Consultation outcome

Summary of responses

Updated 5 February 2019

This consultation was open between 6 November and 4 December 2018 and in that time there were 69 responses. We received 56 responses via Citizenspace and 13 responses via email. They came from a wide variety of different respondents, ranging from those who identified as individuals to food or farming businesses, other types of businesses and organisations and local authorities.

Geographically, we received responses from all parts of the UK as well as 2 from outside. In more detail, we received:

• 4 responses from Northern Ireland
• 27 responses from England
• 10 responses from Scotland
• 19 responses that self-identified as being UK-wide
• 2 responses from outside the UK

In terms of respondents, the comments came from those who identified as:

• food or farming businesses (15)
• other types of businesses (5)
• other types of organisation (7)
• business representative bodies/Trade Associations (20)
• individuals (14)
• local authorities (1)

The main question in the consultation was:

In the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal in place, there will need to be 2 changes in the way information is provided to consumers;

• the address of the food business or importer of the food into the UK will need to be in the UK, where currently it may be anywhere within the EU
• for some aspects of origin labelling, an indication ‘UK’ or ‘Non-UK’ will replace the current indications ‘EU’ and ‘Non-EU’

Do you think that there should be a period of time allowed for businesses to transition to the new labelling requirements and, if so, how long should that transition period be?

1. Summary of analysis

Taken as a whole, some key themes emerged from consultation responses to the primary question:

• for a shorter transition period, it was argued that businesses do not stockpile labels, that consumers would be able to access the correct information if a shorter transition period is given
• for medium transition periods (12 months – 18 months) it was suggested that this length of time was needed in order to allow for changes to labels, and to allow stock to be sold through
• for longer periods (2 years +), it was argued that a transition period of this length was needed to allow for potential changes to complex supply chains, to allow for bottle necks in labelling supplies, print runs, artwork and design

Many respondents emphasised the:

• importance of preventing delays in supply chains
• costs of label changes, both environmental, because of the destruction and disposal of existing packaging and labelling, and financial
• issue of labelling changes for long life products, such as canned goods and frozen goods, which remain on the shelves for a long period of time
• issue of managing demand on printers

A common thread across the more detailed responses we received during the consultation was a desire for clarity on transition periods so that businesses can plan ahead in the event of both a deal and no deal scenario. A number of respondents emphasised the need for harmonisation between the different deadlines and transition periods so that they can more easily respond to these deadlines.

2. Basic data on responses to primary question

Responses to the main consultation question were as follows:

• 3 months stated 4 times out of 69 responses
• 6 months stated 12 times out of 69 responses (fewer than a fifth of total responses) - however, a number of respondents who gave 6 months as the transition time also suggested that a longer transition period would be preferable
• 1 year stated 6 times out of 69 responses (around a tenth of total responses)
• 18 months stated 8 times out of 69 responses (around a tenth of total responses)
• 2 years stated 14 times out of 69 responses (around a fifth of total responses) 3 years was stated 2 times out of 69 responses.

Transition period	Number of respondents
< 6	4
6	12
12	6
18	8
24	14
36	2

As can be seen in the graph above, there were 2 clusters among the responses: one between 6 months and a year, and the other between 18 months and 2 years. However, the respondents who suggested a transition period between 6 months and a year predominantly self-identified as individuals and businesses while the respondents who proposed a transition period between 18 months and 2 years were, for the large part, representatives of large trade associations and large businesses.

Out of the 69 responses, 2 respondents rejected the idea of a transition period.

In addition to the 2 respondents who disagreed with a transition period, 7 respondents did not respond to the question and instead discussed other labelling concerns or simply left the question blank.

In addition to this, respondents provided us with valuable information on their reasons for answering in the way they did and we have given some analysis of these responses below.

Public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population. As anyone can submit their views, individuals and organisations who are more able and willing to respond are more likely to participate. In addition, a small sample of the population responded to this consultation, meaning it cannot be generalised across the wider UK population.

This summary of responses has some quantitative analysis of responses to determine where a majority of respondents share particular view. It also aims to represent the range of key issues raised by respondents, and the reasons for holding their particular views through qualitative analysis.

3. Detailed analysis of responses to primary question

3.1 Short Transition Period (less than 6 months)

Amongst respondents who suggested a short transition period (less than 6 months), the majority of respondents in this category suggested that 3 months would be adequate. In addition, we received a response of ‘less than 6 months’ and a response that a 24 hour transition period would be adequate. There was consensus amongst the respondents in this category who gave a transition period of 3 months that this would allow businesses time to both clear existing stocks of old labels and to amend labels.

No trade associations gave a response of less than 6 months, the only responses received were from those who identified as either individuals, food or farming businesses or other types of business.

3.2 Short-Medium Transition period (around 6 months)

Respondents who suggested a transition period of around 6 months gave broadly similar reasoning, namely that they felt a timeline of 6 months was reasonable because it would allow most products with old labels to be used up and offer businesses sufficient time to implement labelling changes. 1 respondent suggested that exemptions may be required for some products with extended shelf lives. A few respondents emphasised that 6 months should be sufficient to prevent excessive costs associated with amending labels as well as preventing the wasteful disposal of existing stocks of labels and packaging.

Respondents who described themselves as being from food or farming businesses consistently emphasised that a transition period of at least 6 months was necessary to allow them to use up their stock of labels and to prevent unnecessary cost and waste.

3.3 Medium Transition period (6 months to a year)

Most respondents who suggested a transition period within this range gave as their reasoning the potential cost and waste of lost labelling if a shorter transition period was given. Respondents iterated that sufficient time would be needed by businesses to alter label artwork and check labels for compliance. A range of different time periods were suggested within this category of responses, ranging from more than 6 months, 9 months, between 6 months and a year and ‘up to 12 months’.

1 respondent raised concerns about printer capacity in the event of a shorter transition period.

No respondents who identified as individuals gave this response, all of the respondents identified as either food or farming businesses, trade associations or other types of business.

3.4 Medium-Long Transition Period (1 year)

Most respondents stated that 12 months was needed in order to use up label stocks, minimise costs associated with implementing the changes and allow for the sale through of products which still had the old labels. Both the large number of labels that would need to be changed and the issue of getting through existing label stock were emphasised by a number of respondents.

Some further concerns were expressed by individual respondents. 1 respondent stated that between 12 months and 18 months would be better than 1 year because of the large number of labels that would need to be changed, as well as the potential for bottlenecks at various stages of the process. Another respondent stated that 12 months was suitable because smaller companies would find the change expensive if it meant they could not use [up] existing label stock. A further respondent flagged that the planned extension to Country of Origin Labelling for primary ingredients in 2020 would mean that country of origin labelling changes will extend to more of the food industry thereby adding further complexity to these labelling changes.

A respondent who identified as an individual emphasised the issue of exhausting products with long shelf lives that hadn’t had their labels changed. The other respondents -who identified as other types of organisation, food or farming businesses or trade associations- focused more on the issue of printing and artwork for new labels.

A key trade association, the Scotch Whisky Association, flagged the following issues:

(i) ‘that this regulatory change would be a significant departure from existing practice, potentially incurring high costs on business’

(ii) that six months would not be sufficient given ‘the cost and complexity of changes to labelling processes and the uncertainty of the current situation’

(iii) that this was a very costly change with ‘major implications for stock management and production efficiency’

3.5 Medium-Long Transition Period (18 months)

Most respondents who supported this transition period highlighted the following issues: first, supply chain pressures if a shorter transition period than 18 months was imposed; second, concerns about getting through stocks of pre-printed labels and the waste and financial cost if those labels were wasted; third, uncertainty over the outcome of Brexit negotiations and the consequent need for a sufficiently lengthy transition time to implement changes; and finally, the need for transition period of 18 months because of the number of products that would require label changes.

Within this category of responses, some respondents emphasised that triggering labelling changes out of normal, planned relabelling cycles would have subsequent impacts, lengthening the timescales for implementing labelling changes. A few respondents expressed concerns about the impact of labelling changes on foods with a long shelf life, such as frozen food. Two respondents welcomed Defra’s commitment to allow products to be sold through until stocks were exhausted. A further respondent stressed the need for consultation with companies of all sizes to prevent costs being incurred as a result of the legislation changes. Another respondent stated that 3 years would be their preferred length of time for this kind of labelling change but that they understood ‘the importance of ensuring consumers are suitably informed and issues of product liability.’ The same respondent suggested that, during the transition period, Food Business Operators should be able to include a UK address, an EU27 address or both addresses.

Half the responses from this group were from those who identified as trade associations, the rest identified as food and farming organisations, other types of organisations or individuals. Those who identified as trade associations were more likely to emphasise that it was difficult for businesses to implement labelling changes given the current uncertainty surrounding Brexit negotiations and that therefore a longer transition period was needed than the 6 months suggested in the consultation question.

Amongst the trade associations there were some responses from key organisations, namely the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) and The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) who made the following arguments in support of an 18 month transition period:

FDF referred to the usual packaging lifecycle as well as the other labelling changes that will be implemented around the same time as the basis for their suggestion of a transition period of at least 18 months. They also emphasised the time and investment required to change a label and the potential for environmentally damaging waste if a transition period was not of sufficient length to use up existing labels. They asked government to prioritise ‘business as usual’.

BBPA also emphasised the financial loss of wasted packaging and asked the government ‘to consider the maximum possible time period’. They gave 18 months because they saw this as the minimum amount of time needed to reduce the impact on producers and work through label stocks. They also pointed out the difficulty of making decisions during this period of uncertainty given the various different labelling scenarios that may occur. Finally, they raised the question about how UK products would be treated within the EU in the event of a no deal Brexit.

3.6 Long Transition Period (2 years)

Most respondents emphasised the costs of labelling changes if an insufficiently lengthy transition period is given. Such respondents noted that the cost would be especially burdensome for small and medium sized businesses. In addition, the majority of respondents argued that a longer transition period was needed in order to allow companies to exhaust existing labelling stock, which can be up to 24 months. Many respondents raised the issue of long life food products whose labels may not be changed for many years and the environmental impact of disposing of large amounts of unused labels and packaging in the event of a short transition period. A reasonable number of respondents highlighted the impact on printers if the transition period were to be six months, arguing that printers would not be able to fulfil labelling requests for all Food Business Operators if a short transition period was given.

Some respondents highlighted the difficulty of quickly implementing labelling changes in a climate where there were already a number of Brexit-related and non-Brexit related labelling changes. In addition, a number of respondents mentioned the complexity of the changes required – this was in contrast to respondents who recommended shorter transition times who suggested that the changes were relatively simple. As mentioned by the respondents who sought an 18 month transition period, some respondents in this category emphasised the issue of supply chain pressures in the absence of a sufficiently lengthy transition period. One respondent mentioned that the FSA labelling changes to health codes would provide a transition period of 2 years and that this should be considered indicative. Another respondent noted that most packaging comes from the EU and may be subject to further tariffs following Brexit, further exacerbating the potential cost of labelling changes within a short time period.

It was stressed by some respondents that large businesses would be particularly hit by a short transition period because of the volume of products whose labels would need to be changed. Other respondents suggested small and medium sized businesses would be financially penalised as they would stockpile labels and would not have the financial flexibility of larger businesses to handle the costs of changing their labels.

The majority of respondents within this category were those who identified as trade associations. There were also some responses from those who identified as food and farming businesses and limited responses from other types of organisations.

Amongst trade associations that responded, almost half mentioned issues regarding frozen foods. A few respondents mentioned possible exemptions for certain businesses or additional time periods. Other respondents who identified as trade associations highlighted issues related to sustainability. No commonalities were noted amongst food or farming businesses (3 respondents from this demographic chose a 2 year transition period). 1 respondent mentioned environmental and sustainability issues.

Several key trade associations and businesses gave a 2 year transition period, including the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the Provision Trade Federation (PTF), they gave the following responses:

In addition to recommending a 2 year transition period, BRC requested that Defra work with other departments so that there is harmonisation between the different labelling timelines and changes. They stated that a lack of coordination on labelling changes will result in greater costs for businesses. BRC also noted that there a number of other pieces of legislation in addition to Brexit-related legislation which are impacting on labelling and should therefore be taken into consideration when deciding on the transition period. Finally, BRC pointed to the demand on printers, the complexity of labelling changes and the need for products with a long shelf life to be exhausted as other reasons for a 2 year transition period.

PTF echoed BRC’s request for harmonisation between different departments with regards to changes to labelling. PTF also pointed out that Food Business Operators will need to take other Brexit-related actions in addition to putting in place these labelling changes, including perhaps establishing an address in the UK, and that therefore a longer transition period was needed to allow businesses to implement the changes to labelling as proposed in the consultation. They also pointed to the large amount of label and packaging stock some businesses will have accrued. Overall, PTF stated that a 2 year transition period would be reasonable and ‘commercially fairer for smaller/speciality producers who may have lower volume lines.’

3.7 Very Long Transition Period (3 years)

The consultation received 2 responses which suggested a transition period of 3 years and there was a large degree of agreement amongst these 2 respondents as one followed the approach of the other. Both respondents stated that the requirement to give the name and address of an EU importer on goods exported from the UK would have the greatest impact on them. In addition, they both mentioned packaging waste (both from an environmental and economic perspective) and suggested the need for guidance on the mechanisms by which exporting UK companies can use the name and address of an import company in the EU.

Of the 2 respondents who gave a 3 year transition period, one identified as trade association -the International Meat Trade Association (IMTA)- and the other identified as a food or farming business. The food or farming business explicitly supported IMTA’s proposal of a coordinated approach by government on the announcement of the amended health mark format and confirmation of the labelling changes to the name and address of pre-packaged products.

IMTA stated that the transitional period was ‘a critical issue’ for its members. IMTA also pointed out that even seemingly small changes to labelling can have widespread impacts. For example, some food in 3rd countries (countries outside of the EU) which is destined for the UK market but not yet placed on the UK market would also be impacted by these changes. In their response, IMTA outlined the practical difficulties for meat producers, traders and processors in labelling meat commodities correctly before the final destination of meat is known. This is an issue that either has not or rarely arises while meat remains within the EU single market. IMTA reflected the concerns raised by other industry groups on the difficulties of changing labels on goods including concerns on the levels of packaging waste that might result from a transition period that was too short. Finally, IMTA pointed out that frozen and canned food may, once packaged, remain on the market for several years.

4. Additional comments

In addition to the primary question regarding transition times, there was also an open question where respondents were asked:

Are there any points you wish to raise regarding these changes?

We received a number of responses to this question which highlighted concerns about allergen labelling. These responses fell outside the scope of this consultation. However, those comments were passed onto the food allergen labelling review team and, further, those with concerns regarding allergen labelling have the opportunity to respond to the consultation: ‘Food Labelling: changing food allergen information laws’ which opened on the 25 January 2019.

In addition, respondents raised additional points on a number of issues related to the consultation including:

• changes to country of origin labelling and food provenance information following Brexit
• concerns about falling food standards post-Brexit
• questions about labelling food for export and the need for reciprocal agreements between the UK and EU regarding labelling and enforcement
• concerns about increased bureaucracy following Brexit
• requests for clarity and convergence amongst government departments currently implementing labelling changes in preparation for Brexit