The review of scams on Pet Food. After the sensational fraud on ‘monoprotein’ revealed by the University of Padua, it's time to face the deception of ingredients claimed but present only in traces. Great Italian Food Trade reports to theAntitrust some labels By Affinity Petcare SA, a brand ‘Latest’.
Pet food, a mmarket growing not without pitfalls
The market ofthe foodsfor pets has reached in Italy i 2billions of euros, in 2017, for a total of 573,940 tons. With a trend promising, +3,8%in value and +2,4% in volume compared to the previous fiscal year. This success has stimulated a dynamic and complex competitive scenario, where operators not infrequently try to promote their products resorting to practices of dubious legitimacy.
Labels of Pet Food often turn out to be insidious – not to say, deceptive – regarding images and texts, names of products and their components, validity of claims nutritional and health claims. As well as concerning the indication of the quantity of ingredients highlighted on the label (so-called QUID, Quantity of Ingredients Declaration). .
Pet Food, labels and advertising, the rules to apply
Ithe Consumer Code, in general terms, prohibits the use of misleading practices in labeling and advertising of goods and services. (1) In particular, any commercial practice containing information that is not true or that – although apparently correct – is likely to mislead the average consumer on one or more elements (including the nature and composition of the product) capable of influencing their purchasing choice is considered misleading, taking into account not only the specific information provided but also theiroverall presentation.
Il General Food Law, moreover, prescribes that ‘thelabeling, advertisingà and the presentation of food or feed, including their form, appearance or packaging, the packaging materials used, the way food or feed are arranged, the context in which they are displayed and the information made available about them by any means, must not mislead consumers’. (2)
Il regulation (EC) no.767/2009, specifically, has extended the principle of non-deceptiveness to the placing on the market and use of feed for animals not intended for food production. Specifically prescribing that the labeling and presentation of feed do not mislead the user:
‘a) regarding the’intended use or characteristics of feed, in particular, their nature, the manufacturing or production method, the propertiesà, the composition, the quantityà, the duration, the species or categories of animals for which they are intended;
b) attributing to feed effects or propertiesà which they do not possess or implying that the feed has particular characteristics even thoughé all comparable feed possess these same characteristics; or
c) regarding the complianceàof the’labeling with the Community catalogue and Community codes referred to in Articles 24 and 25.’ (3)
Voluntary information on feed labeling, consequently, may refer to the presence or absence of a given substance – or a specific nutritional characteristic, process or related function – providedé the following conditions are met:
‘a) theclaim is objective, verifiable by authoritiesà competent and understandable for the’feed user; and
b) the person responsible for the’labeling provides, upon request of theauthorityà competent, scientific evidence of the’claim, by reference to publicly accessible scientific data or documented research carried out by the companyà.’(4)
‘Finally, deception in the labeling of dog and cat foods. Our report to the Antitrust
‘Ultima is the brand used by Affinity Petcare S.A.for the sale of a wide range of pet food. 16 products intended for dogs, 12 for cats. Their labels, however, appear suitable, at least in some cases, to mislead the consumer about the actual nature of the feed and its ingredients.
Great Italian Food Trade has therefore turned to the Guarantee Authority for Competition and the Market (AGCM, so-called Antitrust), requesting clarification on certain commercial practices suspected of being unfair. Considering both the negligible content of ingredients highlighted in the graphic representation of the labels and the nutritional and health claims that appear unfounded. Some examples follow.
Dog food ‘Adult Mini Chicken, (Annex 1). The ‘fresh chicken’ shown on the package actually represents 4% of the product, in the form of ‘thighs’. The remaining 18% of the ‘chicken’ would instead consist of ‘dehydrated poultry proteins’ of unidentified origin (by-products of turkey processing, for example).
The deception reaches its peak in the suggestion of the presence of fruit and vegetables. Such as whole green apples, against 0.35% dehydrated apple pulp. The carrot (dehydrated, 0.35%), broccoli (0.15%), red currants (0,01%). With the aggravation of claims nutritional ‘Fruit and vegetables natural sources of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants. They help strengthen immune defenses.’ What fruit and vegetables, 0.86% dehydrated substances in the product? Ridiculous and illegal.
‘Ultima’ cat foods are equally ambiguous, an understatement, in presenting the ingredients. ‘Sterilized Adult Salmon’, to name one, shows on the label a slice of fresh salmon without specifying what processing the raw material has undergone, presumably not fresh. The same applies to the other references of the line (chicken, trout, and beef).
Fresh fruit and vegetables are seen only in photos, on ‘Ultima Nature Adult Chicken’ and ‘Ultima Nature Adult Sterilized Salmon’ (Annex 3 and4), for example. With the deceptive and unsubstantial claim of nutritional and health benefit, to which correspond completely irrelevant quantities (less than one percent) of dehydrated ingredients.
Faithfully awaits the intervention of Antitrust. Perhaps also that of Authorities responsible for official public control, in a sector where illegality still dominates the shelves.
Dario Dongo
Notes
-
Cf. Legislative Decree 206/05, so-calledConsumer Code, article 21
-
See Reg. EC 178/02, so-called General Food Law, article 16
-
Cf. re.g.. EC767/09, art.11
-
‘The scientific evidence is made available at the time of’placing on the market of the product. Buyers have the right to bring to the’attention of the authoritiesà competent authorities their doubts regarding the truthfulnessà of the’allegation. If it is concluded that the’allegation is not sufficiently substantiated, the’labeling regarding such allegation is considered misleading pursuant to’article 11’. Cf. regulation (EC) no. 707/2009, article 13
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT – Food Times) and Égalité.
