Manufacturers could miss positive health claims boat

Manufacturers across Europe face lengthy delays and extra costs in getting approval for their food and drink products, if they miss a deadline for inclusion on a ‘positive list’ of approved health claims contained in new European legislation.

Unless they get their products included within a ‘Community list of permitted claims’ they will have to go through a full authorisation procedure. This will require them to provide detailed scientific evidence to support the claims they wish to make, which could prove both lengthy and costly, warned an expert in the field.

Ignorance is rife in many parts of Europe about the new regulations governing nutrition and health claims just about to voted on by the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety [ENVI] Committee of the European Parliament, claimed Professor David Richardson, a specialist consultant in nutrition and food science, speaking at a conference on functional foods organised by Food Manufacture last week.

The legislation covering labelling, presentation and advertising of food and food supplements, aims to provide consistent protection for consumers across Europe on claims made for foods, while improving the free and fair movement of goods within the internal market and protecting innovation in food development. “The challenge is, will it achieve the objectives with the legislation going through?” asked Richardson.

Following the ENVI vote this month, the new rules will go to a plenary session of the European Parliament on May 17 and, if passed, could become law as early as July or August. However, much will hang on whether consensus can be reached on the thorny issue of nutrient profiling covered under Article 4 of the legislation.

Member states will provide the European Commission with lists of claims 12 months after adoption of the law with references to the relevant scientific justification, said Richardson. This could mean a deadline of July or August 2007. Three years after adoption of the law (July/August 2009) the EC, with the assistance of the European Food Safety Authority, would compile a ‘Community list of permitted claims’. “Across Europe, people have not realised the implications of Article 13,” warned Richardson.

Behind the scenes, intense lobbying is underway to resolve disagreements between the European Commission and members of the European Parliament. According to Chris Whitehouse, md of food lobbyist The Whitehouse Consultancy, MEPs have tabled 269 amendments to the regulation at its second reading.

“MEPS are determined to reassert their authority after the Council of Ministers accepted only around one-tenth of their first reading amendments,” said Whitehouse. “Many of those amendments have again been re-tabled. For instance over the exclusion of brand names and trademarks and the provision of all claims where scientifically demonstrable."

Manufacturers represented by Whitehouse would like to see the authorisation procedure for all health claims contained within the proposed legislation replaced with a pre-marketing notification process. “This is welcomed by industry since it would maintain consumer protection whilst also giving flexibility to food manufacturers," he argued.

Article 13 of the legislation, governing health claims other than those for reduction of disease risk, “is going to be the real issue for the food industry over the next 12 months”, warned Richardson. While claims will need to be based on generally accepted scientific data, until recently, claims on psychological and behavioural functions of certain foods, plus slimming, weight control, hunger reduction, increased satiety or reduction of available energy, were prohibited, he said. “They have only been included due to lobbying of industry and scientists.”