The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has completed the task of evaluating 2758 general function, article 13 health claim submissions under the 2006 nutrition and health claim regulation (NHCR) – a three-year job that has seen the agency reject about 80% of those claims.
Now those EFSA opinions – including positives for some omega-3s and rejections for the likes of cranberry, lutein and soy – pass to the European Commission and 27 member states for authorisation, a process MEPs have shown themselves willing to engage with.
The European Federation of Associations of Health Product Manufacturers (EHPM) says member state and MEP input may yet save or modify some claims that have been condemned by EFSA’s health claims panel.
“The current approach is inappropriate so we have been emphasizing that in regard to the scientific substantiation, claim wording, consumer understanding,” a spokesperson told NutraIngredients.
“There is a lot that needs to be ironed out and we are encouraged by the support we have been gaining form MEPs. There are a lot of controversial issues with some of the claims as was demonstrated with the recent DHA omega-3 claims for infants."
In that case, MEP resistance to an EFSA and EC-approved omega-3, DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) claim almost overturned the approval, but the vote to kibosh the claim was narrowly defeated.
“Good, robust laws”
The opinions now pass to the European Commission and member states for assessment, validation and inscription in the European Union register of accepted and rejected claims, likely in the first half of 2012. Six months after that rejected claims will be prohibited from use across the European Union’s 27 member states.
On a recent BBC television news programme on the subject, Martin Last, the chairman of the UK Health Food Manufacturers’ Association (HFMA), said the industry wanted fair regulations.
“We too want good, robust laws that will enable claims to be made,” Last said. “Our concerns are that this law has moved away from what it was intended to do — and for which all the data was provided — to somewhere else. The data supplied by the companies is based on where we all started from — but the goalposts have been moved.”
“Adequate guidelines on claims already exist, this is just over-regulation that is adding disproportionately to the burden. We think if you have a process that is eliminating 90% of the claims, you really should be looking again at that process. So what we’re saying is let’s call a time-out on the process and have a proper debate.”