Proposition 54K1124

Proposition de résolution relative à la notification d'un label d'alimentation positive à l'Union européenne.

General information ¶

Author

N-VA Yoleen Van Camp

Submission date

May 27, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public awareness campaign consumer information labelling quality label food industry resolution of parliament malnutrition nutrition nutritional disease

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Vooruit LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 19, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, my colleague Piedboeuf and myself refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, the timing for the discussion of this proposal for a resolution could not be better, as today there has been a widespread discussion in the media that we are dealing with an obesity problem, in particular with regard to the problem of sugar in food products.

I would like to briefly introduce the reasons for this resolution. In this country, one in two people is overweight and if we can believe the WHO calculations, it spends 7% of the total health spending, a small 2 billion euros.

Especially the evolution of the problem is important. If we look at the health survey, which maps the problem of the BMI of the Belgians, we see that the prevalence of overweight has increased from 41 to 48% and of real obesity from 11 to 14%. According to studies, obesity would have a similar effect on the body as much as twenty years of aging. Obesity is also linked to all sorts of chronic conditions, such as cancer — many people don’t know it —, high blood pressure, diabetes, sleep problems, and so on.

There is also the important health-economic aspect. If we can believe the OECD figures and transpose them to our situation, then we find that the 14% obese Belgians account for annual additional costs of 450 million euros. If we add the 3.8 million overweight Belgians, we will, depending on what costs we directly or indirectly add, add another 100 to 400 million euros of additional costs per year. Together, this leads to additional costs of up to 1 billion euros.

Typical of our group, I must point out that due to the state structure of this country, it is ⁇ difficult to address problems such as obesity. First of all, we see, for example, that the problem is very different depending on the provinces. I just pick something out. The rate of obesity among young people in Brussels and Wallonia is approximately 25%, while in Flanders it is only 16%. The most important aspect is that the Flemish government is and remains competent for prevention, while the treatment is situated at the federal level. In other words, Flanders never reap the fruits of the efforts in the field of prevention. In addition, it also does not have the resources for it.

I will then come to the solution, as proposed in the present resolution.

Mrs. Van Camp, I would like to talk about that. We fully agree with the noble aim of this proposal for a resolution, but you rightly point out the overlap with the Community competence. I consider that the second and third points of the actual resolution are misunderstood in the sense that they do not take into account the excess of power. In this resolution, the initiative to sit together with the Flemish level comes from the federal level, whereas those matters just fall within the Flemish competence.

I understand your concern, but I would ⁇ have formulated it differently in the second and third points of the resolution, rather than allowing the initiative from the federal level to prevail over the competence of the Flemish Community.

This, in my opinion, is included in the resolution. There are also side-by-side channels, such as the Inter-Ministerial Conference, which deals with this. These channels exist; we only refer to them.

Colleagues, in order to find a solution, it is important to know that obesity cannot be addressed simply by pushing one particular aspect forward, as we do today, for example, with food labelling. Clear consumer information is important, but it is ⁇ not the only solution. If we want to help overweight and obesity out of the world, we need a comprehensive approach. It is important that the consumer is clearly informed and in the store in a glance assisted in making a healthy choice.

With a few examples, I show that making choices really isn’t easy for consumers. Those who have seen the program About Food now know that. Potatoes contain three times fewer calories than rice. Brown bread contains more calories than white bread, but is healthier and less obese. There are also constant questions about what is healthy and how many calories a product contains. Dried fruits, for example, contain a lot of calories, but are healthy. In this situation, the consumer finds it difficult to get away. This improves the present proposal.

Initially, our group had specifically opted for a positive labelling of foods, by applying a logo, a mark, on the front of the food packaging. We wanted this logo to be notified at European level.

Colleagues from other political groups, including CD&V and Ecolo-Groen, have made other proposals. These include other options, such as the red traffic light system. It should be noted that other systems are also being used. Australia, for example, is working on a star system. In order to make the right choices, we in the committee decided to proceed to hearings with all stakeholders. The meeting was attended by government agencies, industry, consumer associations and representatives of scientific institutions.

The rapporteur referred to the written report. I will limit myself to what has been discussed in the hearings and what we have included in the resolution, which we have jointly drawn up.

At present, there is no consensus with all stakeholders. We want to ⁇ them. Advice is required on what exactly we want to implement. We want, first and foremost, a harmonised approach at European level rather than national initiatives, which, of course, is not ideal with our market functioning.

There are still important reports on the shelf, such as a report from the European Commission. By 2017, we expect a report on the alternative forms of nutritional labelling used in Member States.

Whatever system is chosen, monitoring the effects is important. Of course – I have already mentioned it myself – food labelling is only one aspect and is not the solution to obesity. It must be incorporated into a comprehensive approach.

An important aspect that the FAVV has pushed forward is the attention to the small entrepreneur, who is already beaten to the ears with labelling measures and who needs to be able to stay up-to-date in practice. We all agree on the need for a scientifically based approach. All stakeholders are very happy to collaborate on this.

Another study I forgot to mention, and that comes up, is the CLYMBOL study.

It has been said that we need to think carefully about which system to use. We can’t push something forward and take the view that “it doesn’t work, it doesn’t hurt.” The FLABEL study clearly showed that it is also possible that certain nutritional claims, such as light foods, whose aim was to make consumers eat healthier, may have the opposite effect. We want to be careful about this in our proposal.

Therefore, after the hearings, we sat down together and, together with the majority groups and Ecolo-Groen, wrote out a summary of the hearings and submitted that text to the committee. The text follows the comments of all stakeholders: consumer associations, scientific research institutions, industry and government agencies. The text follows all the comments made during the hearings.

We want to incorporate the proposal into a multifocal approach, in consultation with the counties. After all, the reality we still live in today is that the powers in this matter are distributed across different levels.

We specifically request that the different possibilities be examined, both in terms of the available scientific information that we currently have and in terms of the various existing systems in the Member States. We ask that it be looked at which systems work there and what effects they have.

It is important that we then sit around the table with all the parties involved to reach a clear system, embedded in a global plan, which, however, does not transcend the European reality and thus preferably advocates a uniform approach.

Finally, regardless of which system is implemented, we ask that the necessary monitoring of the system be carried out and that attention be paid to the smallest operators in the chain.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our committee has been considering the labelling of foodstuffs for a while. After a number of hearings, we have reached a resolution proposal to introduce a supplementary labelling system on food packaging.

Over the past decades, obesity has taken endemic proportions in Western societies. I will not return to the figures that were cited in the committee. However, it is important to take action to counter this situation that also affects children.

If, as we are accused, we only address one aspect of the problem, this food labelling system will make it easier for consumers to find themselves in the complex information on the labels. It should also enable them to find simpler and healthier alternatives to products that potentially promote overweight.

Clearly, it is urgent to ensure the right of consumers to make choices based on correct, clear and understandable information. As noted in the committee, this work will need to be done in collaboration not only with the food industry but also with consumer organisations, the medical and academic world.

The implementation of such a measure will not be possible without the contribution and collaboration of the federated entities. This is a fundamental element. In fact, it is not enough to take initiatives at the federal level, it is still necessary to participate and commit the federated entities. Directives should also be considered at European level or, in any case, a number of calls for initiatives to be taken at this level. It seems essential that better harmonisation in this area takes place, beyond simple national initiatives.

Therefore, I will not be surprised to tell you that the MR group will vote in favour of this resolution. Today, consumers who do not know exactly the content of their dishes demand clearer information about packaging, and therefore about the quality of their contents. This is the purpose of the resolution proposal that is submitted to you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the proposal for a resolution submitted to us today states the following: Obesity is becoming increasingly common in our country. It is a reality. The World Health Organization predicts a serious epidemic in Europe by 2030. Given the harmful health consequences and the cost of obesity to the health care budget, action is needed. My group is fully aware of this and shares this commitment to finding effective solutions. The solution promoted by this resolution is the establishment of a uniform, clear and understandable supplementary food labelling system. It’s a good track, one of the paths. Such a system can contribute to healthier choices and a healthier food supply. But labelling is not the only goal in itself of fighting obesity, it will not alone be able to fight the plague that obesity constitutes.

When we got to know the various texts that were on the table, we had a lot of questions and concerns. The first was whether it was necessary to advance on a national labelling system, while at the same time the authors rightly advocated harmonisation at European level. Unfortunately, the resolution discussed today is not conclusive. It considers the establishment of a system specific to our country, while always looking for a uniformization at the European level. Let me find this somewhat inconsistent.

The labels have diversified. They have multiplied in recent years. We thought that a thorough reflection should be carried out in this context.

I would formally contradict that. We clearly make a choice.

A small moment. We need to provide Senesael with an ear to listen to the translation.

I must argue that we would not make a clear choice. In the hearings and in the committee meetings, it has been widely discussed that, of course, a uniform European approach is preferred. I repeated this in my presentation. We have an open market operation. Products with the label "I choose consciously" are already in the shelves today. Hence the importance of a uniform approach.

In anticipation and in the absence of this, we want steps to be taken at the national level. All the players also agreed to this in the hearings.

Thank you, Madame Van Camp. In the aftermath of my text, I will return to your statement.

We thought that a thorough reflection should be carried out in this framework and, from the beginning, we knew that it would be extremely complicated to legislate on this subject. This has also been highlighted very quickly, you said, during the hearings we conducted. This resolution, which in our eyes constitutes a real empty shell, testifies to this.

I hope that the government has not waited for this resolution to organize a round table with the parties involved in food labelling, to inform themselves about what is happening in other European countries or to advocate at European level for the implementation of a clear and understandable labelling system.

Beyond the selected labeling system, which in any case deserves a much more pushed reflection, knowing that at present there is no consensus on the most effective model, one can ask what you specifically want through this resolution.

Are you considering a mandatory or voluntary labelling system? Member States are only allowed to take measures that are part of a voluntary perspective. However, according to the hearings, not making this system mandatory would undoubtedly make him lose his strength.

Are you considering setting conditions for the award of the label by a competent authority, such as the SPF Public Health or by an external organization? Are you considering labelling that only concerns pre-packaged foods or also those without packaging? Do you already consider taking specific nutritional, dietary or food criteria into account when choosing labelling? We are still asking questions at this stage.

You will tell me that this is better than nothing. Given the time we have spent on this matter, the discussions we have had, the hearings that have been conducted, and seeing that we were not able to uncover concrete clues in the matter, it would undoubtedly have been better to put the matter aside, to give time to think about it again, to wait ...

Of course, we do not make a choice, I have told you that too.

We had a concrete choice on the table. I think that you were not present during the hearings and that you, as the rapporteur afterwards, did not take the time to read the report, because that is all literally in it. It is stated that it is not timely to make a choice; it is even literally stated everywhere that there is no consensus yet. Which system do you want to push forward, against the will of the consumer organisations, but also of the industry, the scientists and the government agencies?

Mrs. Van Camp, I thank you for your intervention but I cannot accept your statements that I would not have read the report. This is completely false! I do not find this very honest on your part.

Furthermore, I confirm to you that our decision was not to follow the case directly, but to let it mature so that Europe can evolve towards more harmonised provisions. I think I also said this in my speech.

Therefore, it is literally stated that we want to take that approach.

I would also like to make another correction. You say that it is not possible to impose a mandatory system. The FOD has said that very clearly in the statement, which once again proves that you do not master something. Unique labels can be obtained through the Claims Regulation No. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 provides for multiple indicators for labelling foodstuffs. 1169/2006 was approved.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to supplement what Mr. Van Camp said.

If we choose a system, we can only choose one system. This must be certified by the government. We cannot choose from different systems.

What is important is that there is support. Manufacturers should not follow the procedure, they are not obliged to apply those labels. The consultation is crucial to get as many producers as possible for a single system.

To say that we should choose a system today would be very wrong. A system is then set up, which different producers most likely won’t follow.

In any case, the position of our group is clear, we wanted to wait for the progress at the European level and the results of scientific studies, instead of voting this text in precipitation.

Anthony Robbins once said, “A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action. If there is no action, you have not really decided.” That is why my group will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I myself also submitted a proposal for a resolution, which differs in a few details from what is proposed jointly today. The reasons for this are clear, for all the colleagues who signed with. People need to adopt a healthier lifestyle and for this the government is a facilitator. She can provide stimuli and provide better information about nutrition.

It has already been said repeatedly: the increase in the number of people with obesity is a global concern, it is an epidemic according to the World Health Organization. In 2014, 45% of the Belgian population had a BMI greater than 25, of which 16% effectively struggled with obesity. Eighty percent of Belgians, however, consider their eating habits to be pretty good to very good, while the health survey very clearly shows the opposite. Action is therefore necessary.

An established fact is that overweight and obesity are known risk factors for the non-communicable diseases, which have already been cited later. A healthy and balanced diet, limiting the amount of saturated fats, salt and sugar, is therefore a crucial link.

This resolution proposal does not pretend to respond to all the challenges of food policy. It remains necessary to point out, among other things, the importance of a healthy lifestyle, also a competence of the Flemish government, the beneficial effect of physical exercise and the dangers of excessive alcohol and tobacco use, a problem of which our federal government is also working. Here, food labelling or labelling is one piece of puzzle that fits into an integrated approach to obesity and overweight.

The focus on food labelling is not new. The European Directive on labelling was adopted in 2011. That Directive, which entered into force at the beginning of 2014, establishes a number of minimum provisions and allows producers to voluntarily include additional information for the consumer on the packaging, as I said earlier, provided that certain conditions are met.

In our proposal for a resolution, we ask the federal government to clearly inform consumers through symbols about the amount of fat, sugar and salt contained in a particular product. An adapted and clear food label will not in itself cause a revolution. However, such a label will ensure that a consumer has maximum freedom of choice. Our proposals, therefore, do not say what the consumer should or should not do, we would not dare; we only ensure that he can choose a specific product more targetedly, based on transparent and easily understood information and symbols.

Many surveys have already shown that the consumer is the requesting party.

How that food label should look like, let us today in the middle. Even the experts we heard during the hearings did not choose a particular system. They have not spoken about this. In our proposal for a resolution, we have therefore deliberately not chosen a particular system, such as the UK traffic lighting system or the Dutch IKB system. One reason is that there are several examples of such labels, both at European and international levels, each with its advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, in our text we have only spoken about the modalities to come to such a label.

Three aspects are important for this.

First, the scientific research, which is very strongly present and that must be compared by the federal government.

The second important element is that all stakeholders must contribute. Both consumer organisations, the food industry, the government and the academic world must take responsibility. Only if they agree, we will have a worn label in Belgium. It is a common place to say that the food industry is against. A FEVIA survey shows that this is not the case and I think the time is ripe to create a support with the various stakeholders of the food label.

Third, we should not try to reinvent the hot water. There are numerous foreign initiatives, which I will not list all. Of the surrounding countries, France has recently adopted a new food label. It is important to compare the advantages and disadvantages of these systems.

It is advisable to begin before 2017, the year in which a European report on food labelling with its advantages and disadvantages and its impact on consumers and the food industry, in Belgium with a consultation with all stakeholders to see in what direction we are evolving and what system we could push forward.

As Senesael rightly noted, there are different European developments. We can do nothing about it, but it does not take away that we must still work to evolve into a system, because it is so strongly carried by the consumer.

The purpose of the draft resolution is to ⁇ harmonisation. We advocate this and at the European level we will contribute to the 2017 report. We will indicate to what extent we have already started a consultation and what could be the best system for Belgium. Our proposal aims to make it a quick win. People want to know what they eat, people want to know what they will eventually get fat. In that sense, I think it could be a quick win for the federal government, and more specifically for the Minister of Health, to work on it quickly.

The system is not only important in terms of information, colleagues, but can also be an incentive for producers to change the composition of their products. In the Netherlands, it has been shown that since the introduction of such a system, the producers want to have such a label and they consciously reduce the fat, salt or sugar. In this way, they offer healthier foods to consumers. In short, it has the good side effect that our products will become healthier in this way.

I am therefore convinced of the effect of these labels on the consumer, although it is still too early to determine what such a label should look like in terms of content and form. However, such a system gives consumers the opportunity to make healthier choices, and that is the intention.

I therefore ask you to approve the resolution on food labelling, and I ask the government to promptly launch the consultation to reach a single system, and to advocate harmonisation at European level.

Many things have already been said. I will not repeat it all.

I would like to briefly highlight the emphasis of this resolution for our group. A food label aims to make it easier for people to find their way in the complicated information that today appears on the labels of food packaging.

With this resolution, we ask the Minister to launch a broad round of consultations with all interested parties on the introduction of a system of supplementary labelling of food products.

We do not intentionally express our preference. We do not say which system takes away our preference. Many food labels already exist in Europe. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. It is therefore desirable that we ask the European countries that have already introduced a food label about the effect it has had there. Then we need to consult with all stakeholders.

Community and federal government awareness-raising and prevention actions on healthy eating and exercise have taught us that realizing behavioral changes is not easy. It is not because people know that something is unhealthy that they change their behavior.

The resolution therefore correctly emphasizes that a nutritional label is not the solution to the problem of obesity. It can at most contribute to an improvement of the situation. A label can help people more easily estimate whether or not what they have in their hands belongs to the healthier products.

The hearings also taught us that even food labels do not guarantee that people will influence their buying behavior through labels. After all, there are many other factors that determine their buying behavior.

Per ⁇ more important, and that was also cited by Ms. Van Hoof, is the fact that food producers, in order to obtain the label, will work faster on the re-formulation of their products, aiming at less sugar, less salt, less fats and more unsaturated fats.

I would like to emphasize the need to incorporate a potential label into a global plan, with a lasting emphasis on prevention and on teaching healthy eating habits, especially to children and young people. This is a role that communities should take on. For this, too, we will have to work with the Communities, if we want to ⁇ success.

If we would move to the introduction of a label, it is essential that we inform people very well about what such a label teaches us about the content of products.

Open Vld asks the minister to investigate to what extent the use of behavioral sciences can help us to lead people to healthy eating. We know that the FOD Public Health already appeals to the behavioral sciences. Therefore, I look forward with great interest to the added value that behavioral sciences could have on the eating habits of the Belgians.

For us, this is not just a resolution on food labels.

This is the result of a positive, constructive cooperation from the opposition. After all, I share the concern of my colleagues from N-VA and CD&V that the consumer really does not know what he gets on his plate at the moment.

Protecting public health means, first and foremost, reducing the risk of misleading and providing consumers with accurate, honest and accurate information.

These are the main reasons why we have decided to work together on a joint amendment that improves the resolution and has crossed the boundaries of majority and opposition.

It has already been stated by several speakers that the intent here is not to help obesity out of the world. We are not naive. However, better food labelling helps us make a small step forward in the fight against non-communicable diseases as well as obesity. Food labels are one thing. However, to remedy obesity, much more is needed. However, it is a first step.

This resolution is not about a global policy against obesity. It is about clarity, through a visible label with the sign on the front of the packaging, which is very important to make the consumer more informed.

We want to move forward with the resolution. A very important figure is that 91% of Belgians support government interventions to promote healthy eating. This is indeed a broad support.

At first, we wanted to go further.

Mr Senesael has also already asked why one label cannot be chosen. Why are we not far enough to advocate the color codes and traffic lighting system? If it had been up to us, we would have really liked to see it.

Of course, we also want to see that outside the European framework Belgium would play a leading role with voluntary measures.

Nevertheless, we would like to approve the resolution, as we welcome that some of our amendments have been accepted, including the amendment that proposes placing clear and clearly visible information on the front of the packaging.

I see a few missed opportunities.

I have already mentioned the first missed opportunity. We do not explicitly opt for a traffic lighting system, which we believe has already achieved a lot of good evidence-based results. However, the opinions differed on this.

A second missed opportunity has already been mentioned. The fact that we do not work on the nutritional profiles is at this time also a missed opportunity.

I conclude, however, by stressing that we absolutely believe that the resolution is a good first step in the right direction.

There is a proverb that says, “Better one bird in the hand than ten in the air.” So let’s start with this bird in hand. Therefore, Ecolo-Green will vote for the resolution from a constructive, positive attitude.

We want healthy food in the shelves, with clear information that people understand and in which the food industry cooperates honestly.

Dear colleagues, I will go pretty quickly. I did not quite understand the purpose of the resolution. If its objective was, in essence, to work in the field of an extremely important public health issue, namely obesity and overweight, and above all of their consequences, whether it be type 2 diabetes or even cardiovascular pathologies, then this resolution fails to address these challenges.

In the committee or in the plenary session, you have all long recalled these issues, their incidence, the evolution of the problem, the number of young and younger people who are affected. But the issue of food labelling is never but a very isolated and punctual element of a much broader problem. We proposed in a committee to hold a much broader debate, with a real public health approach, on obesity and overweight. You did not agree to this point. It does not matter. I think it is a shame to see this problem through the little bit of the hornet.

Mrs. Van Camp asks for the floor.

Ms. Fonck, the resolution states that this is one aspect of a comprehensive approach. We are definitely open to a debate. Nothing prevents you from approving this resolution today and then discussing all other possible measures in a holistic approach. We are also looking forward to your suggestions on this subject.

I do not agree, despite your reaction, with what I have just said. I stand and sign. When one wants to have a scientific, rigorous and above all ambitious approach to this public health issue, one should obviously not consider it only from one aspect and only from one point of the bottom.

If, on the contrary, the objective of your resolution was to work on another issue, different but equally important, namely the issue of food labelling, which goes far beyond the nutritional aspects – they are one but not the only one – then again, unfortunately, you have missed the objective.

E100, E200, E300, E400 are food additives. You’re there with your wolf but you don’t always know what it’s about. Should you quote the example of parents, whose children are allergic to a number of food contents for which readability, access to information at the level of labelling is, so to speak, almost null for a person who is neither a scientist nor an expert in these matters. If your goal was to educate the citizen about food labelling and content, you have, I repeat, failed.

Finally, let me tell you how surprised I was by the content of the motion. We are in the House, in a parliamentary assembly, and we are going to vote a resolution asking the Minister to arrange a round table. Mr Borsus, I have no doubt that you will tell the Minister of Health that she should organize a round table. We are here in the House to vote on a resolution, which asks the Minister of Health to inform other European countries. I thought the European benchmarking was obvious, not just for ministers. We could, as parliamentarians, do a bit of European benchmarking on all these issues.

I find that a proposal for a resolution is being voted to ask the Minister to pay particular attention to fundamental scientific research. I dare believe, however, that both the Minister of Health and we, parliamentarians, were equally inclined, at least I do, to follow scientific research carefully.

This is part of the day-to-day work of the government and even the government. We will abstain from this text. I remain convinced that these are major issues, public health issues, but also issues with respect to all citizens who find it hard to find themselves in terms of readability, understanding of labels, especially on foodstuffs.

We will abstain because, in a word, the content as such of the resolution is not at all ambitious. It is a pity. You are passing by a major goal. I dare hope, dear colleagues, that in the future we will be able to work with a little more ambition and consistency on these cases.