Supplement sector has a battle on its hands

Since the last issue of Food Ingredients, Health and Nutrition was published in November, it has become clear that one potential route for liberalising the health claims, via generic descriptors, has very much been blocked. As we reported, companies hoping to apply for a generic descriptor  ̶  for a digestif, for example  ̶  need to prove that it in no way could be constituted as a health claim by a consumer. Needless to say, many opponents of the European Food Safety Authority regime insist that this is even more difficult than proving the cause and effect relationship needed to get a health claim.

While these issues rumble on, the level of noise around another issue stemming from Europe  ̶  the maximum permitted levels for nutrients used in food supplements  ̶  continues to increase, especially in the UK. The setting of uniform levels was written into the 2002 EU Food Supplements Directive but put on the backburner by former health commissioner John Dali, thereby allowing high-strength supplements to remain on sale in the UK.

It is clear that this liberal setting is now under threat, not least judging by the amount of PR work and campaigning being undertaken by the likes of pressure group Consumers for Health Choice (CHC) and its parliamentary backers. And they are not mincing their words, with CHC director of strategy Chris Whitehouse claiming European supporters of low doses were prepared to surrender high-potency supplements "at the altar of harmonisation".​

There is a clear industry divide here, though, between some large European firms  ̶  which would welcome a standard approach because of the associated cost savings in labelling and marketing  ̶  and those represented by the likes of CHC. Forget the political wranglings over David Cameron's proposed in/out referendum over EU membership, this is going to be one fight the UK supplements industry will need to win long before 2017.