Tighter label rules on both sides of Atlantic
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide a greater degree
of flexibility in making qualified health claims or dietary
guidance statements on food labels.
"A clear yet flexible framework should be developed to address these types of statements, so that companies may explore the food label communications opportunities offered by such statements in clarity and with confidence," said NFPA president John Cady.
The NFPA has been arguing for more flexibility in the expression of health claims and other types of food label statements for nearly a decade. In 1994, the association sent a citizen's petition to the FDA on health claims and nutrient content claims policy. "NFPA believes that there is merit to having an initial FDA review of a qualified health claim application," said Cody.
The NFPA believes that the US needs a framework that provides a 'safe harbour' for qualified health claims. This would allow for evaluation under a 'weight of the evidence' standard, which would then be reflected in the wording of the claim. Any reference to a letter grade or other graphic scheme on labels or in labelling to denote the degree of scientific support for claims would be omitted.
"The NFPA believes that the most effective use of limited agency resources will be for FDA to establish a framework for a qualified health claims system that emphasises the substantiation of the actual claim to be expressed," said Regina Hildwine, NFPA's senior director of food labelling and standards.
"This approach is consistent with the implementation of policy to accommodate qualified health claims. NFPA further believes that dietary guidance statements should be differentiated clearly from health claims, so that food companies may have a thorough understanding of what types of statements may require prior consideration by FDA."
The attitude towards health claims for food products in the US stands in marked contrast to the situation in Europe. At present it is illegal to claim, directly or indirectly, that any food can prevent, treat or cure a disease, but these general principles can be interpreted differently between Member States. This has resulted in numerous discrepancies regarding the definition of the terms used and the conditions warranting the use of claims.
As a result, the European Court of Justice recently interpreted theexisting EU Labelling Directive as banning all health claimsrelating to human diseases. The Commission has issued proposals toharmonise the rules on health and nutrition claims andthese are currently the subject of discussion betweenMember State experts and intense lobbying by interestedparties.
Under the proposals, all health and nutrition claims must be substantiated by generally accepted scientific dataand companies must be able to justify their use on theproduct concerned. In addition, the proposals willban psychological and behavioural claims, ban general claims for non-specific benefits related togood health or well-being and ban endorsements by the medical profession andcharities.
The legislation will apply to the labelling, presentation andadvertising of foods delivered to the final consumer and tofoods supplied to restaurants, hospitals, schools, canteensand similar mass caterers. The EU says that the regulations will apply without prejudice toexisting, specific provisions concerning foods for particularnutritional uses. Claims that do not comply willbe considered as 'misleading advertising' under Directive84/450/EEC.
