Health claims move closer but big issues remain

The exchange of views in committee is now scheduled for January 30 and 31, the deadlines for amendments for February 15, the vote in committee for March 21 and the vote in plenary during the May 15 to 18 sitting.

However Chris Whitehouse, managing director of food and charity sector lobbyists The Whitehouse Consultancy, predicts that the parliament's position will remain fundamentally different from that of the council of ministers from the member states at the end of this process, and that there will need to be a consultation to find a compromise and a way forward.

He said it is hard to predict the upshot of this consultation, which will take place behind closed doors, as there are still some big issues to be resolved such as whether it will be necessary to submit a dossier of scientific evidence for advance approval of any claim they wish to make, be it on packaging, in advertising, on websites or in any other published material.

This would be a cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming process for companies. The alternative would be notification of the proposed claim to the relevant national agency, which would allow the company to make the claims unless objections were raised or evidence requested.

In the UK there was progress on another point of contention last week.

Parliamentary under secretary for state for health Caroline Flint MP confirmed that the UK will adopt a processed-based approach to deciding whether charities may endorse food products when the new EU regulation on food and health claims comes into force.

The confirmation came in response to parliamentary questions put by Labour MP Austin Mitchell.

The draft regulation, which is still under debate, had originally proposed a ban on all endorsements of food products, whether by health professions or by charities or other organizations they represent. Following pressures from the UK during the first reading, this was overturned in favour of national authorities having the control to approve endorsements.

Whitehouse said: "There was a real concern that the Food Standards Agency would be given the invidious task of deciding which charities were and which were not allowed to raise revenue or promote their public health messages by endorsing food products."​

But this concern was roundly dispelled by Flint: "It is intended to introduce best practice guidelines to the food industry, medical associations and health charities, but there are no plans to introduce a list of charities or healthcare organizations permitted to make recommendations or endorsements of food products."​

She added that the FSA expects to consult on the guidelines before the regulation is adopted.

Whitehouse told NutraIngredients.com that this leaves the decision as to whether an organization is worthy of being classed as a charity to the Charities Commission.

The UK took a stance on national authorities having control of approvals as many other member states already have a ban on charity endorsements of food products. For them, it was not such a crucial issue.

It is too early to say whether other states may change their position on this when the regulation comes into effect.

But last week's decision is good news for UK food companies who seek to boost their marketing efforts through third party endorsement of the health benefits of their products. For instance, Pomegreat pomegranate juice by RJA Foods, Provexis' Sirco and Welch's purple grape juice are amongst the products approved by the charity Heart UK.

Heart UK director Michael Livingston told NutraIngredients.com that the charity requires companies to submit evidence of health benefits to independent scientists commissioned by the charity.

Only around one in 30 receives the approval to use Heart UK's logo and to enter into a partnership for up to three years.

It is not clear whether existing charity-endorsed claims will have to be reassessed once the FSA has drawn up its guidelines. But necessary or not, it is likely that charities will wish to reassess anyway, as it may result in bad publicity if they were found not to have followed the FDA process.

Flint said that the introduction of the new safeguards is expected to increase consumer confidence in claims made for food products and to help consumers when making healthy eating choices.

But Whitehouse highlighted other issues with the proposed legislation still to be resolved. In particular the prohibition of healthcare professions endorsing food products remains, even in cases where the claim is "reasonable, responsible and can be substantiated".

"Why deny access to consumers to advice that can improve their health in relation to fat, salt, sugar and nutrient intake, and why deny healthcare professionals who have dedicated their careers to promoting positive health awareness programmes the opportunity to be remunerated for that work?"​ he said. "It simply does not make sense when advertising can be so readily controlled through other means."​

Flint said that officials are currently examining the impact of this ban on existing claims.