🧭 Nutriscore: A high-level dialogue between science, citizens and operators (Virtual Event) - Tuesday, 23rd November 2021

 

Draft Agenda 

 14h00 Welcome Speech 

 Yves Madre, President, Farm Europe (France). 

  

14h05 Opening Remarks 

 Francesco Capozzi, Professor, Head of Interdepartmental Centre for Industrial Agrofood Research, University of Bologna (Italy). 

 Luis González Vaqué, Professor, Director of Food and Agrarian Policies of the “Fundación Triptolemos” (Spain).

 Nicolai Worm, Nutritionist, University of Munich (Germany). 

 

14h30 Round Table 

Ettore Prandini, President, Coldiretti (Italy). 

Sergio Martín Rubio, Director of Technical and Legislation Department, ANICE (Spain). 

Luciano Stella, Founder, No-Nutriscore Alliance (Belgium). 

Sebastien Vignette, Secretary-General, Roquefort Confederation (France) – invited. 

Marco Campomenosi, MEP, ID (Italy). 

Paolo De Castro, MEP, S&D (Italy). 

Dolors Montserrat, MEP, EPP (Spain) – invited. 

Adrian Vázquez Lazara, MEP, RE (Spain) – invited. 

Marc Tarabella, MEP, S&D (Belgium).

 

15h45 Conclusions

Representative from the European Commission – invited.

 

Information and registration:

nutrition@eat-europe.eu

l.stella@mustconsulting.com

https://www.farm-europe.eu/contact-us/

 

🌿 23rd November 2021 - Virtual Event: “The impact of Nutriscore labeling system on the EU”

 

 

Information and registration:

l.stella@mustconsulting.com

https://www.farm-europe.eu/contact-us/

Draft Agenda 

14h00 Welcome Speech Yves Madre, President, Farm Europe (France). 

14h05 Opening Remarks 

Francesco Capozzi, Professor, Head of Interdepartmental Centre for Industrial Agrofood Research, University of Bologna (Italy). 

Paloma Quintana Ocaña, Nutritionist and Food Technologist (Spain). 

Luis González Vaqué, Professor, Director of Food and Agrarian Policies of the “Fundació Triptolemos”, (Spain). 

Nicolai Worm, Nutritionist, University of Munich (Germany).

14h35 Round Table 

Ettore Prandini, President, Coldiretti (Italy). 

Sergio Martín Rubio, Director of Technical and Legislation Department, ANICE (Spain).

Luciano Stella, Founder, No-Nutriscore Alliance (Belgium). 

Sebastien Vignette, Secretary-General, Roquefort Confederation (France) – invited. 

Marco Campomenosi, MEP, ID (Italy) – invited.

Paolo De Castro, MEP, S&D (Italy). 

Dolors Montserrat, MEP, EPP (Spain) – invited. 

Adrian Vazquez Lazara, MEP, RE (Spain) – invited. 

Marc Tarabella, MEP, S&D (Belgium) – invited. 

15h50 Conclusions Representative from the European Commission – invited. 

Moderator: Antonella Rossetti, Senior Advisor, Farm Europe.

Informe de la Comisión al Parlamento Europeo y al Consejo sobre la utilización de formas adicionales de expresión y presentación de la información nutricional

Bruselas, 20.5.2020 COM(2020) 207 final 

https://app.box.com/s/fcxv2j12z8qzla4tlhcby1yjfn1kuigd






w

“Impacto de diferentes etiquetados frontales de alimentos según su calidad nutricional: Estudio comparativo en México”

Liliana Guadalupe Hernández Nava et al. Salud pública de México, Vol. 61 No. 5 (2019) 609-618. [available on the Internet at: <https://app.box.com/s/hkv4ejd0drsuv6r7adpbavxxwzwwp13i> (last accessed on 8 May 2020)].

Información facilitada por

gonzalu70@outlook.es

EU: Will the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation Ever Be Clear Enough?

Once again the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has moved to clarify the rules applicable to health claims.

Recently, the CJEU had the opportunity to further clarify the provisions of Regulation (EC) n°1924/2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims made on foods (the NHC Regulation), in particular the requirements applicable to health claims.

Under the NHC Regulation, health claims are defined as “any [message or representation, which is not mandatory under EU or national legislation, including pictorial, graphic or symbolic representation, in any form], which states, suggests or implies that a relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health”[1]

The NHC Regulation distinguishes between different types of health claims. These fall into three categories:

1. First of all,  the ‘Function Health Claims’ (Article 13) referring to the role of a nutrient in the growth, development and functions of the body, to psychological and behavioral functions or to slimming or weight-control. An example of this is the claim “Activated charcoal contributes to reducing excessive flatulence after eating”(article 13).

2. Secondly the ‘Risk Reduction Claims’ (Article 14(1)(a)) referring to the reduction of a risk factor in the development of a disease. “Chewing gum sweetened with 100% xylitol has been shown to reduce dental plaque. High content/level of dental plaque is a risk factor in the development of caries in children” is a claim that would fall in this category (article 14 (1) (a)).

3 Finally, the regulation considers ‘Claims Referring to Children’s Development’[2] , such as “Calcium is needed for normal growth and development of bone in children.” (article 14 (1) (b))

Health claims cannot be used unless authorized[3] by the European Commission following a scientific review by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Depending on the types of health claims, different procedures must be followed but generally the approval of a new health claim is both costly[4] and  long, with an average of 2.5 years for the approval.

Health Claim Applications and Risk of Rejection

Regarding the first category of health claims, after several years of work and hundreds of claims assessments by EFSA, the European Commission published in 2012 a first list of health claims which can be made on foods in compliance with the conditions set out in the annex of the regulation[5]. Today, more than 260 health claims are authorized under EU law.

But unfortunately for the FBOs most of the specific dossiers under article 14 are rejected.

Even under article 13 a bad surprise can happen at the very end of the procedure as it happened to Dextro  Energy 2011, when requesting authorization to use several health claims in relation to glucose and its effect on health.[6] In this instance, EFSA gave positive advice considering that a cause-and-effect link could be established between the consumption of glucose and normal energy-yielding metabolism. However, the European Commission did not approve the claims, in particular because “the use of such a health claim would convey a conflicting and confusing message to consumers, because it would encourage consumption of sugars for which, on the basis of generally accepted scientific advice, national and international authorities inform the consumer that their intake should be reduced.”[7] The Court considered that the European Commission must, as a risk-management measure, take into account the applicable EU legislation as well as other legitimate and relevant factors, and confirmed that the European Commission may refuse to approve health claims, even after a  positive scientific assessment[8].

A (Small) Margin to Manoeuvre

In addition to those specifically authorized health claims, the NHC Regulation leaves a (small) margin to manoeuvre for food business operators wishing to present their products positively.

This is for instance the case for trademarks and other brand names already existing before 1 January 2005 and which may be construed as nutrition or health claims. In principle, the NHC Regulation applies to those trademarks and brand names and provides severe restrictions to the use thereof. However, a specific transition period is foreseen under Article 28 of the Regulation. Products bearing trademarks or brand names existing before 1 January 2005 which do not comply with the NHC Regulation may continue to be marketed until 19 January 2022. After that date, they may only be marketed if they fully comply with the NHC Regulation.

Secondly, the NHC Regulation provides for the possibility to make general health claims that refer to a general benefit of a nutrient or food for overall good health or health-related well-being. Under Article 10(3) of the NHC Regulation such general health claims may be made provided that they are accompanied by a specific authorized health claim.

The NHC Regulation allows the use of easy and attractive statements which make reference to general benefits. However, such statements could be misunderstood or misinterpreted by consumers hence the Commission clarified in its Decision 2013/63/EU[9] that the specific authorized health claim accompanying the general health claim should bear some relevance to the general reference and be made ‘next to’ or ‘following’ such statement. In this regard, the Court of Justice recently had the opportunity to clarify the meaning of “accompanied”.

In Case C-524/18 Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG[10], a general health claim appeared on the front of the outer packaging. The accompanying specific authorized health appeared only on the back of that packaging, and without a clear reference, such as an asterisk, between the two.

In the present case, the outer package of a food supplement featured in front of the outer packing general claims such as “B vitamins and zinc for the brain, nerves, concentration and memory” while the back of the outer packaging featured several specific health claims such as “Vitamin B1 and vitamin B12 contribute to normal energy metabolism and normal function of the nervous system as well as supporting normal mental capacity.” The Court was asked to clarify if this packaging meets the requirements of Article 10(3) of the NHC Regulation.

The Court concluded that “the requirement of ‘accompanying’, within the meaning of Article 10(3) of that regulation, must be interpreted as requiring not only that the specific health claim should specify the content of the health claim worded in general terms, but also that the location of those two claims on the packaging of the product must enable an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably attentive and circumspect to understand the link between those claims. Accordingly, the concept of ‘accompanying’ within the meaning of that article, must be interpreted as including both a substantive and a visual dimension.”

Unlike, the position of the Advocate-General Hogan[11], the Court adopted a stricter approach and concluded that ‘accompanied’ encompasses both a substantive dimension and a visual dimension. The substantive dimension means that the general claim must be fully supported by the specific health claim.The visual dimension means that there should be an immediate perception by the average consumer of a direct visual link between the specific health claim and the general health claim.

Only in exceptional cases, it may be possible for the general health claim not to appear in spatial proximity or immediate vicinity of the specific health claim, provided that an explicit reference, such as an asterisk ensures in a “manner that is clear and perfectly comprehensible to the consumer, that, in spatial terms, the content of the health claims and the reference match”. The Court concluded that  “it is therefore for the national courts to verify and determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether the requirement of visual proximity arising from Article 10(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006 is satisfied by the use of a linking asterisk.”

In the coming months, the Court of Justice will have another opportunity to clarify the provisions of the NHC Regulation by answering the following: “Do Articles 5 and 6, read in conjunction with Articles 10(1) and 28(5) of Regulation No 1924/2006, regulate the burden of proof when a national court is determining whether unpermitted health claims have been made in a situation where the health claims in question correspond to a claim covered by an application under Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006, but where the application has not yet led to a decision on authorisation or non-authorisation, or is the burden of proof determined according to national law?”[12]

This Case law will be a good opportunity to discuss another burning point of the NHC Regulation, what about the hundreds of claims that have been put on hold and in particular the health claims for plant and herbal substances.

Katia Merten-Lentz

This article was first published by FOODNavigator.com on March 24, 2020.

_________________________________________

[1] Article 2(2)(1) and 2(2)(5) of the NHCR read together

[2] E.g. “Calcium is needed for normal growth and development of bone in children.”

[3] Article 10 of the NHC Regulation

[4] The average cost per applicant has been evaluated by the European Commission to range between 0,008/0,2 to 1 million euros. See Commission Staff Working Document - Refit Evaluation of the General Food law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002), SWD(2018) 38 final.  

[5] Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02012R0432-20170822

[6] E.g. ‘glucose is metabolised within the body’s normal energy metabolism’, ‘glucose contributes to normal energy-yielding metabolism’, ‘glucose supports physical activity’, ‘glucose contributes to normal energy-yielding metabolism during exercise’ and ‘glucose contributes to normal muscle function during exercise’

[7] Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children's development and health Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 3, 7.1.2015, p. 6–9 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_003_R_0003

[8] See Case T-100/15, Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2016:150 and the dismissed appeal C-296/16 P - Dextro Energy v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2017:437

[9] 2013/63/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 24 January 2013 adopting guidelines for the implementation of specific conditions for health claims laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 22, 25.1.2013, p. 25–28 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32013D0063

[10] C-524/18 Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, ECLI:EU:C:2020:60 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=222888&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=1924%252F2006&doclang=EN&cid=7081377#ctx1

[11] Opinion of Advocate General Hogan delivered on 12 September 2019, Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co.KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG., ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2019:727, see notbaly paragraphs 65 and 66:

“In my opinion, the criteria considered in this case-law may be applied by analogy to the present case, so that it may be expected that a consumer reading a general health statement on the front of the packaging of a food product will also consult the further information provided on the back of the packaging, which in addition to a list of ingredients may also include a set of specific health claims that are meant to support the general health claim.

Thus, in my opinion, it cannot be a general requirement that a specific linking tool, such as the use of an asterisk, be deployed in order to guide the consumer from the front to the back of the packaging. However, the situation becomes more complex where the information on the back of the packaging contains a mix of statements, of which only some serve to support the general health claim on the front of the package, as referred to by the Applicant and the Commission.” http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=217675&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=7102890

[12] Case C-363/19, Konsumentombudsmannen, Application: OJ C 246 from 22.07.2019, p.11

https://app.box.com/s/rxbs4hj6acwjbaekygurcdztz2d5jzxo

W

EU: Where do we stand on nutrition and health claims?

Fifteen years ago, products on sale in the European market could bear nutrition claims such as “90% fat free”, while, generally, no health claims related to human disease were permitted on the labels. Now, both nutrition and health claims are highly regulated and only those authorized can be used in relation to most food.

In 2003, the Commissioner David Byrne explained that a new regulation was needed for the consumer to “receive accurate and meaningful information while food producers will be able to use serious and scientifically substantiated claims as a marketing tool without being drowned out by the many unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims that currently exist on the market.”

After three years of negotiations, Regulation (EC) n°1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (the NHCR) was adopted. It aimed to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market whilst providing a high level of consumer protection.

But the entry into force of the NHCR did not fully correct a the numerous discrepancies both in the definition of the terms used and the conditions warranting the use of claims. It was left to the Court of Justice to clarify the provisions and scope of this regulation.

The NHCR applies to “nutrition and health claims made in commercial communications, whether in the labelling, presentation or advertising of foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer”. The regulation does not define the term “commercial communication” nor does it clarify the meaning of “delivered as such to the final consumer”.  

In 2016, the Court of Justice got the chance to clarify whether communication exclusively addressed to health professionals falls within the scope of the NHCR. The Court concluded that a nutrition or health claim aimed at promoting a food to be delivered as such to the final consumer, even though, for instance, only mentioned in a commercial communication addressed to health professional, will fall within the scope of the NHCR and therefore will have to comply with the pertaining requirements. The Court also clarified that the concept of a ‘commercial communication’ must be understood as covering, inter alia, a communication made in the form of food advertising, designed to promote, directly or indirectly, those foods.

Today, most of questions regarding the scope of the NHCR have been answered. But some shadows areas persist. Perhaps the biggest of them all being whether the NHCR remains “fit for purpose”.

Facing the boom of the clean label trend and the shift toward natural solutions, the long-awaited outcome of the reevaluation of the NHCR (REFIT) could revive interest in a regulation that has not yet delivered all its promises. Future will tell if still waters run deep.

Katia Merten-Lentz

This article was first published by Food Navigator on November 7, 2019. 

Etiquetado Nutricional Frontal de Alimentos

Elaboración y redacción

Mg. Verónica Risso Patrón. Coordinadora del Programa Nacional de Alimentación Saludable y Prevención de la Obesidad. Dirección Nacional de Promoción de la Salud y Control de Enfermedades Crónicas No Transmisibles. Secretaría de Gobierno de Salud.

Lic. Eliana Hansen. Programa Nacional de Alimentación Saludable y Prevención de la Obesidad. Dirección Nacional de Promoción de la Salud y Control de Enfermedades Crónicas No Transmisibles. Secretaría de Gobierno de Salud.

Dra. Anabella Valle Ruidiaz. Área de Promoción de la Dirección Nacional de Promoción de la Salud y Control de Enfermedades Crónicas No Transmisibles. Secretaría de Gobierno de Salud.

Revisión de contenidos

Dra. Verónica Irene Schoj. Directora Nacional de Promoción de la Salud y Control de Enfermedades Crónicas No Transmisibles. Secretaría de Gobierno de Salud.

Edición

Tec. Facundo Miranda. Dirección Nacional de Promoción de la Salud y Control de Enfermedades Crónicas No Transmisibles. Secretaría de Gobierno de Salud

http://www.msal.gob.ar/images/stories/bes/graficos/0000001380cnt-etiquedato-nutricional-frontal-alimentos.pdf

USA: New Guidance for Nutrition Labeling

During November 2018, FDA issued two new guidance documents — one final and one draft — to support the nutrition labeling final rules issued in 2016.  Most companies must comply with the new final rules by January, 1, 2020. Companies with less than ten million dollars in annual food sales have an extra year to comply, with all inventory phased in by January 1, 2021. Despite these absolute compliance dates, many manufacturers have chosen to phase in their inventory sooner to have current and contemporary labels. The new final guidance relates to compliance dates, added sugars and declaring quantitative amounts of vitamins and minerals, replacing the draft guidance from January 2017. Even though FDA received over 1,600 comments regarding the draft guidance, its essence didn't change dramatically. The guidance includes expanded information about calculating added sugars from concentrated juices, as well as a revised table for vitamin and mineral rounding rules. The new draft guidance relates to single serving containers and dual column labeling for packages that contain at least 200% and up to and including 300% of reference amounts customarily consumed, in addition to other topics of interest to food labelers. Comments on the draft guidance are due to FDA by January 4, 2019. The guidance documents are available here:  https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/UCM624571.pdf  Article publlshed by https://www.foodlabels.com/food-label-news W

EP: Question for written answer - Subject: Nutritional labelling and WHO guidelines

27 September 2018 E-004886-18 Question for written answer E-004886-18 to the Commission Mario Borghezio (ENF)

On 27 September 2018, the Third High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases is being held in New York. The news had spread — it was immediately denied by the World Health Organisation — that a proposal would be mooted there to apply a ‘black stamp’ to particular foods such as extra virgin olive oil, Parmesan and raw ham on account of their salt or fat content.

Despite the denial, a proposal for a sort of ‘nutritional labelling’ on the French or British model (the so-called ‘traffic light’ system) remains on the table. Such a system would be very damaging for some high-quality Italian foodstuffs and could have the paradoxical effect of discouraging the consumption of natural foods in favour of sweetened products.

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1.	Does it not think that recommending a nutritional labelling scheme would be misguided because a proper diet is based primarily on the balance and variety of the various foods consumed and not on individual products?
2.	Does it not consider that a proposal for a labelling of origin scheme would be more useful, even for processed products? .

E-004886/2018

Answer given by Mr Andriukaitis

on behalf of the European Commission

(23.11.2018)

1) Improving general nutrition of EU citizens is an important Commission objective. The Commission is supporting the promotion of healthy dietary patterns that are following relevant national and international dietary guidelines and nutrition recommendations. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers[1] allows, on a voluntary basis, the repetition on the front-of-pack of the information provided in the nutrition declaration, in order to help consumers to see at a glance the essential nutrition information when purchasing foods. According to Article 35, additional forms of expression and/or presentation (e.g. symbols, graphical forms) than those contained in the nutrition declaration can be used by food business operators or recommended by Member States, provided they comply with cumulative criteria set in the Regulation. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling - if meaningful and well understood by consumers - can be a useful tool to support public health objectives.

2) It shall be noted that the question does not specify how origin labelling relates to nutrition aspects. Article 26(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 requires to indicate the country of origin or place of provenance on mandatory basis, where the failure to indicate this might mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the food. Article 26(3) specifies that where the origin of the final food is given and is not the same as that of its primary ingredient, the origin of the primary ingredient shall be also given. The modalities of providing this information on the label are harmonised in an Implementing Act[2]. The Commission underlines that front-of-pack nutrition labelling cannot be replaced by origin indication due to their different purposes.

---

[1]     OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18

[2]     OJ L 131, 29.5.2018, p. 8