Health claims: do they clarify or confuse?

In light of recent proposals from the European Commission to establish pan-European regulations for the use of health claims on food products, the UK Food Standards Agency this week published a new report that examines the impact of the proposed health claims on the consumer. The findings reveal that the draft claims may well baffle, rather than elucidate, the consumer.

"The results of the FSA report tally with the responses from the Food Commission that show the consumer is frequently confused by scientific speech and would prefer a much clearer message,"​ Kath Dalmeny​, research officer for the UK Food Commission​ told Foodnavigator.com.

Earlier this year when the European Commission put forward a draft proposal to regulate the use of health claims in the European arena the move was largely regarded as a positive step by the food industry. This is an industry that has long had to juggle different packaging and mixed marketing moves between the European countries because of the current lack of any harmonious 'umbrella' legislation on health claims in Europe.

The FSA report​ sought to gain a better picture of how, exactly, the consumer might interpret the four different levels of claim identified by the Commission: 'functional' claims, 'enhanced function' claim, 'reduction of disease risk factor' claim, and finally, 'reduction of disease risk' claim. Their conclusions may well make for depressing reading for the Commission. Point fifteen in the conclusion of the report states: 'In final conclusion, therefore, we would say that the kinds of claims researched in this project are of interest and relevance to consumers, but that their understanding of them is often more partial and confused than they themselves believe it to be.'​

So, thumbs up for the idea, but less enthusiasm for the practical proposals. Kath Dalmeny​ was in agreement. "The opinion of the EU is good in a technical way - but the reality of health claims means that all is not covered by the EU analysis.​

For example, Kelloggs markets a product for kids that promotes the 'real fruit' contained in the product. But, in fact 76 per cent of the fruit is turned into a sweet jelly. It's no good promoting the benefits of fruit with a health claim if the product is full of sugar. I've seen other products on the market that make the claim 'calcium is good for the bones' on the packaging, and yet the product is also high in sugar, which is clearly less beneficial for the health."​

Which leads us onto a further criticism that Dalmeny has of the EU proposals. " Health claims are not at all helpful, unless they are placed within the framework of a balanced diet claim,"​ said Dalmeny. But how much should the food industry, legislators and consumer groups, hold the hands of the consumer? One could argue that today's consumer is living in a world saturated with information, of which surely there are sufficient quantities devoted to the benefits of a healthy lifestyle - in particular one's diet. Is it really the food manufacturer's problem, or the Commission, if Europeans actively choose to eat a 'healthy', calcium-rich, probiotic yoghurt, after a saturated fat-ridden double cheeseburger?

"The consumer shouldn't have to be sceptical about food packaging,"​ affirmed Dalmeny. "It all comes down to trading standards - you sell something that works! So, if a food manufacturer is claiming that a product is​ 'good for the heart', it should be. Individual consumers have no way of assessing this - it's up to the manufacturer."

Dalmeny is, of course, right that the contents of a food product must reflect any health claims made on the packaging. The European Commission made a positive step when it first proposed the health claims earlier this year. Now, in the interest of consumer protection, it must go further and meet the challenge to conceive a realistic, transparent set of claims that will serve to illuminate, not confuse, the consumer.