We, the below signed companies from across the food supplement sector, represented in 0 Member States call on you to be the voice of reason in the discussions on the implementation of Article 13.1 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims (claims Regulation).
The current implementation of Article 13.1 of the claims Regulation is inappropriate and disproportionate to the aims that it was created to achieve. The consequence of which could be damaging to consumers and to the sector with a potential decrease in retail sales of over one billion euros and a commensurate loss of jobs. The Regulation is now set to fail on all of its main objectives relating to:
-
Consumer protection;
-
Legal certainty;
-
Protection of SMEs;
-
Innovation in the sector; and
-
Fair competition
The Regulation requires that a different type of assessment for Article 13.1 health claims for generic health claims is carried out as compared to Article 13.5 and Article 14 claims, as stipulated in Recital 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/20061. However this provision for a more proportionate application of the Regulation’s Article 13. 1 has been consistently ignored, despite the fact that the European Parliament itself fought to have it included during the negotiations when this Regulation was adopted.
The consistent disregard of both this requirement and the explicit instructions included in the terms of reference provided by the European Commission to consider the totality of evidence, has meant that less than 5% of the Article 13.1 health claims for substances other than vitamins and minerals have been approved to date.
We call on you to ask that the European Commission re-consider the claims that have been given unfavourable opinions; give clear instructions to re-evaluate the claims the way that it was originally intended by the regulation; and avoid unjustly devastating a sector because of an inappropriate approach.
Yours sincerely,
1 Recital 26 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 explains that: ‘Health claims other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children's development and health, based on generally accepted scientific evidence, should undergo a different type of assessment and authorisation.’