| Author (Person) | Smith, Emily |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.12, No.22, 8.6.06 |
| Publication Date | 08/06/2006 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 08/06/06 EU shoppers today are spoilt for choice when it comes to healthy food. Practically every big food company and supermarket chain has a food range branded with reassuring names such as 'good for you' or 'the healthy choice'. All the food ranges are based on research into the ideal level of nutrients such as salt, fat and sugar for the average European. Unfortunately the con-clusions of the research differ substantially depending on where you look. For instance, according to the UK Food Safety Authority (FSA), food must contain less than 10% sugar to be called low sugar. Soft drinks giant Pepsi, however, reckons that anything with less than 25% sugar qualifies. To further confuse things, no official EU-wide recommended daily allowances (RDA) for nutrients, vitamins or minerals exist. Most countries today use US-approved RDA but this is not compulsory. The situation is about to change. Following a discussion with worried stakeholders at the turn of the century, the European Commission in 2002 proposed a directive to iron-out differences between rules on when vitamins and minerals can be added to products and to establish European RDA. This was followed in 2003 by a proposed regulation to impose standard EU rules for when food and drink companies can and cannot make health claims about a product. The second proposal in particular provoked a flurry of panic in the food and drinks industry. Companies quickly began to worry that sales would suffer if weight loss promises were pulled from sugary yoghurts and the vitamin content could no longer be touted on a salty tin of beans. The vitamins proposal meanwhile sparked debates about everything from the safe level of vitamin C to the nutrient content of beer. Health and consumer groups said both proposals were needed partly to make life simpler for shoppers. The main impetus for the proposals came, however, from EU fears over rising obesity levels. Tough food and health rules, said the Commission, would make shoppers eat less fat and lose weight. Critics say EU calorie intake has plummeted in recent decades and that exercise not diet is the way to lose weight. They add that the average European also lives longer and has fewer health problems than his or her grandparents, despite the modern invention of junk food. The compromise deals finally reached last month (15 May) between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers were broadly in line with the demands of health and consumer groups, with a few nods towards the food industry. Primary among these was the decision to allow positive nutrient messages (on for example vitamin content) on foods high in one of either salt, fat or sugar. The new rules will come into force this year. The effect of the health claims regulation is, however, unlikely to show on the supermarket shelves until the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) defines what low salt, fat and sugar actually means. EFSA has two years to come up with the necessary "nutrient profiles". Arguments over the role of diet in tackling obesity are far from over. The Commission last December launched a "diet, physical activity and health platform", with catering groups, restaurant representatives and EU food sector representatives the CIAA on its board. Now known generally as the obesity platform, the group was set up to advise the Commission on the best steps towards an obesity strategy, to be presented later this year. Key EU food labelling laws
Article takes a look at the European Commission's legislative proposals from 2002 and 2003 on food additives and health claims made by food producers respectively, both of which were adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in May 2006. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry, Health |
| Countries / Regions | Europe |
