Saturday 4 July 2009

Note of stakeholder meeting on vegetarian and vegan labelling

Wednesday 10 November 2004

Held at Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London: 12 October 2004

Present

Richard Harding: (Chair): Food Standards Agency ' Food Labelling

Jay Ashra: National Council of Hindu Temples
Konstana Azmi: Vegan Society
Sudershan Bhatia: National Council of Hindu Temples
Tony Bishop-Weston: Foods for Life
Sarah Clancy: Iceland Frozen Foods
Dominic Dyer: Food and Drink Federation
Shirley Labelda: The Jewish Vegetarian Society
Alan Long: VEGA
Nitin Mehta OBE: Indian Vegetarian Society
Mark Moss: Tesco Stores Limited
Liz O'Neill: The Vegetarian Society of the UK Ltd
Chris Olivant: The Vegetarian Society of the UK Ltd
Om Parkash Sharma MBE: Hindu Council of the UK
Jenny Roberts: Iceland Frozen Foods
George Rodger: Vegan Society
Jane Springford: The Vegetarian Society of the UK Ltd
Richard Wood: British Retail Consortium

Alette Addison: Food Standards Agency ' Food Labelling
Lorna Chadney: Food Standards Agency ' Food Labelling
Christine Green: Food Standards Agency Scotland
Jane Ince: Food Standards Agency ' Food Labelling
Janet McKenzie: Food Standards Agency ' Food Labelling
Michelle McQuillan: Food Standards Agency ' Standards and Sustainability
Rosamund Snow: Food Standards Agency ' Communications
Iulia Young: Food Standards Agency ' Novel Foods
Shaheen Zar: Food Standards Agency ' Diversity Technical Support

Apologies
J Clague (Asda), Sue Davies (Which), Maria Dooley (Tivall), R A Hammons (Somerfield), Jillian Hardwick (Sainsburys), Catherine Humphries (Co-op), Lucy Milleret (Budgen Stores), Mike O'Neil (National Consumer Council) and Peter Wight (M&S)

The Chair explained that this stakeholder meeting on vegetarian and vegan labelling was being held so stakeholders could inform the Food Standards Agency of their views and the rationale for them. There would be no attempt at the meeting to achieve a consensus view on issues.

Prior to the meeting the Agency had circulated a background paper that included information on the legal position with respect to vegetarian and vegan labelling and on definitions used by different stakeholders. Alette Addison gave an introductory talk which:

described the current legal position
the broad approaches taken by various stakeholders
the progress made by Codex
the difficulty of achieving a legal definition within the EU
the options available to the Agency

The background paper and the presentation informed the subsequent discussion. The following points emerged in discussion.

General

Stakeholders recognised the differing definitions of vegetarian in current use and the range of issues such as animal welfare and environmental concerns that can dominate this area.
There was general recognition that any definitions should be drafted in terms of exclusions, rather than by listing permitted foods.

Vegetarian

There was general recognition that a definition should exclude food from red meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish, crustacea, amphibians, molluscs and insects, by-products of these (e.g. animal fats and blood), and products made from all of these (e.g. stocks, cochineal).
There was general recognition that processing aids produced from animals and animal products listed above should be not used in the production of vegetarian food, even if no trace of them remains in the final product.
There was less of a consensus over products from living animals. Some thought that milk and dairy products, eggs, honey and other aparian products, shellac, and lanolin were appropriate for vegetarians, as were processing aids made from them. However, of the foods in this list, only milk and dairy products are permitted for Hindus.
The presence of eggs or egg products would be revealed in the ingredients list.
The vaccination of animals is not an issue with regard to a definition of vegetarian food.

Vegan

There was general recognition that because vegan food excluded all food made from animals or animal products, it was easier to define than vegetarian.
It was suggested that foods that are labelled as vegetarian or vegan ought to satisfy higher standards of healthiness than other foods. Others thought that this was not something that was appropriate for the Agency to address.

Cross contamination

It was recognised that the integrity of vegetarian and vegan food could be compromised by cross-contamination with other food during production, preparation and sale, using the same tongs for different food in shops, and using the same oil to fry different foods.
It was thought that there might be scope for a due diligence option in the definition.
Experience on allergen handling might be brought to bear.
The Vegan Society had proposed that a maximum level of cross-contamination might be set at one part in 10,000.
While it was clearly recognised that this was an important problem for vegetarians and vegans, the argument was presented that it was not appropriate to address this in definitions.

Other criteria
The criteria for use of vegetarian and vegan related logos and trademarks incorporated other criteria related to the manner of food production. There was general recognition that there was a clear distinction between criteria for use of these, which were in part commercial matters, and the narrower definitions of vegetarian and vegan foods. It followed that these other criteria should not be part of any definitions.

After the discussion, the Chair said that the Agency would produce a note of the meeting and circulate it to those present. He thanked everyone for an extremely useful, clear and illuminating discussion. The Agency would consider all of the points made, and decide what were the appropriate next steps. Stakeholders would be informed in due course.

Graphic version of this page

Note of stakeholder meeting on vegetarian and vegan labelling

Present

Tell a Friend

Printer friendly

Contact us

Get alerts

Our Sites