Breaking News on Supplements, Health & Nutrition - Europe US edition | APAC edition

Trends > Health claims

Guest article

December 14 EU health claims crack down: Are B2B comms affected?

1 commentBy Richard Clarke , 05-Dec-2012
Last updated on 20-Dec-2012 at 17:03 GMT2012-12-20T17:03:48Z

Clarke: "Trade PR and advertising are set to play a much more important role..."

December 14 brings the long awaited and widely disputed EU crack down on health claims. That means 222 general function claims are good to go, another 1500 or so prohibited. But what happens to B2B communications?

The claims clamp down is likely to dampen the festive spirit for plenty of ingredients companies – notably those marketing ingredients that are not (yet) backed by EFSA-approved health claims, writes consultant, Richard Clarke.

They are, understandably, awaiting the onset of 14 December 2012 with a fair degree of trepidation.

B2B free: Positive signals

Nevertheless, there is actually some good news to savour. There are strong signs that business-to-business comms in the EU will be exempted from the NHCR – at least in some member states, as the NHCR is open to interpretation in this area.

The UK Department of Health (DoH) made its position clear recently: “While the regulation applies to claims made in commercial communications about foods it is our opinion that it will not control claims made in communications within trade (business to business) … whether the claim is in the labelling, advertising or other presentation of the food.”

“This is provided that the recipients are acting within the scope of their professional activities and that they are not being addressed as final consumers of the foods.”

The message couldn’t be clearer, and it is highly significant for ingredients companies. Trade press comms are game on – responsibly, of course – but with the freedom to discuss the benefits of their ingredients with or without an European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) green light.

Matter of interpretation

That is the UK position anyway, but other member states have other ideas. In a letter to interested parties earlier this year, the DoH admitted some EU member states took the view B2B communications should fall within the scope of the NHCR (member states were not specified).

This doesn’t necessarily mean the DoH has got it wrong – rather that B2B commercial communications remain a grey area. The NHCR is not explicit about exactly what a ‘commercial communication’ is.

However, the wording of the regulation is nonetheless pretty clear the law is specifically designed to protect consumers – implying that B2B communications are indeed exempt.

Uncertainty is rarely a good thing, and the European Commission may choose to clarify matters in this area in the future. Nevertheless, the unambiguous position taken by the UK on this matter – a position that is supported by other member states – is a welcome boost for the ingredients industry.

Communications through industry media outlets with controlled distribution will not pose a particular problem in this respect. Websites, however, are usually accessible by all. As such, it is highly recommended that ingredients companies place some kind of ‘business only’ disclaimer on their homepages.

Assuming the website does not appeal to consumers, such a disclaimer should be sufficient, although individual member state interpretation should be considered.

Trade PR and advertising are set to play a much more important role in the marketing mix than ever before.

Richard Clarke is Director of PR firm, Ingredient Communications.

1 comment (Comments are now closed)

B2B communications

For listed companies, or companies which are the subject of a takeover, any B2B communications would come under financial regulation. There is a comprehensive EU financial framework to protect investors and to avoid market manipulation. I doubt whether EFSA's 'we're learning as we go' system of substantiation of what is truth and a lie would meet the standards expected in the world of financial regulators. Perhaps the Department of Health ought to consult the Financial Services Authority before it starts to dictate what statements would be illegal and the basis for it. HM Treasury might want to do an impact assessment first.

Report abuse

Posted by Susan McGinty
05 December 2012 | 16h442012-12-05T16:44:51Z

Live Supplier Webinars

Polyphenols tipped to become the way to innovate in Sports Nutrition
Orally bioavailable standardized botanical derivatives in sport nutrition: special focus on recovery in post-intense physical activities
Collagen in motion: move freely and keep your injuries in check
Leading manufacturer of gelatine and collagen peptides
Life’s too short for slow proteins. Whey proteins hydrolysates: Fast delivery for enhanced performance
Arla Foods Ingredients
What it Takes to Compete and Win in Today’s Sports Nutrition Market
Sports Nutrition Snapshot: Key regional drivers and delivery format innovations
William Reed Business Media
Gutsy performance: How can microbiome modulation help athletes and weekend warriors
William Reed Business Media
Pushing the boundaries: Where’s the line between ‘cutting edge nutrition’ and doping
William Reed Business Media
Alpha & Omega in Sports Nutrition – Using Omega 3’s and A-GPC to improve performance and recovery.
KD Pharma

On demand Supplier Webinars

High-amylose maize starch may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes: what does this qualified health claim mean?
Balancing Innovation and Risk in Sports Nutrition Ingredients
Explaining bio-hacking: is there a marketing opportunity for food companies?
William Reed Business Media
Personalized Nutrition – how an industry can take part in shaping the future of Nutrition
BASF Nutrition & Health
Find out Nutritional and ingredient lifecycle solutions and strategies!
Is the time rIpe for I-nutrition?
William Reed Business Media
The Advantage of Outsourcing Fermentation-based Manufacturing Processes
Evonik Health Care
All supplier webinars