By Richard Lawley
October 1st saw the publication of the first series of EFSA opinions on the list of what are referred to as ‘general function’ health claims submitted by the European Commission for scientific evaluation. These are claims made under article 13.1 of the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (1924/2006) and relate to everything from omega-3 fatty acids to probiotic bacterial cultures. It turned out to be a bad day for a lot of manufacturers, hopeful that their carefully compiled dossiers would convince the EFSA Dietetic, Nutrition and Allergy Panel that the scientific evidence supported their claims. Around two thirds of the 523 claims relating to over 200 foods were rejected, broadly on the grounds that it did not.
At first glance, this looks to be something of a disaster for health claims in general and a confirmation of the worst fears voiced by some commentators in the run up to the publication date. It was no surprise that the mainstream press also had fun with the story and took the opportunity to direct some rather barbed comment at the food industry, especially over claims for probiotics and some other high profile functional ingredients. But the days that followed the initial shock gave food manufacturers a chance to take a more detailed look at the findings of the Panel and the precise reasons why the claims were rejected. A chance for reflection usually helps identify the positives in any situation – and this was no exception.
A study of the claims that were accepted provides the first chance to salvage something positive. Most of these related to vitamins and minerals – hardly controversial in terms of their positive effects on health – and to dietary fibres and fatty acids. These claims and the supporting evidence for them can at least be used as a future model for what is needed to achieve a positive evaluation. A look at the rejected claims shows that about half were rejected on the grounds that the substances responsible for the positive effect were not clearly identified in the submission and so could not be properly evaluated. This problem seems to have afflicted claims for probiotics and botanicals in particular. As EFSA commented, “Without clear identification of the substance in question, the Panel could not verify that the scientific evidence provided to EFSA related to the same substance for which the health benefits are claimed.” – well quite. This is a deficiency that should be fairly easy to overcome for future claims. It has also become clear since October 1st that the Panel did accept that some positive health benefits were demonstrated for claims where the overall evidence was insufficient to back the claim. This offers the hope
that further consideration of the claims by the Commission and by Member States could still be favourable, since the EFSA opinions are intended to “inform future decisions.”
It is still a bit early to analyse the fallout from the publication of these opinions. It is also worth remembering that the 523 claims processed so far are just the first group of more than 4,000 that EFSA has on its books. However, it is already clear that the Authority will not accept any claims that are not supported by watertight scientific evidence and will reject any claims containing ambiguities. There is clearly no point in submitting a claim that has any gaps in the science that underlies it. At least manufacturers know where they stand and will surely learn from this experience. One can be certain that future claims will be compiled with great care and thoroughly checked before they get anywhere near an EFSA Panel. This is no bad thing. The food industry has a clear responsibility to its customers and should not be trying to sell them products that will improve their health unless the benefits are proven to be genuine. Functional foods may be the added value products of the moment, but serious doubts over their effectiveness could kill the market very quickly.
