EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Consumer groups seek end to misleading health claims on food and drink

-A +A
Published 20 March 2006 - Updated 23 March 2007
Tags
food labelling health and food health claims
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

Consumer organisations throughout the EU urge MEPs to "vote better the second time" on the regulation on nutrition and health claims and to only allow scientifically backed claims in food and drink.

The Parliament's Environment Committee (ENVI) is set to vote again on nutrition and health claims on 21 March 2006. The main issues for debate are Article 4 on restrictions on the use of nutrition and health claims, and Article 15 on the authorisation procedure for the claims; health claims needing to be, for example, substantiated by scientific data.

On the occasion of European Consumers' Day on 15 March, the European Consumers' Organisation BEUC handed over to the EU's Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Kyprianou "a very thick Black Book" highlighting examples of misleading claims on food for sale all over Europe. 

On the same day, the European Community of Consumer Co-operatives - EuroCoop, sent a letter to the Members of the European Parliament's ENVI Committee appealing for them to vote against all the amendments tabled to Article 4 and 15.

One example of a misleading and confusing claim highlighted by the UK consumer organisation Which? is Masterfood's Milky Way whipped milk and chocolate flavour spread, which is promoted as being 'rich in magnesium, calcium and vitamins'. There is no mention of the high levels of sugar and saturated fat it contains, which are outwith the guidance levels given by the Food Standards Agency.

Positions: 

The European Community of Consumer Co-operatives (EuroCoop) said of Article 4 of the proposed Regulation on Nutrition & Health Claims, "EURO COOP has always called for the inclusion of nutrient profiles as a pre-requisite to making a claim on foods. We firmly believe that in order to provide consumers with truthful and unambiguous information only foods with desirable nutrient profiles should be allowed to bear nutrition and health claims." 

EURO COOP is also in favour of an authorisation system (Article 15) as far as the approval procedure for health claims is concerned. "An authorisation system would entail that any health claim should be subject to a thorough scientific evaluation before the product to which is related is marketed. In other terms, an authorisation system would prevent buyers from being exposed to non-evidence based health claims," the organisation has said.

European Consumers’ Organisation BEUC notes, "In the first reading MEPs voted against two key articles on nutrient profiles and authorisation. If the proposal was adopted without nutrient profiles, a so-called 'fat free' yoghurt would still be promoted as 'fat free' if it contained 100g of sugar. If the proposal was adopted without an authorisation procedure, products could be put on the market with unsubstantiated claims (such as 'raw eggs are good for your lungs') and could be sold for a long time before action could be taken. Who would be in a position to prove such claims are false? Consumer organisations? Would it not be more logical that the burden of proof rests with those who put the products on the market?"

"Consumers are sending a clear message that they don't want misleading health claims on food. Without this legislation people have no way of knowing whether the products they buy are going to deliver the benefits they promise. MEPs can help by stopping health and nutrition claims on foods high in fat, sugar or salt. And making it compulsory for new health claims to be checked prior to sale", said Michelle Smyth, from Which?. 

Next steps: 
  • The Parliament's ENVI Committee is set to adopt its recommendation for the second reading of the European Parliament on 21 March 2006.
  • An absolute majority is required for the Parliament to re-amend the proposal in the second reading.
External Links
Background: 

In July 2003, the Commission adopted a new legislative proposal aimed at tackling unsubstantiated claims made on food.

The Parliament rejected, in its first reading on 26 May 2005, the proposed strict rules for health claims arguing that foods should be allowed to bear health claims such as 'low fat' and 'sugar free' even if the level of, for example, salt content is unhealthily high. 

The following week, on 3 June 2005, the EU's health ministers rejected Parliament's amendments and backed the Commission's original proposal.

More on this topic

LinksDossiers

Nutrition and health claims made on foods
More in this section

Advertising

Sponsors

Advertising

Advertising