IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v17y2018i3p43-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nutritional Labelling in the EU: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Regulatory Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Alessia Cavaliere
  • Elisa De Marchi
  • Alessandro Banterle

Abstract

Nutritional information on labels may impact positively on consumer food choices potentially enabling them to better judge the overall healthiness of foods and leading towards more aware and health‐oriented choices. Given its potential anticipated benefits, nutritional labelling regulation has been a priority in many countries over the last decades, and Nutrition Facts labelling became mandatory in the EU with the EU Regulation 1169/2011. However, even though mandatory Nutrition Facts labelling is crucial from a market perspective as it contributes to reducing information asymmetry, it may not be so effective from a health standpoint. Indeed, alongside mandatory indications the Regulation allows producers to report a number of additional and varying nutrition‐related information on a voluntary basis. Although these labels are important to provide consumers with supplementary contents, there is a risk that they generate information overload, making it difficult for individuals to compare different products. In this regard, consumers would likely benefit from more harmonised and standardised voluntary labels that could ultimately facilitate consumers in interpreting the nutrition facts information and translating them into a guidance for healthy food choices. Les informations nutritionnelles inscrites sur les étiquettes peuvent avoir un impact positif sur les choix alimentaires des consommateurs, leur permettant ainsi de mieux juger des bienfaits des aliments sur la santé en général et conduisant à des choix plus conscients et axés sur la santé. Compte tenu des avantages potentiels escomptés, la réglementation en matière d’étiquetage nutritionnel a été une priorité dans de nombreux pays au cours des dernières décennies et les informations nutritionnelles sont devenues obligatoires dans l'Union européenne grâce au règlement (UE) n° 1169/2011. Cependant, même si l’étiquetage obligatoire des valeurs nutritives est crucial du point de vue du marché car elle contribue à réduire l'asymétrie de l'information, elle peut ne pas être aussi efficace du point de vue de la santé. En effet, parallèlement aux indications obligatoires, le règlement permet aux producteurs de communiquer volontairement un certain nombre d'informations supplémentaires et variées relatives à la nutrition. Bien que ces mentions soient importantes pour fournir aux consommateurs des contenus supplémentaires, elles risquent toutefois de générer une surcharge d'informations, ce qui compliquera la comparaison de différents produits pour les acheteurs individuels. À cet égard, il serait probablement plus avantageux pour les consommateurs de disposer d’étiquettes volontaires plus harmonisées et normalisées qui pourraient en fin de compte les aider à interpréter les informations factuelles sur la nutrition et à les traduire en une orientation pour des choix alimentaires sains. Nährwertinformationen auf Lebensmittelverpackungen können eine positive Wirkung auf die Kaufentscheidungen der Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher haben. Sie ermöglichen eine bessere Einschätzung darüber, ob ein Lebensmittel gesund ist und können daher zu bewussteren und gesundheitsorientierteren Kaufentscheidungen führen. Ausgehend vom potenziell erwarteten Nutzen haben viele Länder in den letzten Jahrzehnten mit hoher Priorität an einem gesetzlichen Rahmen für die Nährwertkennzeichnung gearbeitet. Diese wurden in der EU dann mit der Verordnung 1169/2011 verpflichtend. Obwohl Nährwertangaben aus der marktwirtschaftlichen Sicht bedeutsam sind, da sie Informationsasymmetrien reduzieren, können sie aus gesundheitlicher Sicht wenig effektiv sein. Die Verordnung erlaubt es nämlich Lebensmittelherstellern, neben den verpflichtenden Angaben, verschiedene Informationen zum Nährwert des Produktes auf freiwilliger Basis hinzuzufügen. Diese Angaben sind zwar wichtig, um Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern zusätzliche Informationen zur Verfügung zu stellen, allerdings besteht die Gefahr, dass es zu einer Informationsüberflutung kommt. Hierdurch wird es schwierig, verschiedene Produkte zu vergleichen. Folglich würden Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher wahrscheinlich von stärker harmonisierten und standardisierten freiwilligen Kennzeichnungen profitieren, die es ihnen ermöglichen, die Nährwertangaben zu interpretieren und so eine gesundheitsorientierte Kaufentscheidung zu treffen.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessia Cavaliere & Elisa De Marchi & Alessandro Banterle, 2018. "Nutritional Labelling in the EU: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Regulatory Framework," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(3), pages 43-48, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:17:y:2018:i:3:p:43-48
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12206
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12206?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Shogren, Jason (ed.), 2011. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199569441.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    2. Matthias Staudigel & Aleksej Trubnikov, 2022. "High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 309-334, April.
    3. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    4. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    5. Irz, Xavier & Leroy, Pascal & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Economic assessment of nutritional recommendations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 188-210.
    6. Dieter Pennerstorfer & Nora Schindler & Christoph Weiss & Biliana Yontcheva, 2020. "Income Inequality and Product Variety: Empirical Evidence," Economics working papers 2020-17, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    7. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    8. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    9. Crosetto, P. & Lacroix, A. & Muller, L. & Ruffieux, B., 2018. "Nutritional and economic impact of 5 alternative front-of-pack nutritional labels: experimental evidence," Working Papers 2018-11, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    10. Oranuch Wongpiyabovorn & Alejandro Plastina & John M. Crespi, 2021. "US Agriculture as a Carbon Sink: From International Agreements to Farm Incentives," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp627, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    11. Whittle, Henry J. & Palar, Kartika & Hufstedler, Lee Lemus & Seligman, Hilary K. & Frongillo, Edward A. & Weiser, Sheri D., 2015. "Food insecurity, chronic illness, and gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area: An example of structural violence in United States public policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 154-161.
    12. Olivier Bargain & Jinan Zeidan, 2019. "Heterogeneous effects of obesity on mental health: Evidence from Mexico," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 447-460, April.
    13. Kikushima, Ryosuke, 2019. "Spatial Competition among Farmers' Markets," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 21.
    14. Nga Thi Viet Nguyen & Felipe F. Dizon, 2017. "The Geography of Welfare in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Togo," World Bank Publications - Reports 27994, The World Bank Group.
    15. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    16. Florence Jusot & Sandy Tubeuf & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Circumstances And Efforts: How Important Is Their Correlation For The Measurement Of Inequality Of Opportunity In Health?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(12), pages 1470-1495, December.
    17. Gergaud, Olivier & Livat, Florine & Rickard, Bradley & Warzynski, Frederic, 2016. "The Costs and Benefits of Collective Reputation: Who gains and who loses from generic promotion programs?," Working Papers 231135, American Association of Wine Economists.
    18. Swinnen, J. & Meloni, G. & Haeck, C., 2018. "What is the Value of Terroir? Historical Evidence from Champagne and Bordeaux," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277221, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Depositario, Dinah Pura T., 2014. "Do practice rounds affect experimental auction results?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 42-44.
    20. Mirzobobo Yormirzoev & Ramona Teuber & Daniil Baranov, 2018. "Is Tajikistan a Potential Market for Genetically Modified Potatoes?," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 216-226.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:17:y:2018:i:3:p:43-48. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.