Misleading health claims ban - FAQs

6^th December 2011 - The EU is a step closer to banning misleading food health claims. The EU Standing Committee on Animal Health and the Food Chain has voted to adopt a list of approved health claims assessed by experts at the European Food Safety Authority. What does the decision mean and when does the ban begin? Read our FAQs.

Why is the EU tackling health claims?

The EU says health claims can be an important source of information and a vital marketing tool. It says concerns that health claims could be "less than informative or misleading, by accident or by design" prompted calls for tighter controls.

The process began in 2006 and now a permitted list of claims will be put forward for adoption by EU member countries.

The list now goes to the European Parliament for three months of scrutiny. Unless there are objections during that time the list will come into effect, and from that point, food companies will have six months to comply.

Who is in charge of the list?

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been given the task of looking at the science behind any claims and substantiating them as well as making sure there is compliance with the EU rules.

Does rejection of a claim mean it isn't true?

Not necessarily, says the EU.

First there is a scientific assessment, then a test of compliance with the other requirements in the claims regulations. The three parts of the test a claim has to pass are:

• Whether the subject of the claimed effect for a food or substance can be defined well enough for a scientific assessment
• Whether the claimed effect is actually beneficial for health
• Whether the scientific studies considered by the EFSA show a cause and effect relationship between the food and the claimed effect

What's on the list?

The answer to this is a lot fewer items than they started with. It still isn't finalised yet but the EFSA has looked at more than 4,000 health claims. Only 222 have made it through the process so far.

Approved claims include some which may appear obvious, like calcium  being needed for the maintenance of normal bones and reduced consumption of sodium (salt) helps maintain normal blood pressure. Others are testing newer claims, such as plant sterols and plant stanols help maintain normal blood cholesterol, which was approved.

Claims that could not be substantiated include green tea for the maintenance of normal blood pressure and glucosamine for the maintenance of joints. Claims about royal jelly and the immune system or vitality were not approved. One claim, that water is a "basic requirement of all living things" was deemed "not sufficiently defined" to be approved. A claim by a chocolate firm that its product "helped children grow" was also rejected.