Many consumers are pursuing healthier lifestyles by buying food
that claims to have reduced fat, fewer calories, lower salt or
increased nutrients. But the area of healthy food is now becoming a
battleground for consumers and producers.
Last May, the European Commission adopted a list of nutrition
claims, following an assessment process set out in a 2006 EU
regulation. After scientific assessment by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA), only 222 of more than 4,000 claims were
appproved.
Claims that succeeded, and can be used in the promotion of foods,
include: 'Reducing consumption of sodium [salt] contributes to
the maintenance of normal blood pressure', provided the food
satisfies certain conditions.
Porridge oat manufacturers are already benefiting from having their
health claims approved, so expect to see, 'Oat beta-glucan has
been shown to lower blood cholesterol' on the packaging.
Not so delighted are the producers of probiotics, who will no
longer be able to claim that natural `probiotic' yoghurt is
good for your digestion, or that probiotic supplements boost
healthy gut micro-flora. The commission rejected the
"insufficiently characterised" claims, which cannot be
used after the end of this year. Producers are now considering
other avenues that may allow them continue to make nutrition claims
for probiotics.
However, now the entire register of approved claims is being
challenged. In a dramatic move, a British health food association
and Dutch food producers have issued legal proceedings against the
commission, arguing that it used a "flawed and inappropriate
way" of assessing food claims. They want the entire register
of approved and rejected claims to be scrapped, and the process
recommenced.
In the meantime, food producers are facing several other
challenges, such as broadcast¬ing authority codes, advertising
standards restrictions, the debate on calorie information on
restaurant menus and complying with the new Food Information
Regulation (FIR) by the end of 2014.
The Food Information Regulation 2011 alone will have a significant
impact on food business operators at all stages of the food chain.
It sets out nutritional information that must be included on food
packaging, such as the energy value and the amount of fat,
carbohydrates, protein, sugars and salt, with minimum font size
specified and rules on placement of the mandatory
information.
As a result, packaging and labels will have to be redesigned for
existing product lines. Others in the food chain, such as suppliers
of bulk products to caterers, online retailers and restaurants,
will face additional obligations which will add to their costs, as
well as presenting compliance challenges.
As for Minister for Health Dr James Reilly giving the restaurant
industry six months to make a voluntary code work, the minister can
rely on the FIR to strengthen his hand. For the first time, EU
information rules will apply to food which is not pre-packaged,
such as that sold in restaurants, school canteens and fish and chip
vans.
While the EU is insisting only that restaurants make allergen
information available, it has allowed member states to decide
whether to adopt national measures requiring other nutritional
information to be made available to consumers.
This has given the minister a green light to adopt legislation in
Ireland insisting on calorie content and any other nutri-tional
information being provided by restaurants and mass caterers with
non-pre-packed food.
The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI) has also been
policing alleged misleading advertising of food and drink products.
Increasingly, the ASAI has focused on the science behind the
advertising, particularly the European Food Safety Authority's
conclusions.
For example, in relation to a press advertisement claiming that
pomegranate juice played a role in lowering blood pressure and
reducing stress, the ASAI considered commissioned research and the
EFSA's scientific opinions. It upheld the complaint on the
basis that the health claims had not been substantiated.
The ASAI may become even more relevant to advertising in the
digital space. Since 2009, its remit includes advertisers' own
websites. The ASAI exercised this power last year in reviewing the
organics section of Glenisk's website, partially upholding a
complaint.
Now the ASAI proposes to extend its remit to cover activity by
advertisers on social media platforms and non-paid for space, which
was traditionally outside its remit. (Consultation on the proposals
closed on July 9.)
As if that were not enough, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland
has proposed amendments to the diet and nutrition section of the
children's commercial communications code, starting a debate on
whether cheese is a healthy food. That debate has been aired in the
Dail, with Simon Coveney, the Minister for Agriculture, opposing
moves to categorise cheddar cheese as a 'less healthy'
food.
The winner of that tussle won't be known until the BAI's
next publication in the autumn. Other foods falling foul of the
British nutrient profiling model include many cereals, mayonnaise
and sausages.
All these changes in food regulation will take time to digest
— perhaps over a bowl of prunes, enticingly promoted with
the EU-approved claim: `Prunes can contribute to normal bowel
function.'
Originally published in Sunday Business Post on 15 July 2012.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
