Navigation path

Left navigation

Additional tools

Tag ‘labelling’

New eggs cannot be called eggs

Monday, August 14th, 2000
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)

It is the egg that dare not speak its name – thanks to the bureaucrats of Brussels. In what astonished critics derided as a half-baked decision, European Union officials have ruled that a new egg from Sainsbury’s cannot be called by its proper name – because it has been slightly heated up to get rid of hazardous bugs.
(Daily Mail, p8, 14 August 2000)

This is untrue. The Commission had made no such pronouncement, nor had it even investigated the issue. Whether or not the treated egg can be labelled ‘fresh’ or otherwise remains to be seen. The Commission takes seriously the need for proper labelling to enable informed consumer choice within the single market. In September it adopted a proposal for the compulsory, clear and unambiguous labelling of the farming method used to produce eggs. This was to increase consumer awareness of new rules on the protection of laying hens agreed in 1999.

Row over Latin labels

Wednesday, May 19th, 1999
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

The Telegraph, 19 May 1999, p1
Anyone suffering from an allergy to nuts will need to know rudimentary Latin to understand the labels of cosmetics and toiletries because of new Brussels regulations.

Daily Mail, 19 May 1999, p34
… the Eurocrats’ directive insists that all cosmetics and other personal care products must be labelled in the long-dead language [of Latin] will pose something of a problem.

Consumer health groups have railed against an EU cosmetics labelling Directive, claiming it could pose a threat to allergy sufferers. Far from being an anti-consumer measure, the whole point of developing internationally recognised terminology is to help consumers recognise ingredients, regardless of where in the EU they have bought a product. Latin will be used in some, but not all, cases but there is absolutely nothing to stop the additional inclusion of English translations, for example if allergenic ingredients such as nut-derivatives are used. Many manufacturers are already doing so.

Medicines to receive Latin labelling

Tuesday, May 18th, 1999
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

ROW OVER LATIN LABELS
‘Quid hoc significat?’ – If you understand the Latin for ‘What does that mean?’ then you’ll have no trouble with a new EC rule on labelling.  For the rest of us, the Eurocrats’ directive insisting that all cosmetics and other personal care products must be labelled in the long-dead language will pose something of a problem.
(Daily Mail, page 34, 19 May 1999)

HEALTH WARNING: SOME PRODUCTS CONTAIN LATIN
(The Daily Telegraph, page 1, 19 May 1999)

LABELS IN LATIN ARE ALL GREEK TO ALLERGY SUFFERERS
(Evening Standard, page 19, 18 May 1999)

NUTTY NEW COSMETIC LABELLING LAWS
(Which Magazine, May 1999)

Consumer health groups have railed against an EU cosmetics labelling Directive, claiming it could pose a threat to allergy sufferers.  Sections of the press took the opportunity to misrepresent yet another EU policy. Far from being an anti-consumer measure, the whole point of developing internationally recognised terminology is to help consumers recognise ingredients, regardless of where in the EU they have bought a product.  Latin will be used in some, but not all, cases but there is absolutely nothing to stop the additional inclusion of English translations, for example if allergenic ingredients such as nut-derivatives are used.  Many manufacturers are already doing so.

Brandy Butter

Sunday, April 12th, 1998
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.5/5 (2 votes cast)

The European, 6-12 April 1998, p13
Brandy butter is to be renamed ‘brandy spreadable fat’. According to an amendment to EC regulation 577/97/EC to take effect from September, a sliding scale of labelling requirements will be required permitting the use of the term butter for products which are at least one third dairy fat.

Accurate labelling is required to ensure that dairy products marketed throughout the EU inform customers and protect the interests of producers in order that butter substitutes or margarine, for example, cannot be passed off as butter. Account has to be taken of traditional products such as brandy butter. Normally, for these products to be called “butter” they should contain 75 per cent milk fat. However, products like brandy butter cannot be made with this percentage of milk fat.
A 1997 regulation sets out the products that can be exempted from this norm. It defined ‘Brandy Butter’, in addition to ‘Sherry Butter’, or ‘Rum butter’, as a sweetened, alcoholic product with a minimum fat content of 34 per cent. It later emerged that some UK producers were planning to produce butters with other alcohols so an amendment was made by Regulation in March 1998 to broaden the definition to all alcoholic butters with the 34 per cent minimum. An amended regulation of 1999, making special note to traditional UK produce, reduces to 20 per cent the amount of milk fat required. British consumers can be sure that brandy butter really is what it says on the packet, and not a cheap substitute.

EC in the UK

Check the EC Representation in the UK website

Please note that all statements in all entries were correct on the date of publication given. However, older archived posts are not systematically updated in the light of later developments, for example changes to EU law.

Share buttons

Twitter feeds

Comments

We welcome your comments. They will be moderated. Please keep to the topic and use respectful language.

Archives