Brussels, 31/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - The Parliament's vote on the proposal of regulation aimed at harmonising the use of nutritional and health claims for food in the EU caused great disappointment among those protecting public health and consumers (EUROPE 8955). The fact that the Parliament had done away with Article 4 on the nutritional profile of food and replaced the authorisation system proposed earlier (which would have brought about intervention by the European Food Safety Authority), through simple notification procedure by manufacturers and importers, are two changes that have been the most criticised, beginning with criticism from Rapporteur Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN, Italy). All those who are disappointed count on the Council to restore the concept of nutritional food value in the text in one form or the other during the ministerial policy debate in Consumer Council on 2 and 3 June, in Luxembourg. On the other hand, most trade representatives and deputies welcome the liberal attitude of the Parliament, which puts its trust in adult consumers to make choices that are the most appropriate for their specific situation (e.g. if consumers are obese, diabetic, or simply worried about their figures), rather than discriminate against certain foodstuffs on the pretext that they are too sweet, too salty or too fatty to merit positive claims that would incite potential consumers to purchase. The statement made by Markos Kyprianou, European Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner, was ineffective: “Nutritional value is the key element of the proposal. We must not forget that we are speaking of health (…). We do not prohibit claims being made. If there is no scientific base for such claims, then other commercial arguments must be used, such as, for example, the fact that the product tastes good (…). I do not intend to withdraw this proposal of regulation, and Article 4 on the nutritional advantages must stay where it is. The authorisation procedure is also an important element. Notification is not enough. If there were notifications, there would be no fair competition”. Such views did not prevent most MEPs from seeing things differently.
“My colleagues preferred to vote for fast food and junk food rather than for healthy products linked to our culinary traditions, flouting important issues such as SMEs or protection of citizens' health, and especially the health of children”, Adriana Poli Bortone deplored. Also, Dorette Corbey (PES, NL) exclaimed: “We are offered sandwiches that are beneficial to our intestinal flora, eggs that are good for cholesterol! Will fatty food be better if it carries such claims? Is fat-free yogurt better for your health if it's full of sugar?” According to the French Socialists who defended the rapporteur's argument, it is appropriate to examine the composition as a whole to determine the nutritional and health value of a foodstuff. The text voted disappoints them as it does not allow them to sort foodstuffs out into those that really do have food value and health benefits and those that carry misleading claims simply in the aim of selling the product. This vote is bad news for public health policy and especially for combating obesity, French Socialist Anne Ferreira said. Frédérique Ries (ALDE, Belgium) distanced himself from the line taken by his group to support the rapporteur, expressing his anger against the low profile adopted by the Parliament when it comes to a number of large food processing groups (Ed.: such as Unilever, Nestlé and Danone). Regarding the Greens/EFA Group that voted against the amended proposal, he considers that Parliament has missed an opportunity to protect consumers against untruthful advertising on the so-called benefits of food products, and has bowed down to pressure from the agri-food industry. Marie-Anne Isler Béguin (Greens, France) said: “The European Parliament remains an accomplice to fallacious advertising on staple food products. The consumer will continue to fall into the trap of slogans boasting of the advantages of products that have harmful effects on health, especially children's health (…). Claiming that crisps enriched with calcium will have a positive impact on bones is totally misleading, when one knows the fat content of such products that are at the origin of the high cholesterol rates”. Hiltrud Breyer (German Green member) sees the Parliament's vote as a setback for consumer protection and accuses most Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists of being responsible for this. On the other hand, there is Renate Somer (EPP-ED, Germany), who delights in what she considers to be the “triumph of reason”. In her view, the text as it is amended will not only allow high standards to be brought in at European level but will also allow treating consumers like children to be avoided. “Health claims can only be used if the effects they boast of can be scientifically proven”, she stressed, convinced that that is what really matters.
The Eurocommerce organisation does not conceal its joy. “The Parliament has recognised that no foodstuffs are, in essence, good or bad and that the nutritional profiles would not help consumers to choose a balanced diet”, the organisation's secretary general, Xavier R. Durieu, said, convinced that “it is essential to educate consumers so that they are able to make adequate food choices and adopt a healthy lifestyle”.