According to research carried out by the Food and Drink Federation [http://www.fdf.org.uk/news.aspx?article=5504], shoppers continue to be confused by the difference between ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ – both of which are set to stay. The former states when a perishable food is no longer fit for consumption; the latter gives information about the quality of non-perishable food products [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14926429].

Reducing unnecessary food wastage is a goal we should all share and DEFRA’s guidance is a bold step in this direction, by removing stock rotation information that is of little use to consumers.  However, it appears there is still a big job to be done to make food labels crystal clear and meaningful to the end customer. It’s a challenge we communicators should rise to and not simply leave to the regulators.

The criticism has not just come from food manufacturers disappointed by EFSA’s opinions.  Last week, a multinational coalition of scientists lobbed a hand grenade the day before EFSA was due to announce its latest batch of opinions.    They called on the EC to halt the regulatory process, protesting that, if approved, certain claims pertaining to foods containing Omega 3 could “deceive” consumers over health benefits.  Undeterred, EFSA issued its opinion that the relevant applications were substantiated by the supporting science dossiers.

So, where does this leave consumers, in whose best interests this process was set up?   Last week I attended focus groups of university educated consumers claiming to follow news of food and nutrition.  Sceptical, but surprisingly pragmatic, about the veracity of claims made by food companies, even this group appeared largely unaware of new rules that prevent unsubstantiated claims.

Isn’t it time that some of the €billions’ worth of time and money being poured into the regulatory process were diverted into educating consumers about what it means?  If people don’t know when they read a claim that it must be true, what’s the point?