the water isn't the primary ingredient, is there a component which is "usually associated with the name of the food by the consumer"?
For example a hypothetical tomato sauce that was 75% water / 23% tomato / 1% chilli / 1% salt (doesn't sound like a great sauce  ), the tomato component probably be the one to look at.

[mcright]

Hello,

 

Perhaps you can find some answers in the Communication from the European Commission (published 31/01/2020):

 

https://eur-lex.euro...6638540&from=ES

[Egas]

I'd consider this in the context of Article 2(2)(q) of 1169/2011: 'Primary ingredient' means an ingredient or ingredients of a food that represent more than 50% of that food or which are usually associated with the name of the food by the consumer and for which in most cases a quantitative indication is required'.

 

There is scope for water to be a primary ingredient but the cases are quite specific. Does the water have a particular attribute or attributes that make it somehow "special", e.g. is it a named spring water? If not then I'd think it unlikely to be a primary ingredient, but there could be exceptions

Assuming the water isn't the primary ingredient, is there a component which is "usually associated with the name of the food by the consumer"?
For example a hypothetical tomato sauce that was 75% water / 23% tomato / 1% chilli / 1% salt (doesn't sound like a great sauce  ), the tomato component probably be the one to look at.

Hi,

The water does not have a particular attribute, I'm just trying to get some consistency here as we have a range of 10 sauces where the water is more than 50% and all of them have different ingredients. If water is considered as an ingredient, I'd assume we're not misleading anyone by not stating the provenance of the tomato  for example. If we say made in the UK, the water if from the UK... :-) 

Just thought I could get away with it.. guess not.. :-\

[Egas]

Hello,

 

Perhaps you can find some answers in the Communication from the European Commission (published 31/01/2020):

 

https://eur-lex.euro...6638540&from=ES

Thanks for this. 

 

According to Article 2(2)(q) of the Regulation, ‘primary ingredient’ means an ingredient or ingredients of a food that represent more than 50 % of that food or which are usually associated with the name of the food by the consumer and for which in most cases a quantitative indication is required.

 

Well, the way I read this it can be both.. why can't the water be considered the primary ingredient if its more than 50%? 

Edited by Egas, 03 February 2020 - 04:57 PM.