The Court of Justice of the EU has confirmed that a number of health claims relating to the benefits of glucose to the metabolism cannot be authorised, without mentioning the possible dangers resulting from ambiguous or misleading information provided to consumers. These claims can therefore not be used when these products are being presented.
In a decision made on Thursday 8 June (C-296/16 P), the Court dismissed the company Dextro Energy’s appeal against the judgment of the General Court of March 2016 (T-100/15), which found that the Commission had not erred by refusing to authorise Dextro Energy’s health claims in its adverts that, "glucose supports normal physical activity"; ‘glucose contributes to normal energy-yielding metabolism’; or ‘glucose contributes to normal muscle function’.
Despite a positive opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which considered that a cause-and-effect link could be established between the consumption of glucose and normal energy-yielding metabolism, the Commission took the view that the health claims in question conveyed a contradictory and ambiguous message to consumers, as they encouraged the consumption of sugar, whereas national and international authorities recommended a reduction in sugar intake, on the basis of generally accepted scientific advice.
In its ruling, the General Court decided that despite the recommendation by EFSA as part of health risk assessment management, the Commission had to take into account legislation applied in the EU and other “legitimate and appropriate factors” such as generally accepted nutritional and health principles, which recommend that sugar consumption is reduced, in addition to the national and international authorities’ policies that underpin this view.
According to the General Court, the Commission did indeed have the right to refuse the authorisation of the above-mentioned health claims because they only mentioned the beneficial effects of sugar on the metabolism, without referring to the dangers of increased consumption of this product.
In its ruling, the Court dismissed Dextro Energy’s argument that the General Court should have withdrawn its duty relating to Commission action in this area and confirmed the General Court’s analysis whereby the Commission has significant leeway for examination in this area and that this had not been disproportionate with regard to the objectives pursued, namely the protection of consumer health. (Original version in French by Francesco Gariazzo)