The proliferation of food labels has consumers more informed,
more protected—and more confused than ever.

For the past few years, reading the headlines in Europe has been enough to ruin your appetite: Mad cow disease. Dioxin. Hormones. Salmonella. Frankenfoods. Ugh!
    No wonder Europeans are demanding to know more about their food. “Consumer confidence has been shaken,” acknowledges Franz Fischler, the European Union commissioner for agriculture. “Now, we have to win it back.” The first step is to listen to the public’s demands—and apparently there are plenty. “Not only do people want safer and healthier food,” says Fischler, “they also want better quality, the right to know where their food comes from and more ethical treatment of animals.”
    Hence the growing prominence of labels that give consumers important information about the products they eat and drink. The EU Commission, headed by Romano Prodi, recently set up a food safety agency to ensure security “from farm to fork.” Food labeling—one of the best ways to boost consumer confidence—will of course play a significant role.
    The EU first introduced labels indicating quality standards in 1992. Unlike the “Nutritional Facts” so familiar to Americans since 1990—and already used by some EU members—these labels indicate where and how various foods are produced. Laguiole cheese, for example, has earned the PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) label. This means that only cheese made in Aubrac dairies using milk from Aubrac cows that have grazed in specific mountainous areas may legally be called “Laguiole.” The PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) label is somewhat looser, requiring only that a product be either grown, processed or prepared in a specific area—Navarre asparagus, Newcastle Brown Ale and Ardennes ham are among the many European products currently displaying or applying for this logo.
    A third EU label—TSG, or Traditional Speciality Guaranteed—is concerned solely with production methods: Milk-fed veal, endives and mozzarella bearing this label can be produced anywhere in the EU as long as they respect certain traditional methods. And given the recent surge in popularity of organic food, it was obvious that the EU needed to come up with some sort of standard here too. Introduced in March 2000, this newest EU label indicates that 95 percent of a product’s ingredients are organically grown. (A similar logo was introduced in the United States this past fall.)
    The agriculture spokesman for the European Commission, Gregor Kreuzhuber, says the European labeling system has two objectives: to encourage the preservation of regional savoir-faire and to enhance quality. The demand for these labels, he adds, is enormous.
    The EU awards labels on the recommendation of national governments, and candidates must first pass national quality-control tests. Some critics charge that the time and expense involved make it difficult for small producers to obtain European labels and therefore the measure flies in the face of the Commission’s objective of promoting local culinary traditions. The advantages of the labeling system, however, appear to clearly outweigh the disadvantages, and even more EU designations are in the pipeline.
    So what’s next? While Americans are debating the need for new labels indicating trans-fatty acids, irradiation and country of origin, the EU Commission is focusing on developing common standards for nutritional information. It has already banned vague claims such as “promotes well-being” and “80 percent fat-free”—which really means that a product is 20 percent fat—and is discussing strictly regulating other terms such as “low fat,” “high fiber” and “low sugar.” Yet another goal is to inform consumers of allergens such as nuts, even when they are present in very small amounts.
    Existing EU labels, meanwhile, are proving to be lucrative marketing tools, and the number of applications is increasing every year. PDO and PGI labels, for example, already embrace nearly 600 products, with hundreds of other candidates waiting in the wings. Having exclusive rights to a name is an obvious advantage—and is likely to lead to more legal battles as additional localities attempt to claw back what have become generic terms. Already the EU has ordered Danish cheesemakers to stop using the name feta (now protected by a PDO label), even though Denmark produces more of that style of cheese than does Greece itself.
    In another twist, European agriculture ministers recently said that regional producers—in this case, the consortium representing the producers of Parma ham in Italy—should have the exclusive right to slice and package their products, the argument being that the manner in which a product is sliced and packaged can affect its taste. This spring, the case was upheld by the European Court of Justice, and the ruling has potentially huge implications for regional food producers throughout Europe.
    Of course, each of the 15 EU countries—as well as the 10 nations lined up to join by 2004—are free to set their own quality standards as well. That’s where things get really complicated.

Well before the EU got into the labeling business, France already had various designations of its own. The first—and probably best known—is the Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée, established in 1935. As any self-respecting oenophile knows, the initials AOC on a wine label guarantee that the wine was produced in a precisely defined geographic location using traditional savoir-faire and strictly regulated techniques. In recent years, the designation has been extended to dairy products as well as olive oil, fruits, vegetables and other foods.
    The most recent addition to the AOC family (there are some 550 appellations in all, 480 of them for wines) is Banon goat cheese from Haute-Provence. Aged in brown oak leaves tied with natural raffia, Banon claims a history going back more than seven centuries—the last decade of which was spent trying to wrest an AOC label from the Institut National des Appellations d’Origines. It was undoubtedly time well spent, given that the designation enjoys high consumer recognition and confidence.
    More recently, the French government established the Label Rouge (1970) and Certification de Conformité (1988), both attesting to quality, as well as the Agriculture Biologique label found on organic foods meeting criteria established by the Ministry of Agriculture. There’s even a “Montagne” designation for products originating from an altitude above 2,300 feet. Launched in 1985, this label conjures up images of pristine alpine air and green pastures but in fact guarantees nothing except altitude.
    Regional pride—and increased competition within Europe—have prompted several French provinces to create quality labels of their own. One of the newest is the Gourmandie label, which cleverly combines gourmande and Normandie. Shaped like a coat of arms, it features a Norman leopard that looks more like a big yellow cat licking its lips. Local producers hope that it will help consumers identify a range of quality products from a region long famous for its luscious butter, cheese and apples.
    Add to this a host of store, company and private labels, and it is easy to see how French consumers may become somewhat bewildered when contemplating the supermarket shelf. Even McDonald’s has introduced its own official-looking quality sticker. In contrast, Groupe Danone, one of Europe’s biggest food producers, does not use quality labels on the grounds that all of its products are good and that it meets its own exacting standards. But a spokesman for the group says it supports official labeling systems to the extent that they improve the overall standard of food production.
    Bernard Orphelin, a spokesman for the Léo Lagrange Consumers Association, says there are “definitely” too many labels, including what he called “parasites,” such as “products of the year” that claim to be official but are backed by no verifiable standards. The French consumer magazine 60 Millions de Consommateurs concurs, describing European and French food labeling as “a jungle.” Meanwhile, the Economic and Social Council, an official French advisory body, complains that complex labeling is causing confusion and creating legal loopholes.
    The situation is no better in other European countries. A report by the Food Advisory Committee in Britain said shoppers there are misled by meaningless words such as “fresh,” “natural,” “traditional” and “original.” It found the term “farm fresh” on eggs and “homemade” on preserves that came straight out of a factory.
    Equivalent terms in France include “à l’ancienne,” “artisanal,” “maison” and “fermier.” Such terms are used truthfully in many cases, but often they are not. The trouble is that most shoppers have lost the direct links with food producers that were common in the past and are perhaps unconsciously seduced by such references to old-fashioned values.
    Another problem is the enormous scope for fraud in marketing organic products, which can cost as much as 30 percent more than non-organic goods. A number of criminal cases in France a couple of years ago revealed that some producers were charging premium prices for their goods but were including grains that were not produced by organic means. “As in any money-making activity, the possibility for fraud exists,” says Vincent Perrot, director of the National Federation of Organic Agriculture (FNAB). “But we’re doing everything we can to prevent it.”
    Like its equivalent in the United States, the “organic” label in France tells consumers only how a product was made, not how good it is. When the U.S. label was introduced last year, the Department of Agriculture issued a statement that it “makes no claim that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Organic food differs from conventionally produced food in the way it is grown, handled and processed.”
    Nevertheless, concern about the overuse of pesticides and chemical fertilizers is driving up the demand for organic products. The amount of land in France dedicated to organic production has increased from 321,000 to 1,235,500 acres during the past 10 years, representing 1.5 percent of France’s total farmland. But the country still lags well behind the goal set in 1997 by then agriculture minister Louis Le Pensec of placing 1,000,000 hectares (2,471,000 acres) under organic production by 2005, making France the world’s largest organic producer. In spite of a 21 percent gain last year, France still trails Italy, Britain, Spain and Germany.

This being France—a country more than ordinarily obsessed with fine cuisine—it is perhaps not surprising to discover that when it comes to food, flavor comes first. In a poll by the National Consumers Institute (INC), 40 percent of respondents said taste was the most important factor in food—ahead of safety, geographic origin or nutritional value.
    This may explain the popularity of the Label Rouge, the coveted red sticker recognized by four out of five shoppers as offering taste that must by law be better than that of run-of-the-mill food products. Indeed, the more than 400 Label Rouge products have to meet exhaustive standards established by the government after public hearings and consultations with professionals. Once approved, products are regularly tested—and tasted—by third-party certification agencies.
    The Label Rouge appears on products ranging from seafood to beef but is most often associated with poultry. The label in fact originated in the 1960s with small-scale chicken farmers who banded together in cooperatives to bring back traditionally raised farm chickens, which were being squeezed out of the market by cheap but tasteless industrial birds full of growth hormones and antibiotics. (Since then, hormones and most antibiotics have been banned throughout the industry.)
    The farmers’ basic philosophy was that a happy chicken makes for a happy customer. Today, happy à la Label Rouge means complying with a 50-page list of requirements: Selected breeds must be slow-growing and suited for living outdoors, considering that they roam around in the open air for most of their adult lives. Overcrowding is not allowed, feed must contain at least 60 percent grains, and animal-derived products are out of the question, be they fishmeal, growth stimulants or routine medications. Label Rouge chickens live a minimum of 81 days—twice as long as their industrially raised cousins—and travel no more than two hours or 100 kilometers to a processing plant, where they are sold fresh within nine days of slaughter. Once a generation of birds has been sent off to the slaughterhouse, farmers must change the litter in their coops and wait at least three weeks before restocking with new birds to avoid the risk of salmonella or other diseases. All of these steps—and more—are documented through a detailed tracking system referred to as “traçabilité.”
    Raising chickens this way is expensive, but consumers are clearly willing to pay the extra price. Even though Label Rouge birds can cost twice as much as the industrial variety, they enjoy an enormous success. According to a producer association, the Syndicat National des Labels Avicoles de France (SYNALAF), two out of every three whole birds sold in France and more than 90 percent of those exported carry the Label Rouge. Most of the poultry cut up and packaged for sale in supermarkets, however, still comes from ordinary mass-production farms.
    Because the system requires that everyone involved, from feed suppliers to truckers, must abide by specific quality standards, it is best suited to cooperative organizations and companies embracing all aspects of the industry. Smaller and artisanal producers can opt for the lesser-known Certification de Conformité, which certifies that a product follows established manufacturing procedures using stipulated ingredients and production methods.
    The Label Rouge has been attracting notice abroad, especially in the United States, where traditional chicken farmers are having a tough job competing against the big factory farms in the South and Southeast. According to the information service operated by the National Center for Appropriate Technology in Fayetteville, Arkansas, the Label Rouge system “provides premium products to consumers, increases farmer income and strengthens rural development.” Addressing the free-range poultry movement that has been growing in the United States since the early 1990s, it said, “the French Label Rouge, which also started out as a grassroots program, provides an example of what is possible when farmers, consumers and organizations work together.”
    In the late 1990s, the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, in Europe led to the introduction of yet another label, this one for beef grown and slaughtered in France: “Viande Bovine Française” or VBF. (It was initially called simply “Viande Française,” then someone noticed that VF also stood for vache folle—the French term for mad cow.)
    The VBF label is part of the growing trend toward traçabilité in European food labeling, which is designed to ensure that if any foodstuff arouses suspicion, it can be traced back through the supply and production chain to its origins. For example, EU regulations now require the use of bar code labels on eggs, making it possible to track them back to the flock of origin—a response to the 1999 dioxin crisis in Belgium, when poultry and other livestock received contaminated feed.
    Similarly, the European Union intends to let consumers know when they are buying foods made from genetically modified (GM) crops, a move strongly opposed by the United States. EU legislation currently being debated obliges food producers to label foodstuffs as containing genetically modified components if they cannot guarantee that each and every one of the ingredients contains less than .9 percent GM material. Since trace amounts are hard to detect, the European Commission is waiting for the development of effective testing methods before proposing an even lower threshold and introducing a “GM-free” label. Food industry experts say that won’t be long in coming.
    The United States insists that no one has ever been harmed by eating genetically modified foods and that there is no difference in taste or other qualities. European consumers are not so sure. The EU has had a so-called moratorium on new GM products since 1998, and it is unlikely to be lifted until an effective labeling and tracking system is in place.
    “The key to regaining consumers’ confidence is to provide them with choices based on accurate labeling,” says David Byrne, the European commissioner responsible for food safety. But he acknowledges that even good labeling may not be enough to dispel distrust over what are widely known as “Frankenfoods.” “The fact is,” says Byrne, “most GM foods currently on the market are not there to benefit the consumer but rather to benefit the producers.” _s