• SEVEN SEAS – GLUCOSAMINE HEALTH CLAIM REJECTED IN THE UK

    Since the rejection of glucosamine by EFSA as being able beneficially impact inflammation or support joints heath in the normal healthy population (EFSA Journal 2009; 7(9):1264) the market in Europe has been concerned. In the UK the MHRA have been looking to remove products claiming any relation to pain treatment and in Germany the courts had used injunctions to remove glucosamine containing products from shelf.

    In the latest hit on Glucosamine the UK’s largest glucosamine company has been to alter its marketing claims as they are not compliant, according to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

    A national press ad for Seven Seas JointCare Opti-Release was headed, “Want smooth working joints throughout the day?*”. Below the text was an image of a woman running with glowing points at some of her joints. Text next to a picture of the product stated “Try new Seven Seas JointCare Opti-Release for a sustained release of glucosamine that’s in rhythm with your body”. Small print stated, “*Glucosamine occurs naturally in the body where it plays a role in the smooth working of the joints and helps maintain connective tissues. Seven Seas JointCare Opti-Release is one of a number of products including Seven Seas Joint Care Sport with Omega 3″.

    The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because it implied that the efficacy of the product to improve joint health and mobility could be substantiated.

    Seven Seas Defence

    Seven Seas Ltd (Seven Seas) pointed out that the CAP AdviceOnline guidance CAP accepted the claim “Glucosamine occurs naturally in the body where it plays a role in the smooth working of the joints and helps maintain connective tissues”. They claimed the headline claim in the ad was an abbreviation of this and because they annotated the full claim in the small print, they did not consider the ad misleading. They claimed the ad did not imply that the efficacy of the product in improving joint health and mobility could be substantiated.

    ASA Ruling

    The ASA noted the CAP AdviceOnline guidance made clear that the ASA had not seen sufficient substantiation for claims that glucosamine could help maintain healthy joints or aid joint mobility. We considered that the heading “Want smooth working joints throughout the day?” implied the product improved joint health and mobility. Because we have not seen adequate substantiation to support this claim, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

    The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 12.1 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products). The ad must not appear again in its current form.

    TAKE HOME CONCERNS

    The ruling suggests that enforcement (at least in the UK) of any health claims allowed by EFSA may be given little allowance for interpretation (flexibility in wording) and as such manufacturers could well be stuck with non-friendly consumer products claims in 2012.

  • Vitamin water not ‘Nutritious’ say’s ASA

    Is this the begining of Nutrient profiling for products making health claims?

    According to todays judgent by the UK’s advertising Standards Authority (ASA) it looks like it is a sign of things to come. After receiving 3 complainants challenging whether the claim that the product was “nutritious” was misleading the ASA reviewed the composition and claims made by Cocoa Cola on its ‘Vitamin Water’ range.

    Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd (Coca-Cola) said that the product did not contain 30 g of sugar per 500ml as claimed by the complainant and that it actually contained 23 g, which was a significantly lower amount. They said that the product could be described as “nutritious” because it contained nutritionally meaningful quantities of several nutrients including 25% of the recommended daily allowance of four B vitamins (B6, B12, niacin and pantothenic acid) along with 100% of the recommended daily allowance of vitamin C. They said all varieties of the product contained the same 23 g of sugar per 500 ml serving and that this delivered an energy density of 19 kcal/100 ml which meant they qualified for the category of “low calorie” drinks under EU Regulations.

    They also said the European Commission were currently in the process of defining the nutrient profiles of foods and drinks and the subsequent health and nutrition claims that could made. They stated that, under the proposed guidelines for non-alcoholic drinks, the upper limit for sugar content was 8 g/100 ml, which was well above the 4.6 g/100 ml of Vitaminwater. They added that at the present time, there was nothing in the regulatory scheme to prevent products from being described as “nutritious” because of their sugar content. They stated that, in addition to the B and C vitamins contained within Vitaminwater, the provision of energy supplied by the drinks was an equally important component of nutrition. They said although the drinks contained nearly a quarter of the recommended maximum daily intake of sugars, these sugars provided a contribution to the taste of the product and that they were totally transparent about this content through their labelling.

    Coca-cola stated that dictionary definitions of “nutritious” included: “containing many of the substances needed for life and growth” and “(nutritious foods) provide the substances that people need in order to be healthy …”. They believed these definitions were an accurate representation of the products and would be shared by consumers. They added that Vitaminwater has sugar levels that were lower than those found in drinks such as fruit juices and semi-skimmed milk which were generally consider by the consumer to be “nutritious”, and that these drinks were drunk in similar quantifies to Vitaminwater and were often served in containers that were significantly larger that 500 ml.

    However, according to the ASA the claim was to be rejected.

    The ASA noted the product contained 23 g of sugar and not the 30 g of sugar referred to by one of the complainants. We also noted Coca-Cola’s assertion that the products contained sufficient quantities of vitamins to contribute towards the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) for those nutrients and that the number of calories per 100 ml meant that the product could be defined as “low calorie”. We understood that the European Union had proposed “nutrient profiles” for health claims, but noted these were not in place at the time at which the ad appeared. Although we noted the amount of added sugar per 100 ml serving was relatively low in comparison with some other drinks, we also noted the drink was only available in 500 ml servings that contained 23 g of sugar, which comprised over a quarter of a consumers GDA for sugar (based on a 2000 calorie diet). We considered that, because the ad referred to the “water” product as “Hydration for the nation” and as “water”, most consumers would be likely to interpret the featured 500 ml bottle as a single serving. We noted some fruit juice drinks and semi-skimmed milk contained more sugar per 100 ml than Vitaminwater, but considered most consumers would understand that these products contained naturally occurring sugars as opposed to added sugars. Furthermore, although we understood those drinks were sometimes sold in high volume containers, we considered that Coca-Cola had not provided evidence that consumers were encouraged to drink those liquids in serving sizes equivalent to the 500 ml of Vitaminwater.

    We considered that consumers would understand the word “nutritious” in the context of the ad as a claim that Vitaminwater contained added ingredients that were needed by the body in order to stay healthy. However, we considered that they would not expect a “nutritious” drink to have the equivalent of four or five teaspoons of added sugar. Because Vitaminwater contained about a quarter of a consumers GDA for sugar as well as the added vitamins, we considered that the description of Vitaminwater as “nutritious” was misleading.

    This rejection of a relatively washy claim maybe a glimpse of what is to follow with regards the NHCR and the eventual application of nutrient profiling.

    Welcome to 2011…

    Source: www.asa.org.uk

  • Redbull gets its wings clipped!

    Health Concerns over the Red Bull Energy Drink were fuelled yesterday after Europe’s highest court upheld a French ban of the product. The Fizzy drink has been linked to several deaths and some experts have criticized its high levels of caffeine and other stimulants.

    Red bull is Britain’s best-selling energy drink, with 213 million cans consumed last year. It has been dubbed the ‘clubbers’ drink, and it is often mixed with vodka. The popular adverts claiming the Red Bull ‘gives you wings’ have led to the brand being described as ‘the Porsche of soft drinks.

    It contains caffeine, vitamins and sugar which the company claims, kick-stars the body’s metabolism and kepps people alert. But France has refused to authorize its sale, along with other vitamin-fortified foods such as Danone yoghurt and Kellogg’s cereals. The European Commission (EC) challenged France’s ban after manufacturers complained it was inhibiting imports.

    In a ruling yesterday, the European Court of Justice upheld the main part of the EC challenge, ordering France to lift the ban unless it could prove the health risks. But the court said tht the French government did have a right to ban red bull. The judges said that a study by the French Scientific Committee on Human Nutrition found that red Bull contained excessive caffeine.

    The committee also raised concerns about the drink’s other ingredients – taurin, an amino acid and company claims can ‘kick-start’ the metabolism – and glucuronolactone, a carbohydrate. The EC’s scientific committee on Food conducted a study last year and found that while caffeine levels in energy drinks were safe, more studies were needed to assess the dangers of taurine and glucuronolactone.

    While other toxicology experts had concluded that the caffeine levels in Red Bull are safe, France had a right to ban the drink on the advise of its own experts, the court said.

    Source: Bevnet

  • Mycotoxins found in cereal-based foods

    The UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA)  has published the results of a survey investigating the levels of certain naturally-occurring chemicals called mycotoxins in a range of cereals and-cereal based foods. This is the first year’s results from a four-year rolling surveillance programme.

    The survey found that 97% of samples were below the legal limits for mycotoxins. Only 7 of the 220 samples analysed contained levels of mycotoxins above the legal limits. The Agency took immediate action to ensure any non-compliant products were withdrawn from the market.

    Source: http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2010/nov/mycotoxinsurvey

  • Food supplements – Number 10 not interested in NHAS petition

    The lead organization for Britain’s health store retailers says it is dismayed by the recycled reply it has received in response to its Number 10 e-petition.

    Earlier this year the National Association of Health Stores (NAHS) created an online petition on 10 Downing Street’s website, joining hundreds of other organisations and citizens campaigning on issues ranging from transport to saving the British pub.

    The NAHS petition called on the Prime Minister to intervene personally to ensure consumers in Britain continue to have access to safe, higher potency vitamin and mineral supplements. Thousands of these products could be forced off shelves over the next few years as a result of restrictive and scientifically arbitrary EU legislation.

    But instead of receiving a reply to its own petition from the Government, the NAHS received a word-for-word copy of a reply to a completely separate petition on Codex Alimentarius, the global foods standards body.

    The NAHS’s administration manager, Avril McCracken, comments:

    “We were completely dumbfounded that the Government had apparently recycled a reply to an unrelated petition and thought it would do as a formal response to our petition — which has been signed by over 1300 people. Number 10 has since said that the recycled reply was caused by an “administrative error” but our members have been left with the strong suspicion that they are being fobbed off with a one-reply-fits-all response.”

    NAHS chair, Wendy Atkinson, added: “Are the Number 10 e-petitions just there to make people feel better and think they are being listened too? Our experience is that nobody is listening at all, and that’s incredibly disappointing at such a crucial time for our members’ businesses.

    “The harsh reality is that many health stores up and down Britain could face closure if they lose their bread and butter products. Ministers have frequently promised that they will fight our corner in Europe, but what we now need is decisive action and not just warm words. The health food trade has repeatedly warned the Government of the growing anger in Britain — from both consumers and industry — about this damaging legislation from Brussels. The Conservative Party has said it will ensure health choice is an election issue next year, and so we hope the Prime Minister will take serious notice of our concerns and consider that our petition is worthy of a proper reply.”

    source:http://www.nahs.co.uk/nahs/PressReleases.asp

  • A new health & safety scheme for nutritional vigilance

    The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) on the 9th December 2010 launched a nutritional vigilance scheme for novel foods, fortified foods, food supplements and foodstuffs intended for specific diets. The scheme will enable authorities to identify possible adverse effects related to their consumption and to undertake targeted expert appraisals. The review of the pilot phase launched in 2009 on food supplements confirmed that the vigilance scheme did indeed improve consumer protection.

    Over the last few decades, significant progress has been made in food health and safety, particularly in the field of microbiology, through the introduction of widespread hygiene measures and the efforts of all those involved in the food production and distribution chain.

    However, the foods available to consumers are evolving rapidly with products which are referred to as “novel” due to the technology used to make them or to their ingredients, i.e. fortified foods and beverages, imported products or those purchased via the Internet. These new products might expose consumers to new hazards which authorities must be able to identify promptly.

    This is the purpose of the French nutritional vigilance scheme, the only one of its kind in Europe, whose implementation has been entrusted to ANSES by the French Act on Regional Health Governance (Loi Hôpital, Patients, Santé et Territoires – 2009), as part of the Agency’s overall health and safety mission.

    The new scheme covers food supplements, beverages and foods to which substances have been added for nutritional or physiological purposes, also known as fortified foods, as well as products intended for particular diets and novel foods. The scheme will be coordinated by health professionals since they will be examining their patients and then declaring any possible adverse effects related to consumption of these new types of foods and beverages.

    The declarations will be analysed by a technical committee and discussed with the manufacturers concerned as well as the supervising ministries in order to identify risk situations which may then be subjected to collective expert assessment and lead to the publication of formal opinions. This innovative system will involve many stakeholders. Networking will be used to exchange knowledge with Canada and the United States which have fairly similar systems.

    A pilot phase, limited to food supplements, was undertaken in 2009 and a recent review confirmed the effectiveness of the system. Following 10 declarations of adverse effects, some of which were quite severe, involving a range of products containing alcoholic extracts of yams, ANSES recommended that the extracts’ chemical make-up, composition and toxicity be examined as quickly as possible by the manufacturers who market them. Eight cases of confusion between a drug named previscan®, and a food supplement called preservision® have led to recommendations being published on the Agency’s site, while 10 other declarations have also led to the issuing of Opinions.

    This first pilot phase demonstrated the usefulness of such a scheme in making public authorities, manufacturers and consumers aware of adverse effects, some serious as well as unforeseen, although the number of cases was proportionately low in comparison to the overall consumption of food supplements in France. Extension of the scheme will make it possible to reinforce consumer protection.

    Source: French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES)

  • Online food marketing in the UK

    Will you be compliant come 2011?

    Thats just what many of the members at yesterdays recent UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) meeting on new rules relating to online marketing.

    The ASA’s new digital remit kicks into life on March 1 and the ASA is doing its best to answer queries from various industries including the health food and supplements sectors – hence the workshop and similar ones that will follow.

    Yesterday’s meeting featured calls for the ASA Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) to make public any guidance it possesses to implement the new rules which mean in essence the same rules will apply to web marketing as other mediums such as print and television.

    More guidance

    A PepsiCo spokesperson said there was not enough guidance to become compliant by March 1 and questioned why more detailed guidance had not been released.

    There was also discussion about how websites would be viewed that were not based in the UK, with advertising bodies in other countries being looked to as a first port of call.

    But in general an ad-hoc approach was being pursued, the ASA said.

    “We are taking a case-by-case approach at the moment as, along with bodies the world over, we can’t pretend to have all the answers,”

    CAP code policy manager Malcom Phillips.

    He said the e-retail, computers and broadband services and leisure industries had raised the most red flags so far, but most industries, including food and supplements, had featured in the 4000+ complaints the ASA had received about online advertising since 2008. He said the ASA did not expect an enforcement frenzy come March.

    “Most of the big companies have applied the code for some time. There is variety out there in terms of potential breaches of the Code. The food sector has not been a massive source of complaints so far”he said.

    But UK-based health claims consultant, Mark Tallon, PhD, from NutriSciences, was at the meeting and said many companies could be in for a rude shock if their web marketing materials are scrutinised by the ASA after March 1.

    “What criteria they use will have major implications for the UK and US online marketing campaigns,” he said.

    “He continued, although some case law is already in place relating to the ‘principle of reception’ and the ‘e-Commerce Directive’, little direct food law precident is evident.” He added: “In light of the increasing scrutiny over online advertising and the EU nutrition and health claims regulation, companies must now not only look to on-pack, hard copy and traditional broadcast mediums with regards to legislative compliance, but also to digital marketing strategies if they are to avoid the ‘name and shame’ approach adopted by the ASA.”

    ASA has some new teeth

    A part of its enforcement efforts the ASA will work with search engines proposes two sanctions against those that fail to comply with its rulings:

    • Removal of paid-for search advertising – ads that link to the page hosting the non-compliant marketing communication may be removed with the agreement of the search engines.
    • * ASA paid-for search advertisements – the ASA could place advertisements online highlighting an advertisers continued non-compliance.

    Search behemoth Google has donated £200,000 (€240,000) in seed capital for the project and the industry through online search and media agencies have agreed to donate 0.1 per cent of its search advertising spend to fund the ASA expansion – expected to raise another £700,000 (€841,000).

    “Extending the online remit of the ASA has been a top priority for UK industry over the last couple of years. Our aim has been to extend further in the online world the principles that are already well established in our system, namely those of effective consumer protection and fair competition.”

    CAP Chairman Andrew Brown

    Source: Nutraingredients.com & Nutrisciences.com

    Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)

  • YAKULT 13.5 HEALTH CLAIM FAILURE

    In March 2010 Yakult Europe B.V. submitted their dossier to support a health claim on their Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota for the maintenance of the upper respiratory tract defence against pathogens by maintaining immune defences.

    As one (some may argue the) of the oldest probiotic brands with a supposed wealth of science behind their product it would not be surprising that the company was confident about its application. However, despite their strain considered to be sufficiently characterised by EFSA panel (a feat performed by few other applications for probiotics) their claim has been rejected (on 7th October) and stated the cause and effect relationship has NOT been established for the maintenance of upper respiratory tract defence.

    Looking closely at the opinion is not surprising the application was rejected with basic flaws in the presentation of the data and the selection of studies with flawed designs was evident.

    With a product resting on its scientific credentials this failure will be a shock for food industry and for those larger global probiotic players still to run the gauntlet.

    Opinion source: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/1860.htm

  • Article 13.1 – 3rd batch of opinions release 19th October

    The opinons will heavily influence the just a quick update that the next batch of EFSA opinions under article 13.1 are released next monday. The list will see 808 claims assessed and reduced to 75 scientific opinions and will include a focus on the sports market with claims on beta-alanine, whey protines, glutamine, BCAA, CLA, and chromium assessed.

    Fingers crossed!

  • EFSA publish draft guidance for gut and immune function claims

    EFSA has launched a public consultation on the draft guidance on the scientific requirements for health claims related to gut and immune function.

    The document has been drawn from EFSA’s scientific opinions on health claims related to the gastrointestinal tract and immune system. Thus, it represents the views of the NDA Panel, based on the experience gained to date with the evaluation of health claims in these areas. The document does not include an exhaustive list of beneficial effects and studies/outcome measures that are acceptable. It rather presents examples, drawn from ongoing evaluations and evaluations previously carried out, that illustrate the approach of the Panel. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by 22 October 2010.

    Submission will not be considered if it is:

    • submitted after the deadline set out in the call
    • presented in any form other than what is provided for in the instructions and template
    • not related to the contents of the document
    • contains complaints against institutions, personal accusations, irrelevant or offensive statements or material
    • is related to policy or risk management aspects, which is out of the scope of EFSA’s activity
    • EFSA will assess all comments submitted from interested parties which are in line with the criteria above.

    The draft guidance document and the comments received during the public consultation will be discussed at a scientific meeting on the scientific requirements for health claims related to gut and immune function, which will be held on 2 December 2010 in Amsterdam. A revised version of the guidance document taking into account the comments made during the public consultation and at the meeting will be published after the meeting.

    Source: www.efsa.europa.eu
    Released: 28/September/2010

  • Older posts Browse previous posts

    Newer posts See newer posts