FOOD DESCRIPTORS AND FOOD CATEGORIES

IV. FOOD DESCRIPTORS AND FOOD CATEGORIES

A. Foods, Food Categories and Food Descriptors

From the very start of the harmonization efforts of the additives legislation in the European Commission, far-reaching decisions were made on food categories and on food descrip- tors. In this chapter, any designation of a foodstuff will be called a food descriptor. The term food category is to be understood as a set of more or less similar foodstuffs or groups of foodstuffs themselves .

It was decided not to define, according to a clear system, food categories for which authorizations for use would be laid down in the Directives. Consequently, food descrip- tors without precise prior definition were introduced into the lists so as to best fit the requests. It was argued that doing so would allow a lot more flexibility in the application of the new rules. An example of such fuzzy descriptors used is ‘‘water based flavored drinks, energy reduced or with no added sugar,’’ rather than ‘‘soft drinks.’’

There is another important reason for this choice for ‘‘fuzzy’’ descriptors. The pro- cess undertaken by the Commission was a harmonization. At the time of the start of that process, the different member states had very different food descriptors in use in their national legislation for many hundreds of different foodstuffs. It would have been a nearly impossible task to harmonize those before tackling additive usage harmonization itself. Furthermore, to do so would be to reembark on discussions which would be similar to establishing vertical food standards once again, a concept intentionally dropped since the ‘‘Single European Act’’ (cf. Section II.B).

In this way, a food category can be designated by one or more food descriptors. The same foods can be included by one or by several wider or narrower descriptors. As an example: In the additive Directives there is a broad food category defined by the overall food descriptor ‘‘snacks’’ (including potato crisps). Within that category, we can find the subcategories ‘‘nuts,’’ under the descriptor ‘‘nuts,’’ and—quite confusingly— ‘‘snacks’’ proper again, under the mere descriptor ‘‘snacks’’ (excluding the potato crisps, but referring, e.g., to expanded and extruded products). ‘‘Snacks’’ proper holds two sub- categories: ‘‘cereal-based snack products’’ and ‘‘cereal- or potato-based snacks.’’ Obvi- ously, the latter category includes the former. Among the ‘‘nuts,’’ we find the descriptors ‘‘savoury coated nuts’’ and ‘‘coated nuts.’’ Here again, the latter category includes the entire former one as well.

Still, in an ideal setting, logic in meaning is the rule. An industrial operator would then be in a position to deduce the answers to his questions from the Directives. In the opposite setting, the operator would have to return to the authorities for clarifications on Still, in an ideal setting, logic in meaning is the rule. An industrial operator would then be in a position to deduce the answers to his questions from the Directives. In the opposite setting, the operator would have to return to the authorities for clarifications on

This sets the first requirement for the system: the system must be logical. The mini- mum for such logic is that (1) the same descriptor means the same foodstuff in the whole EU and throughout all texts, both legislative and interpretative, and (2) the same foodstuff is always designated by the same descriptor.

Furthermore, in the face of the great many different foodstuffs in existence in the EU, group descriptors are necessary in order to deal with the multitude of items to be identified in the legislation. Indeed, in the EU there are thousands of specific foods on the market. And the new additive Directives authorize 365 different additives for use. This requires many thousands of authorization cells to be filled.

This sets the second requirement: for the system to be manageable, it must unavoid- ably be hierarchical (treelike). This means that any food category of higher hierarchic rank includes all its subordinate members of lower hierarchic rank; these are either individual foodstuffs and/or other subordinate food categories. In such a system, an additive author- ized in a higher ranking category is also authorized in all its lower order subcategories, except where specifically excluded.

It is evident that any hierarchical system itself—in order to be workable—must also satisfy the requirements for logic mentioned, that is, the same group descriptor ought always to have the same meaning.

B. Food Categorization System

Industry generally opts for operational security rather than for flexibility and uncertainty. In order to improve understanding of the new food Directives, CIAA has developed a food category system which satisfies the imperatives for logic and hierarchy. It was mod- eled after a system already in use in Denmark. The principles according to which this system is built are essentially supported by the authorities of the member states. The system CIAA has developed aims at being general; it is to comprise all foodstuffs, includ- ing foods for which no additives are authorized. The food categories and descriptors of the system are to be used solely as a tool for the assignment of authorizations for the use of additives, and for nothing else . Hence it should not serve as a basis for discussions on labeling, contaminants, customs tariffs, etc.

CIAA has put its food categorization system forward to Codex Alimentarius, where it has been welcomed as a worthwhile contribution. The new Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) will employ a similar, though slightly different, categorization system. Within Codex the contents of the system is wider in order to accom- modate non-European foods as well. However, the principles on which it is based will remain essentially the same.

C. Computer Database

In an attempt to facilitate easy and flexible retrieval of data from the Directives, an effort has been made by the EU food industry association to create a hierarchy among the food descriptors occurring in the EU additives Directives according to the principles behind In an attempt to facilitate easy and flexible retrieval of data from the Directives, an effort has been made by the EU food industry association to create a hierarchy among the food descriptors occurring in the EU additives Directives according to the principles behind

It should, however, be stressed that it is not easy to organize the quite complicated structure of the Directives’ authorizations with computer software. In addition, any system should be so designed as to readily accommodate any future changes to the legal texts. Furthermore, no computer database will ever be able to interpret the Directives. Though fast sorting and query answering capabilities of PC databases provide useful facilities for retrieval from the original texts. The resulting database (in Access 97) has been made public and can be purchased on a diskette from CIAA.

D. Different Language Versions of the Additives Directives

The Council of Ministers is responsible for the translation and publication of the Directives into the different languages of the Community. But traduire c’est trahir. That is, no trans- lation can ever be completely correct. It should first of all be noted that, at the time of the adoption of the main miscellaneous additives Directive (10), of all amending additive Directive updates (5,24,25), as well as of all the recent specifications Directives (19–22), Sweden and Finland had already joined the EU. Hence Finnish and Swedish versions of that Directive have been prepared as well. This is not the case for the framework Directive (4) and its updating Directive (26), for the sweeteners Directive (27), or for the colors Directive (28).

As mentioned previously, for ease of consultation the publishers of the OJ print the documents so that the same items can be found in identical locations in the different language versions of the journal.

With respect to the intricate and culture-related nature of the food descriptors in the Directives, some of the translations published are, according to industry experts, imprecise or plainly incorrect. Hence the translations risk perturbing the operations of industry and of international trade. An example of imprecision can be found on p. 25 of the miscellaneous additives Directive for the erythorbates. The English version indicates ‘‘Semi-preserved and preserved meat products ,’’ whereas the French translation refers to ‘‘Produits de viande en conserve et en semi-conserve .’’ This translation is opposed by the French meat processors association and seemingly also by the French administration. Their preference is for ‘‘Produits a base de viande.’’ An example of plain error in translation is found on p. 32 of the same Directive for ‘‘Confectionery (including chocolate).’’ The German ver- sion reads ‘‘Su¨sswaren (ausser Schokolade)’’ (i.e., confectionery excluding chocolate). A similar grave error in translation, with consequences, was highlighted already in Sections

III.E.1 and 2 (in the definition of additives). Although the principle of hierarchy in the food categories is not inscribed in the Directives, it clearly exists. The European Commission realized that its decision not to define the food descrip- tors which it uses in the Directives would lead to controversies. Hence it organized an arbitration system to resolve these controversies.

The task of setting disputes on the exact scope of the food descriptors has been entrusted to the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs. This body will have to arbitrate in cases where such conflicts cannot be resolved more readily (see Section III.D.1). The individual member states had to make their own versions of the new legislative texts, each one in its own language. The resulting ‘‘implementations’’ might not be identical with what the Council interpreters have produced. Still, it can only be hoped that some of the The task of setting disputes on the exact scope of the food descriptors has been entrusted to the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs. This body will have to arbitrate in cases where such conflicts cannot be resolved more readily (see Section III.D.1). The individual member states had to make their own versions of the new legislative texts, each one in its own language. The resulting ‘‘implementations’’ might not be identical with what the Council interpreters have produced. Still, it can only be hoped that some of the