juravendis lawyers ++ the health claims regulation, between despair and hope the discussion on the health claims regulation has again recorded on drive. Because the record of the EFSA opinions is more than sobering and ensures great uncertainty even in market-strong company. Partially complete product segments are at stake. So far, over 600 claims were assessed by the EFSA. For the most statements not the required scientific evidence according to the authority. Initially, only articles 13.5 and 14 claims were inspected.
Are statements which relate to new scientific evidence, children and disease risk reduction. For the statements, you must traverse an individual approval procedure. Negative opinions of the EFSA took place, for example, to contexts between various strains of bacteria, the immune system and gastrointestinal complaints, cranberry juice and infections of the urethra in women as well as the DHA, and EPA acids and antioxidant properties. The opinions, not only small and medium-sized companies are affected, but also multi-national companies. So the company Ferrero had tried to get approved for your product \”Children chocolate\” a claim for the growth of children and young people. After the EFSA however issued a negative opinion, the company withdrew the application for authorisation. Now most of the previously assessed by EFSA article 13.5 and article have been rejected formally 14 claims by the European Commission by legislation (EC Regulation 983/2009/EC of 21 October 2009). Companies may continue to use these statements only for a transitional period of six months.
After expiry of this period, the use is not permitted and may be prohibited by authorities. Also, disputes threaten at the latest with competing firms or associations of the competition. In relation to the articles 13.5 and 14 claims had some even with a larger number of negative opinions counted, as it was assumed, that the EFSA just these types would take claims very carefully scrutinized.