Brussels, 27 October 2003

European consumers today are faced with an unregulated market of products often presented with catchy labels describing food as 'better' or 'healthy'. However, many such claims are often false and misleading, and are not even scientifically proven. EURO COOP therefore welcomes the Commission's willingness to harmonise and strictly-regulate the use of both nutrition and health claims across Europe, as called for by consumer co-operatives for many years already. This will be key to achieving a common high level of consumer protection.

Given that obesity and many chronic diseases are rapidly on the rise in Europe, EURO COOP is pleased to see that consideration has been given to public health protection by prohibiting claims made on foods that do not respect nutrient profiles - and thus contradicts healthy advice. Such profiles should be elaborated and adopted in a transparent and democratic way. We also welcome the authorization processes planned for nutrition and health claims, as well as prohibition on claims on beverages containing more than 1.2% by volume of alcohol and of claims that are not verifiable or can mislead consumers (general and non-specific, behavourial and psychological claims). We however strongly regret that claims directed exclusively or principally at children are no longer prohibited by the proposed Regulation.

The 7 points below explain in more details why and how European consumers can benefit from a strict EU legislation on claims. EURO COOP offer these comments as a contribution to the current debate, and urge the European Parliament and the Council to follow the Commission move to ban misleading food claims in order to ensure better consumer choice and public health protection.

1. Consumers today are faced with an unregulated market of products presented as 'better' or 'healthy'

Currently, the EU legislation does not regulate the use of nutrition and health claims made on foodstuffs. Only so-called "medical claims" are banned under article 2 (1) (b) of Directive 2000/13/EC on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. This free legal environment has led to a proliferation of claims on the market, which are often false and misleading, and are not even scientifically proven (for example 'preserves youth' or 'to help maintain all-round health and well-being'). Moreover, as manufacturers can interpret and use the terms as they wish, claims have different meaning across Europe, or even within a same food category (for example "low fat" on different types of yoghurts).

With the proliferation of unregulated nutrition and health claims, consumers become more and more confused or misled and as a result may choose unbalanced diets. For example most consumers believe that a '90% fat free' product contains less fat than a 'low fat' product - which is of course not true.

At the national level, Member States have opted for different and sometimes conflicting policy options, ranging from liberal to strict approaches. EURO COOP believes that the adoption of a EU Regulation will be key to achieving a common high level of consumer protection across Europe.

2. A common, high level of consumer protection must be achieved

As mentioned in previous comments , EURO COOP welcomes the authorisation systems planned for nutrition and health claims, which will be important towards achieving a common high level of consumer protection across Europe.

EURO COOP welcomes the principle of having a list of authorised nutritional claims defined in Annex. We agree that the list should be amended after consultation of the European Food Safety Authority, but ask for interested parties (consumers and public health organisations as well as industry) to also be part of the consultation process. We particularly welcome the ban on X% fat-free claims, the inclusion of salt/sodium claims, and the ban on cholesterol claims.

EURO COOP agrees with the distinction made in the proposal between generally accepted claims and innovative health claims and with the different authorisation systems planned. We think the current proposal represents a significant improvement on earlier drafts . EURO COOP agrees with the proposal to establish a list of generally permitted claims. However, we are concerned that it will take 3 years to adopt this list. We ask for a reduction of the delay to 18 months. Otherwise, the market would remain unregulated for a too long period of time. We also ask the prevision of a transitional period of at least 18 months.

EURO COOP agrees with the prior approval system planned for health claims, and with the role given to the European Food Safety Authority to scientifically assess them. We however question whether it should be up to the Authority to determine whether the wording is understandable and meaningful to consumers. For us, it is a risk management decision which must be taken by people skilled and experience in communication and consumer understanding of labelling.

Authorised and rejected health claims as well as the list authorised nutrition claims will be contained in a "Register" which will be made available to the public. Transparency is vital to regain consumer confidence. We insist that the information should be easily understood by the layman, rather than technical documents aimed at experts. One possibility could be to put the labels on the Internet so that consumers can automatically refer to the products they see everyday on the market.

3. Comparative claims must be made for food of the same category

EURO COOP welcomes Article 9 of the proposal. We believe it is important that comparative nutrition claims compare the composition of the food with a range of foods of the same category - including foods of other brands. We believe that current comparative claims, for example between water and milk, confuse consumers.

It needs to be recognized that to establish baseline figures for comparative purposes the information used may be inaccurate or may vary due to market place developments. It will be necessary to have clear guidelines to ensure comparisons are fair.

4. Public health considerations must be duly be taken into account

Consumer Co-operatives are pleased that the Commission has given consideration to public health protection by prohibiting claims made on foods that do not respect nutrient profiles (Article 4.1 of the Commission proposal). Although the basic principle in nutrition is that there are no "good" or "bad" foods but rather "good" or "bad" diets is basically true, the purpose of nutrition and health claims is to promote foods as "better" or "healthier" as food products without claims.

Food should not be portrayed as healthy if it is high in fat, salt and/or sugar as this would send the wrong message to consumers . Claims on fatty, sugary and salty foods imply that they are healthy and may encourage their consumption - even if they contradict healthy eating advice. We recognize that defining nutritional profiles will be a difficult task, but we strongly believe that this principle should be maintained. Similar requirements exist in the Swedish Code on health claims (products bearing claims should "through their composition contribute positively to a nutritionally adequate diet") and the United States have also adopted disqualifying criteria for the use of health claims made on foods. Such experience should be used to define the profiles.

Although EURO COOP welcomes Article 4, we are concerned on how Article 4.1 will be put in practice.

• First of all, we understand that nutrient profiles should be established by experts, but we are afraid that the Comitology procedure would not consist of a democratic and transparent decision-making process. We recognize that the proposal foresees that the Commission "shall seek advice of the European Food Safety authority and interested parties, in particular food business operators and consumer groups" , and we ask for the maintain of this important legal requirement. We would however like to see public health organisations also explicitly mentioned as they have significant expertise to provide in this field.



• Secondly, EURO COOP believes that nutrient profiles should be established by category of products. For example, the nutritional profile should be different for orange juice and soft drink. The content of sugar can be the same in both products, but an orange juice contains micro-nutriments (vitamin A, C, calcium and iron) which are not present in soft drinks.



• Thirdly, we want to stress that only limited exemptions should be planned. By definition exemptions should be exceptional and EURO COOP is concerned that they would be adopted by Comitology without foreseeing a consultation of interested parties. As for the elaboration of nutrient profile, we believe that it should be required and we ask for the European Parliament and the Council to amend the proposal in this sense.

     EURO COOP agrees with Article 4 (2) and the exemption planned for reduction claims - as defined in Annex of the proposal. We think these claims can be beneficial for consumers.

Finally, EURO COOP welcomes the prohibition of claims on beverages containing more than 1.2% by volume. For public health reasons, and to be consistent with the Council Recommendation of 5 June 2001 on the drinking of alcohol by young people, and in particular children and adolescents, we believe that claims should not encourage consumers - and especially young people - to drink alcoholic beverages. We agree with the derogation which allow for claims referring to a reduction in the alcohol or energy content.

5. Consumers must be protected from unverifiable and misleading claims

As mentioned in previous comments, EURO COOP welcomes the Commission initiative to ban claims that are not verifiable or can mislead consumers (general and non-specific, behavourial and psychological claims). Currently, some foodstuffs are portrayed as "cleaning and refreshing the body and the soul", "harmonizing effects on both metabolism and intestinal activity", "preserving youth", etc...

EURO COOP regrets that claims directed exclusively or principally at children are no longer prohibited by the proposed Regulation and urge the European Parliament and Council to reintroduce such prohibition.

We support the proposed ban on charity endorsement. Whilst we recognize that this can be a useful source of fundraising for charities, we feel there is also a considerable scope to mislead by association. We therefore believe a ban is appropriate to achieve this.

6. Consumer must have access to meaningful nutrition information

EURO COOP supports Article 7 which requires that nutrition information must be provided if a nutrition or health claim is made. In March 2003, EURO COOP published a position paper calling for a thorough review of the Nutrition Labelling Directive 90/496/EEC. Its standpoint is that it is clear from surveys that consumers cannot use the information on the label in order to make dietary choices, at best they can use it to compare similar products.

EURO COOP is concerned that the review to the Nutrition Labelling Directive is proceeding at a slower space as the issue of claims, and we urge the Commission to ensure those texts and processes are fully consistent and compatible.

7. Claims must be monitored

In order to prevent fraud and non-authorised claims on the market, EURO COOP believes the monitoring of foods bearing nutrition or health claims is key. This is important to ensure consumer protection. We believe that the monitoring should be undertaken by the Member States, and that the latter should be obliged to do so. To us, the current Article 24 of the proposal is too weak as it does not provide for such a legal requirement. Rather, it uses the term "may". This term should be changed to "shall". We believe that the existing of a "Register" will considerably assist the Member States in this task.