The first opinions from the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) NDA Panel on potential health claims seem, to put it mildly, to have rather put the cat among the pigeons by rejecting seven out of eight applications. The EFSA scientists have put down a strong marker that they are, not unreasonably, seeking a clear demonstration of cause and effect between meaningful consumption of specific nutrients or foods and their claimed health benefits.Despite expressions of "shock horror" from some observers, should we be surprised or even disturbed by this? It has been suggested that the scientific dossiers for these products were not strong, despite the clear requirements of the Regulation itself and the associated guidance issued by EFSA that the supporting science must be robust.
But more important for the food industry, I would suggest, must be its longer-term public credibility. Many consumers are sceptical about whether many of the ever-increasing number of products carrying an ever-widening range of health-related claims can actually deliver the claimed benefits. This scepticism is further reinforced by the seemingly endless stream of "new", but frequently contradictory, research purporting to show yet more benefits of individual foods in combating the risks of disease.
With many parts of the industry still regarded with suspicion following the safety issues of the 1990s, the potential rejection by EFSA of a significant proportion of claims because of an inadequate science base would not be helpful. The loss of public credibility would be paid for, long-term, not by those selling "pseudo-science" but by responsible companies and their legitimate scientists, who had developed products that could otherwise have been sold on the platform of delivering positive benefits, backed by genuinely valid scientific data.
The industry must hope, therefore, that the science behind the vast majority of the nearly 3,000 other applications is sufficiently robust to ensure that public credibility of our industry is not prejudiced.
Neville Craddock is a food law and safety consultant with extensive experience in the development and application of food law. Nevillecraddock@tunhouse28.fsnet.co.uk
We are often reminded - as if it were necessary - of the extent to which our industry is subject to a plethora of rules and regulations, codes and guidelines, the vast majority of which have been developed or at least heavily modified during the past 15 years or so. Collectively, these rules provide a rigorous framework that, at least in theory, should result in the safest possible food, presented to consumers as openly and honestly as possible. However, the effectiveness of this system is highly dependent on the degree to which it is applied by the operators and enforced by the relevant competent authorities.
Without a reasonable knowledge - some would say direct experience - of the history behind the rules, and the reasons for their introduction, it is easy to adopt a less than rigorous approach to their compliance.
The past months have seen what appears to be a never-ending stream of serious, international food safety incidents, many of them resulting in fatalities, and most involving products and origins that are well-known to be potential hot-spots. The inquiry into the 2005 E. coli outbreak in South Wales appears to have shown clearly that the findings and lessons from Lanark 10 years previously had not been learned - and not just by the supplier but the local enforcement authority as well.
It is extremely worrying, therefore, that the 2008 CIES - Food Business Forum: Top of Mind survey into industry's priorities (based on views from 400 senior executives in 52 countries) reported that food safety is considered only the fifth most important issue for manufacturers, languishing well behind such nebulous concepts as corporate responsibility and health and nutrition - albeit that it has risen from an incredible lowly ninth position in 2007. There is, however, a faint degree of reassurance in that food safety assumes a higher priority when retailer views are taken into consideration but it still does not assume what should be its unassailable and non-negotiable position as the number one priority for the industry.