Food for thought

Decisions on health claims for food products are proving difficult to stomach for many in the industry.

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

From milkshakes that help you lose weight to fizzy drinks that keep you alert or  spreads enhanced with cholesterol-busting additives, supermarket shelves are laden with foods that promise much more than just a meal. Demand has shot up for ‘functional foods’ –  products said to improve health or protect against disease. 

Where consumers go, regulators follow. But testing the validity of the claims made for these foods is taking time and generating controversy. When the EU regulated these products in 2007, the European Commission was overwhelmed with 44,000 draft claims. These were winnowed down to 4,637, and passed on for assessment to scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The volume of claims made it impossible to meet the 31 January 2010 deadline for assessing all claims. So far, EFSA has evaluated 937, and is expected to publish a new batch of results in the autumn.

The verdict on the first claims has sent shockwaves through the food industry. More than two-thirds have been rejected – some relating to products that have been on the market for decades. Health claims for probiotic yoghurts, antioxidants in fruit juices, and some energy drinks and sugar-free gum have been rejected, although mostly because claims are unproven rather than untrue.

Transparency issues

Companies and their associations complain that EFSA did not help them to understand the process. Milica Jevtic at the European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN) cites “a lack of transparency” from EFSA about what was required to prove claims that antioxidants, the natural chemicals that help protect cells from premature ageing, may protect against ageing and disease.

Sevtic says: “We stand behind the statement that there is an antioxidant effect in fruits and fruit juices. The question is how to satisfy the criteria to demonstrate the effect.” Although she is pleased that EFSA will hold a special meeting with the fruit industry in the autumn, she remarks that re-submitting a new claim “could be very costly”.

The probiotics industry was also stunned that nearly all its claims were rejected. Global production of probiotic products has more than doubled over the past decade, to 20 million tonnes, according to the Yoghurt and Live Fermented Milk Association (YLFA), an industry group. Europe is one of the world’s most important markets for these products, second only to Japan, where the live-culture yoghurt drinks won popularity 80 years ago. Carine Lambert of YLFA argues that products should get a second chance to make their case, with an appeals process “to give applicants the opportunity to better explain and amend the content of the applications”. She points out that companies face a risk “in terms of image and media reactions”.

Fact File

Rejected

The following claims have not been proven, says the European Food Safety Authority:
Antioxidants in teas and juices protect cells from ageing, thus protecting people against disease and ageing.
Energy drinks containing taurine delay fatigue and enhance sports performance.
Cranberry juice can help prevent urinary tract infection.
Eating dried plums (prunes) ensures regular bowel function.
Chewing sugar-free gum reduces plaque.
A ‘lutein’ supplement helps maintain healthy vision.

Inneke Herreman, secretary-general of the International Margarine Association of the Countries of Europe (IMACE), contends that the process is imperfect. Last year, EFSA was forced to change its advice on sterols and stanols, plant extracts that are added to yoghurts and margarines to reduce cholesterol. The agency had allowed Danone, a food manufacturer, to use lower amounts of sterols and stanols to make a health claim than had been required of two competitors.

Although Herreman is sympathetic – “you cannot blame anyone” – she notes the result sowed “confusion in the market” and created costs for the two companies that had to change labels and product composition. She describes the rules as a “guinea pig process” where both the Commission and EFSA are still learning.

By contrast, Nestlé, the Swiss food and drink conglomerate, has had more than 50 claims approved by EFSA (and one probiotic rejected), and appreciates the measure.

Nestlé spokeswoman Hilary Green says the company has not experienced problems and welcomes the protection it affords their products: “We are certainly pleased, because it protects the investment that you put into research and development.”

Chris Davies, a British Liberal MEP, is less complimentary. He is worried that some companies may be put at a competitive disadvantage if they are still waiting for their claim to be approved while rivals are operating with a successful claim. “It would be completely wrong to approve the health claims made for some foods while others are stuck in the queue,” he said in a statement last month.

National governments, which have the final say on approving health claims, share these qualms. Earlier this month (15 July), the Commission decided to postpone a vote on approving the claims until the autumn, because 27 national government experts were unable to agree.

A spokesman for John Dalli, the European commissioner for health and consumer policy, has rejected suggestions that approving the claims in batches would lead to distortions of competition: “We had so many batches that to have to do it in one go would mean waiting until 2014 to have the process completed.” He adds: “We are not saying that the products are bad or that they should be withdrawn from the market…this whole process will clarify many things for companies and consumers.”

Clear and accurate information to consumers is the aim at the heart of this directive, but achieving the result is proving far more difficult than anyone imagined.