The discussion paper, released this week, calls for nutrient profiles to be formulated specifically for food categories, with the use of "disqualifying" nutrients supported by the institute.
Nutrient profiling, also known as article 4, would prohibit health claims on any products high in salt, sugar or fat (saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids).
The institute noted that the term "sugar" still needed to be defined.
The concept has been vigorously attacked by many in the food industry who say that foods currently accepted as healthy, such as margarine with phytosterols, calcium-enriched fruit juice or iodised salt, would gain an unfavourable nutrient profile under this law.
In response to such concerns, the BfR recommended: "Food which are major sources of qualifying nutrients but which also contain disqualifying nutrients (eg. full cream milk contains calcium and fat) should not be denied the possibility of bearing a claim."
On the positive side, nutrients that would qualify a food for health claims include fibre, folate, omega-3 fatty acids, and calcium.
The BfR also recommended that a system based on thresholds rather than scoring was preferable.
"Thresholds could be established in line with existing national and/or international dietary recommendations or guidelines," said the institute.
"Alternatively, the thresholds for nutrition claims listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 could be used to set maximum and minimum levels.
"Another alternative would be to set the thresholds according to a reference food from the corresponding food category."
The position paper will be discussed on 23 April at the 3rd BfR Consumer Protection Forum on Nutrient Profiles as the Prerequisite for Health Claims.