SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on Supplements & Nutrition - EuropeUS edition

Report abuse about a comment

Putting the cart before the horse

The article does not describe what happens to the rejected claims under the "middle way" approach. I must assume that the rejected claims would be barred which would throw the industry into disarray and immediately start doing significant damage to the industry that is likely to be irreparable for some participants. Unless I missed something, Miss Girling's approach is not really a “middle way” - it is in fact passing the legislation as it has been proposed with the promise of doing impact assessments in the future. In my view, it is putting the cart before the horse. Impact assessments are normally completed before action is taken.

Especially in view of the speed that EFSA has shown in the past, any change resulting from drawn out impact assessments would be long in coming, it would cause damaging uncertainty to the industry and would be brutally costly to the participants that can afford to pay and play, and unfair to the smaller participants who might just close up shop. If all this is in the name of the consumer, then for all the reasons that have been brought forward and well argued, the benefit to the consumer is completely lost on me.

Posted by Pavel Straka
09 March 2012 | 17h21

Please fill in the box below to tell us why you feel the post breaks our rules. When you are finished, click on "Send" so that it can be reviewed by a moderator.

Your name *
Your email *

We will not publish your email on the site

Reason *

Back to: Julie Girling MEP: “Pass this first lot of claims and then do an impact assessment”

Key Industry Events