Welcome to cooktours.com - Information on Healthy food choices

Food claims cater "solely for commercial interests, riding roughshod over the concept of food as being a sacrosanct part of our lives," says the Italian government in its response to the Commission's discussion paper on Nutrition Claims and Functional Claims.

It calls on the Commission to initiate a Community wide food education campaign rather than "go ahead with hazardous approvals." Italy regards the trend in the novel foods sector as "dangerous," where "eating evolves from a physiological and natural practice to an inappropriate health-focused culture. The risk is then that our relationship with food ceases to be an emblem steeped in culture, philosophy and tradition and becomes an arena for aesthetic and health focussed cults and distort what it has taken centuries to understand and appreciate."

It warns that specific virtues of a particular food are often contradicted or revised by subsequent studies, that no attention is paid to over-consumption, and that a combined consumption of enriched products such as phytosterols can cause problems.

CONTRASTING VIEWS

The strongly negative views of Italy contrast with those of other Member States that want to see health as well as nutrition and functional claims. A study of the 80 plus responses to the Commission's discussion paper makes it hard to see how the different positions can be resolved and a consensus for a proposal reached.

The Dutch, for example, would like to define disease risk reduction claims, which can be scientifically substantiated. The UK, unlike Italy, sees claims as enabling consumers to make healthy diet choices.

The UK calls for all health claims, including disease reduction claims, to be debated and calls on the Commission to publish a paper on health claims at the earliest opportunity. It wants to allow comparative claims, which some other governments think can be the most misleading claims of all.

Denmark says that only nutrition claims "that support national nutrition policy" should be allowed. Denmark says claims should not mislead consumers at all and that to say they must not mislead "to a material degree" is too weak. It only wants substances for which an official recommended daily intake has been established to be included. It wants the term diet to be banned on ordinary products and reserved for foods that have a special dietary purpose. This would mean, for example, that the term Diet Coke would be prohibited.

Denmark says that the content of cholesterol should be banned because it is not nutritionally relevant. "It diverts consumer attention away from the fat content of the food, which is much more important." It wants claims that can be misinterpreted, such as "x per cent fat free" to be banned.

The Belgians want to see harmonisation as swiftly as possible and think harmonisation on nutritional and functional claims may be feasible but that harmonising health claims would be problematic.

The Finnish government wants to see a new directive to define functional claims and give the general conditions under which they can be made. It is happy for functional claims to be made without any prior approval.

Spain says it welcomes the paper but says that claims concerning the non-nutritional effects of food (i.e. fibre antioxidants, lactic bacteria) should not be covered by nutritional legislation. It opposes the use of the word "diet" in a claim and says no comparative claims should be allowed unless there is a reference point.

FOOD INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

The CIAA, representing the food industry, wants a comprehensive European strategy for health- related claims with a harmonised framework, which is efficient, transparent, proportionate and predictable.