Court's first health claims verdict

31-Oct-2012 - Last updated on 15-Mar-2017 at 11:52 GMT

The ruling could lead to a raft of resubmissions for rejected bids

The first EU Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on the nutrition and health claims regulation (NHCR) is likely to see more labelling statements fall under the scope of the rules, warned a legal expert.

Owen Warnock, partner at legal firm Eversheds, said the ruling found the digestion claims of a German wine product were health claims under NHCR and therefore not permitted.

"The court has given a wide interpretation to the phrase 'health claim'. As a consequence, statements on labels and in advertising, which some food producers were hoping would not be caught by the regulation, will, in fact, be subject to its requirements, and will need to be approved by the European Food Safety Authority after submission of scientific substantiation," wrote Warnock on his company's blog.

However, the flip side to the ruling means some companies that previously had claims rejected because it was deemed their products did not relate to health, may want to resubmit their applications in the light of this judgement, he added.

This specific claim hinged on whether it was acceptable for a German wine firm, Deutsches Weintor, to have the phrase 'easily digestible' on a label, accompanied by a reference to reduced acidity. The court was asked in essence whether that amounted to a health claim.

Sebastián Romero Melchor, a partner at K&L Gates in Brussels, said a health claim was defined as any claim that stated, suggested or implied that a relationship existed between food and health.

He added: "It was argued that, since digestion had only temporary or fleeting effects, a description such as 'easily digestible' was not a health claim because it did not imply that the beneficial nutritional or physiological effect led to a sustained improvement in physical condition. The court rejected that argument."

Warnock added: "In other words, a health claim is any indication of nutritional, physiological or any other health advantage. What is more, it includes any claim of a food being 'less unhealthy' than any other food and it possibly includes claims about temporary or fleeting benefits."

Rulings like this were likely, he added, because of the ambiguous definition of 'health claim' in the regulation.

He said: "Businesses should re-examine decisions they have taken about whether particular claims are health claims."

The ECJ also rejected claims that NHCR rules restricted 'commercial free speech'.