By Richa Naidu
VEVEY, Switzerland, July 24 (Reuters) – As shoppers increasingly scrutinise ingredient labels to avoid products perceived as heavily processed, Nestle, maker of Nescafe coffee and KitKat chocolate, has been lobbying U.S. authorities to allow simpler descriptions using common rather than scientific names on packaging.
Examples include replacing the words “ascorbic acid” with the more widely understood vitamin C in the list of ingredients and “beta-carotene” with vitamin A, to avoid consumers rejecting unfamiliar ingredients even when they are naturally derived or considered safe by regulators.
“Sometimes the way we have to describe ingredients in the U.S. makes it sound like Frankenstein food,” a former senior Nestle executive told Reuters. “In reality, it’s actually a natural ingredient that consumers have a natural word for.”
Nestle has raised the issue directly with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s team as officials review food-labelling policies under the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, the executive said, asking not to be named.
The lobbying effort has not previously been reported.
LABELLING RULES AND CONSUMER TRENDS
Current U.S. rules often require that packaging is labelled with less-recognisable technical terms, with no notion of intended use, which can deter shoppers from buying products and have at times pushed companies to change recipes to remove some ingredients, industry sources say.
Meanwhile in Europe, labelling depends on the intended use. For instance, if an ingredient is used as an additive, it could be labelled “antioxidant (ascorbic acid)” or as a vitamin “ascorbic acid (vitamin C)” or simply as “vitamin C”.
A report by Innova Market Insights found last year that about three-quarters of North American consumers reconsider what they are buying because of ingredients lists on packaging. Most consumers look for real ingredients and an ingredient list that is easy to understand, according to the report.
“We continue to engage with stakeholders across the food industry on ways to help Americans make informed decisions about the foods they purchase and consume,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said.
Some public health advocates argue that using less scientific labelling can be misleading and makes it easier for large food companies to be opaque about including additives in their products.
SHRINKING INGREDIENTS LISTS
Food companies have spent billions removing artificial colours, preservatives and additives as consumers switch to products with shorter, more recognisable ingredient lists.
Nestle’s technology chief, Stefan Palzer, confirmed to Reuters that the company was engaged in lobbying via trade associations to make labels less complex.
“But it’s difficult,” Palzer said. “We try to reduce ingredients that are not understood by consumers whenever possible, without compromising on the safety, quality or functionality of the product.”
Palzer said consumers globally prefer ingredients that look “familiar” and products that have “labels they understand”.
Some companies like Germany’s Aldi are eliminating dozens of ingredients from what they sell so shoppers “can feel good about adding to their carts”.
The former Nestle executive said the Swiss firm had talked to U.S. authorities about specific ingredients amid a wider push to remove artificial products from foods, suggesting it simplify terms for ones that it intended to keep in products.
Nestle’s lobbying is part of broader industry efforts to address consumer unease over ingredients.
Industry groups including the Americans for Ingredient Transparency coalition and the International Food Additives Council argue that technical ingredient names can unfairly stigmatise products, even when the ingredients themselves are widely used and considered safe. Members of those groups include major food and consumer companies such as Nestle, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill.
(Reporting by Richa Naidu; Additional reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein; Editing by Adam Jourdan, Lisa Jucca and Elaine Hardcastle)
Comments