The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently published a second series of opinions on a list of “general function” health claims for foods. EFSA’s Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies assessed the scientific data submitted to substantiate more than 400 hundred health claims; its opinions are forwarded to the European Commission and member states, which ultimately decide whether to authorize the claims. Among other matters, the panel generally allowed adequately supported claims related to vitamins and minerals, but rejected “probiotic” and “antioxidant properties” claims for lack of information and evidence. EFSA apparently expects to complete its work by 2011, depending on the final number of claims received. See EFSA News Release, February 25, 2010.
Category Archives Europe
The European Commission (EC) has reportedly approved for the first time in 12 years a genetically modified (GM) crop to be grown solely for industrial or animal feed purposes in the European Union. EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy John Dalli told reporters that the GM Amflora potato produced by the German company BASF could be planted in Europe as soon as April 2010. The potato is purportedly engineered to be unusually rich in a starch suitable for making glossy paper and other products as well as for feeding animals. Some EU member states, however, reportedly oppose the certification, claiming that the biotech potato could pose health risks to humans if its antibiotic-resistant gene enters the food chain when livestock is fed its industrial pulp or harm the environment if its seeds accidentally spread. “Not only are we against this decision, but we want to underscore that we will not…
The United Kingdom (UK) has introduced a new country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) code of practice for pork and pork products. Launched at a recent National Farmers Union conference, the voluntary code was drawn up by the Pig Meat Supply Chain Task Force representing processors, pig producers, retailers, and the food-service sector. “A year ago I said that I wanted to end the nonsense of unclear country-of-origin labeling on pig meat products,” Environment Secretary Hilary Benn was quoted as saying. “I expect all major retailers to sign up and join those who have already decided to end the confusion for shoppers. If they don’t, their customers should ask them why they’re not in favor of clear, honest labeling.” The code reportedly aims to ensure that processed products will clearly identify country of origin for pork ingredients. Companies adhering to the new code have committed to providing clearer information such as “Produced in the…
The European Commission (EC) has proposed that the European Union prohibit international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna, favored by sushi eaters in Japan and elsewhere. According to the announcement, member states will discuss the proposal to reach a common EU position before the March 2010 meeting in Doha of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. While the EC is apparently concerned about the species’ “poor conservation status,” the trade ban would not take effect until 2011. According to a news source, environmental groups criticized the announcement, warning that a delay could encourage more fishing in the interim. See Financial Times, February 22, 2010.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has created a scientific cooperation (ESCO)working group “to collect and analyze information on the safety of substances” used in non-plastic food contact materials. Citing concern that certain substances, such as inks and adhesives, are migrating into foods, EFSA initiated the working group to “identify strengths and weaknesses in different approaches used for risk assessment, propose criteria for future safety evaluations and suggest further actions to be taken.” ESCO will present its findings to EFSA’s executive director by the end of March 2011. “Whilst EU rules specify that all materials coming into contact with foods must be safe, many non-plastic components of food contact materials—unlike plastic materials— are not subject to specific provisions at the European level,” states a February 22, 2010, EFSA press release.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued its opinion that the Immunofortis® in Danone Baby Nutrition’s infant formula does not, as the company claims, “naturally strengthen the baby’s immune system.” According to EFSA, the scientific evidence the company submitted (i) “had considerable limitations,” (ii) “was inconsistent,” and (iii) “was not convincing.” It concluded that the evidence was “insufficient to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption of Immunofortis® and the initiation of appropriate immune responses including the defence against pathogens.” The company apparently sought the opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies as to its claim and provided 25 human study references and five non-human studies. See EFSA Journal 2010.
The European Commission has released a report, “Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies: Options for Framing Public Policy,” that discusses several commission projects designed to assess “the nature of public debate on nanosciences and nanotechnologies, and the ways in which deliberative approaches could lead to better governance of these technologies.” The overview includes summaries of the FramingNano, Nanocap, Deepen, and Nanoplat projects. The authors, who were involved as coordinators or participants in these projects, acknowledge that nanotechnology policy is still in its initial phases of development and could be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of products expected to enter the market in the near future. They note that international authorities have not yet agreed to definitions relating to the technology and that the European Union is regulating nanoparticles as “chemical substances” under REACH. Among other matters, they observe that nanotechnology in food is expected to be defined as a “novel food,”…
The state government of Western Australia (WA) recently announced its decisionto allow the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) canola within the region as of this year. State Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman reportedly signed the exemption order under the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act of 2003, thus permitting WA farmers to grow GM canola varieties approved by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Redman noted that, according to a government report, commercial trials have proven the feasibility of segregating GM canola “from paddock to port,” a requirement of the Act meant to preserve the state’s “markets and reputation by preventing the introduction of GM crops before adequate segregation and identity preservation systems are in place.” As WA Premier Colin Barnett stated, “This decision brings WA in line with other major grain growing states in New South Wales and Victoria, where growers have been able to grow GM canola…
New York Assemblyman Nelson Castro (D-86) has proposed an amendment (A09754) to the state’s agriculture and markets law that would require a warning label on all energy drinks. Citing “serious health risks including heart attack, stroke and even heart disease,” the provision calls for product warnings to appear in a black box and in letters “not less than eight point type.” It would also impose civil liability fines of $1,000 per violation. But unlike a similar proposal in Kentucky that reportedly focuses on caffeine content, the New York law defines an energy drink as containing “a combination of some or all of the following ingredients: sugar, methylkanthines, caffeine, vitamin E, herbs, guarana, açai, taurine, ginseng, maltodextrin, inositol, carnitine, creatine, glucuro-nolactone and ginkgo biloba.” This definition would exclude coffee, according to a January 26, 2010, article in Law360, which noted that the American Beverage Association has questioned the practicality of enforcing…
In a development that could have a significant impact on the global food industry, the U.K.’s House of Lords has completed an inquiry into the use of nanotechnology in foods, food packaging and food contact materials. In a January 8, 2010, press release and comprehensive report accompanied by a separate volume of evidence, the Lords’ Science and Technology Committee criticizes the food industry for “not publishing or discussing details of its research in this area.” The committee calls for the government “to adequately fund research into potential health and safety risks arising from the use of nanomaterials in the food sector” and recommends that the Food Standards Agency “contribute to consumer confidence in the use of nanomaterials in food by maintaining a publicly available register of food and food packaging containing nanomaterials.” Noting the unavailability to border and port authorities of “tests to check whether imported food contains nanomaterials,” the committee…
