Consumers and industry clash over new provisions on food claims

Commissioner for Public Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne outlined the key elements in the proposal and explained that the new regulation will "not mark a radical departure for the food industry." Its objective is to harmonise the diverse rules that currently exist across the Member States. Mr Byrne went on to explain that nutrition claims would have to be substantiated and that the Commission would draw up a list of well-established health claims that will be permitted within three years of the regulation's entry into force. 

Commission Director Paola Testori Coggi responsible for Food Safety explained that the new regulation will create a clearer regulatory framework for the industry. Ms Testori Coggi emphasised that the Commission has no intention to define 'good food' and 'bad food' and that the proposal strictly covers claims on food products while brand names do not fall within the scope of the proposal. The director added that the regulation opens up the possibility for a new group of claims on foods, those referring to diseases (subject to EFSA authorisation).

EP Rapporteur Mauro Nobilia agreed with the Commission's view that information related to health should have a scientific basis. Mr Nobilia thought that the provisions of Article 4 were not formulated clearly enough. He was of the opinion that the Commission has only addressed 'bad diets' but not 'bad ingredients'. The rapporteur sought clarification on the relationship between the Commission and EFSA and whether the Member States would be sufficiently involved. Mr Nobilia questioned whether the restrictions under Article 11 were necessary if sufficient scientific evidence were to become the bottom line.

A harmonised legal framework is necessary for a fair competitive environment, said Patrick Coppens, the representative of the Confederation of the Food & Drink Industry in the EU (CIAA). However, Mr Coppens voiced fears that the proposal went further than that and was unduly restrictive. In particular, Mr Coppens thought that Article 4 could prove to be particularly counterproductive as it is not the composition but the use of a product that has a health effect. Mr Coppens said the CIAA was against the a priori prohibition of certain types of claims or categories of foods. Mr Coppens was opposed to overly tight control of the wording of claims. Manufacturers should be allowed to alter a message over time and according to social or cultural contexts, said Mr Coppens.

Beate Kettlitz from the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) said that the proposal was a very important one and more necessary than ever. Consumers at the point of sale have no way of checking the messages which appear on labels. Ms Kettlitz thought the introduction of nutrient profiles was a key part in the legislation which would eventually push the food industry to produce better foods. For the hearing in Parliament, BEUC published a brochure, entitled "Tell me what I am eating: food claims", listing dubious health and nutrition claims. 

Four NGOs ( Euro Coop, the European Public Health Alliance, the European Heart Network and Euro Care) have urged MEPs to prioritise public health and consumer protection in future legislation on claims. "It is our firm conviction that nutrition and health claims should only be put on food products which constitute a healthier choice and which contribute to a healthier diet," say the four NGOs in a joint press release. In addition, the NGOs urge MEPs to ban claims directed principally at children.