18 Nutrition and health claims made on
foods
| (24763)
11646/03
COM(03) 424
| Draft Regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods.
|
| Legal base | Article 95 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 16 July 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 24 July 2003
|
| Department | Food Standards Agency
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 29 August 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | January 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
18.1 According to the Commission, as food production has become
more complex, consumers are increasingly interested in the information
appearing on food labels, and in their diet. For that reason,
it takes the view that the information about foods and their nutritional
value appearing on the labelling and used in their presentation
should be clear, accurate and meaningful. It notes that, in addition
to a basic provision that claims should not mislead the consumer,
Community legislation[38]
lays down a number of detailed rules on food labelling, including
a prohibition on the attribution of properties which prevent,
treat and cure ailments, but that these provisions are open to
different interpretations, leading to numerous discrepancies between
Member States (and hence hindering the proper functioning of the
internal market). The Commission also notes that General Guidelines
adopted by Codex Alimentarius prohibit false, misleading or deceptive
claims, and require those marketing a food to justify any claim
made.
The current proposal
18.2 Against this background, and a recent case[39]
in which the European Court of Justice interpreted the existing
Directive as banning all health claims relating to human diseases,
the Commission has put forward this draft Regulation, which it
says is intended to achieve a high level of consumer protection,
improve the free movement of goods within the internal market,
provide legal security, ensure fair competition in the area of
foods, and promote innovation. The existing general approach
would be maintained, but, on the grounds that certain foods can
make important contributions to health, the proposal would allow
nutrition and health claims under strict conditions, following
an independent scientific assessment and Community authorisation.
Only those claims which conform with the Regulation would be allowed
on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foods placed
on the Community market, and the proposal would apply, not just
to "traditional" nutrients (such as protein, carbohydrate,
fat, fibre, vitamins and minerals), but to other substances with
a nutritional effect, and to all foods. Particular attention
would be paid to claims which, although factually true, can be
misleading.[40]
18.3 More specifically, the proposal would establish:
· a
positive list of permitted nutrition terms, such as "low",
"rich" and "light", and the conditions under
which they may be used; and
· procedures
for the pre-market authorisation of health claims, under which
the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) would be consulted on the
supporting scientific evidence before an authorisation was given.
In the latter case, long-established and non-controversial
health claims would be subject to a procedure under which a list
of permitted claims would be adopted following an opinion of the
EFSA, with a Register of such claims being established and regularly
updated.
18.4 The proposal would also require the Commission
to establish nutrient profiles for foods which may carry nutrition
or health claims, based on their content of fat, sugar, salt and
sodium, and lay down the basis on which the claims of different
products may be compared. Certain labelling information would
be required for foods carrying health claims, including nutrient
content, a statement indicating the importance of a balanced diet,
and (where appropriate) warnings about the maximum quantities
to be consumed and to those who should avoid using the food.
In addition, the proposal would prohibit certain categories of
health claims, such as those which refer to general non-specific
benefits, which the Commission says are vague and often meaningless
and unverifiable, or which refer to psychological and behavioural
functions (where it is difficult to convey a meaningful message).
It would also be prohibited for foods not specifically designed
for weight control to make claims relating to potential weight
loss.
The Government's view
18.5 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 29 August 2003,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health at the Department
of Health (Miss Melanie Johnson) says that the Government is broadly
supportive of the proposal, pointing out that developments in
nutritional science and food technology, and increasing consumer
awareness of the relationship between diet and health, have resulted
in an increase in claims of this sort on the UK market. She adds
that the validity or otherwise of these claims is not apparent
to consumers, and that enforcement authorities generally do not
have the expertise or evidence necessary to identify and challenge
those which are false.
18.6 The Minister also says that, although a voluntary
approach has been encouraged in the UK with some success, through
a combination of Food Standards Agency advice and the establishment
of a tripartite initiative involving consumer groups, enforcement
authorities and industry, it is clear that the coverage has been
patchy, and that statutory action at Community level is needed
to ensure that consumers can trust claims on all products. As
a consequence, the Government believes that statutory conditions
for nutrition claims and the introduction of pre-market arrangements
for health claims are justified. It also accepts that the use
of claims of this sort on products which are high in fat, sugar
and salt has the potential to undermine healthy-eating messages,
which are aimed at encouraging diets lower in these nutrients.
It therefore welcomes the commitment in this proposal to consider
options for addressing this issue.
18.7 However, the Minister also suggests that it
will be important to establish appropriate transitional arrangements
for valid claims which are already being made, bearing in mind
both the time required to compile and submit dossiers and the
resources available to the EFSA. She adds that it will be important
to examine the proposed specific prohibitions on certain types
of health claims, since these appear to be unnecessary and could
result in the loss of useful consumer information.
18.8 As to the costs of the proposal, the Minister
says that, although those who make claims ought to be able to
substantiate them, there would be costs to businesses arising
from the compilation and submission of dossiers, and from implementing
the labelling requirements, though these would be offset by the
proposed transitional period. She says that a Regulatory Impact
Assessment is being prepared after further consultation with stakeholders.
In addition, the Minister points out that the proposal would
have significant resource implications for the EFSA, particularly
in the short term as lists of approved claims are developed.
Conclusion
18.9 Given the increasing emphasis on the nutritional
and health aspects of food, this is clearly an important proposal,
on which we note that the Government is broadly supportive, subject
to the need for a suitable transitional period and to the clarification
of some detailed points. That said, we think it sensible to await
the promised Regulatory Impact Assessment before taking a firm
view. In the meantime, we will continue to hold the document
under scrutiny.
38 Directive 2000/13/EC. OJ No. L.109, 6.5.00,
p.29. Back
39
C-221/00, Austria v. Commission. Back
40
Such as "90% fat-free", which masks a fat content
of 10%. Back
|
