FSA Interested Parties Note, 15 January 2010
Amendments to Nutrition Claims Annex
“Now X% less” reformulation claim
The Commission’s latest proposal introduces an additional criterion that, for sugars, the claim may only be made if the amount of energy of the reformulated product is equal to or lower than the amount of energy in the original product. This is to attempt to allay concerns that sugar would be replaced with fat. Some Member States (MS) thought the claim should only be allowed if the product is lower in energy as it may mislead consumers if it is used on products with equal energy content. Others wanted to consider whether it was always reasonable to require an energy reduction as this would be difficult to achieve if sugars are being replaced with other carbohydrates, for example.
Although the majority of MS are in favour of introducing a reformulation claim, several oppose it because they think it could mislead consumers due to its similarity with the “reduced” claim already in the Annex. The Commission’s legal services are still considering the legality of authorising another claim so similar to the “reduced” claim, but the Commission were optimistic that a solution could be found.
One MS questioned how Article 9, which requires comparisons to take into account a range of products of the same category, would apply to the reformulation claim. A couple of MS said Article 9 would mean that the claim could only be used if the original product was representative of other products of that category, which was positive as it would prevent the claim being used on products that are much higher in salt/sugar/fat than other similar products on the market.
“No added salt”
The majority of MS spoke in favour of introducing this claim as it is useful to consumers trying to distinguish between products with added salt and those that naturally contain low levels of sodium, such as canned vegetables in brine or spring water. The Commission indicated it would include this claim in its proposal on amendments to the nutrition claims Annex, although there was some debate about whether a “naturally occurring sodium” statement should be required where foods naturally contain low levels of sodium – some MS thought this would not be meaningful to consumers.
Introduction of specific criteria for waters
One MS thought it unfair to prohibit natural mineral waters from using the “low salt/sodium” claim, but considered it meaningless to introduce specific “very low salt/sodium” and “sodium/salt free” criteria for waters as the sodium thresholds are so low that there would be little additional benefit to consumers. The Commission said it considered that the “low salt/sodium” claim was equivalent to the “suitable for a low sodium diet” claim allowed by natural mineral water legislation, but was willing to consider clarifying this if MS thought it necessary.
DHA and ALA Article 14 health claims
MS had submitted written comments to the Commission in advance of the meeting so there was little discussion on this item. The Commission asked whether the conditions of use for the maternal supplement should refer to the additional 200mg intake pregnant and breastfeeding women require over and above the general population or the total 450mg they require. One MS spoke in favour of referring to 450mg but said 15% of this would not necessarily constitute a significant amount as DHA is obtained from only a few dietary sources. The Commission was keen to set conditions of use that would enable the claim to be used on foods containing DHA and not just supplements.
Several MS said that the claim should make clear it is aimed at pregnant and breastfeeding women and that the age group of children the claim is valid for should be explicit. One MS asked EFSA to give advice on the length of time a mother would need to consume DHA for the child to benefit.
Admissibility of health claims applications on products subject to foods for particular nutritional uses legislation and in particular on foods for special medical purposes (FSMPs)
The Commission stated its view that the mandatory statement that a food is intended “for dietary management of…” required by FSMP legislation did not need to be submitted for authorisation under the claims Regulation. However, additional statements and claims that go further than stating the purpose of the food as required by parnuts legislation would need to be authorised as health claims. No MS disagreed with this.
Target population for claims
EFSA asked for views on whether the target population for claims should be the general population or whether it is possible to refer to diseased population subgroups e.g. a claim about reduced risk of diarrhoea in people taking antibiotics. The Commission highlighted that claims referring to diseased subgroups would not be controlled by the Regulation if they were thought to fall outside its scope.
Article 13 health claims
The Commission has published a general update on the state of play on the Article 13 list on its website but details of the status of individual claims will not be given until EFSA updates the list of claims, which is not likely to be until the end of February. See http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/claims/health_claims_en.htm
Claims falling outside the scope of Article 13
MS had contested the withdrawal of 13 of the 37 claims identified as out of scope. Some of these are clearly medicinal or disease risk reduction claims, such as those about hypertension, diarrhoea and osteoporosis prevention. The Commission and MS concluded that claims about “fast” and “rapid” weight loss would be prohibited by Article 12(b), which disallows claims referring to rate or amount of weight loss, and in any case these terms are likely to mislead consumers because they are too vague.
Product specific claims
MS had contested the withdrawal of 22 of the 223 claims identified as being product specific. Some MS had requested small changes to be made to these claims to remove reference to specific products so they could remain in the Article 13 process, but the Commission was reluctant to accept these as it would mean unequal treatment of claims. However, it agreed to consider allowing claims where the product specific information was given in addition to the generic claim information to remain in the Article 13 process as some MS argued these were not truly product specific.
Adoption of the first list of authorised Article 13 claim is seen as a priority but draft legislative measures are not likely to be proposed until the end of February at the earliest. EFSA intends to publish its opinions on the second batch of Article 13 health claims, which it adopted in December, by the end of February.