No Health Freedom without Freedom to Make Health Claims

Europe's Food Safety Authority (EFSA) continues to implement food supplement safety regulations so that meaningful information about health claims are very unlikely to be available in the EU market.

Originally rejecting over 90% of the claims dossiers offered, the agency has now rejected 7 of the first 8 dossiers that survived the first culling.

My June 2008 blog on the original rejections:
http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/06/eu-denies-97-of-health-claims.html

Nutraingredients reports on the current denials: http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Publications/Food-Beverage-Nutrition/NutraIngredients/Research/Rising-to-the-health-claims-challenge/?c=gbrnO2ewSG1RZZaCgAJTsA%3D%3D

"Ten days ago, the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) rejected seven out of eight assessed claims for failing to demonstrate causality between consumption of specific nutrients or foods and intended health benefits.

According to Patrick Coppens, the secretary-general of the Brussels-based industry group, the European Responsible Nutrition Alliance (ERNA), the news came as a “shock to industry”."

At the heart of the issue is the standard for substantiation:

"But there are two sides to every argument, and pointing the finger at industry is not totally fair. Indeed, the European Commission was heavily criticized in April of this year when it issued guidance that it will reject scientific health claim dossiers that do not contain human clinical data.

This is tantamount to moving the goalposts, and at a relatively late stage.

The specifications for health claims are still relatively fuzzy, and so industry could claim that there has been a certain amount of groping around in the dark.

Moreover, some companies have been quick to note that the rejection is not a rejection of the ingredient or product, but just that the science submitted was incomplete."

This "clinical study only" approach rejects the clinical experience of practitioners, often a more effective 'real world' test of the benefits of a nutrient and also rejects Traditional Use wisdom that has been gained through millennia of human experience.

The reason that normal food substances are deemed to be safe is that they have been used for millennia by people across the world. Expensive double-blind, placebo controlled experiments are not needed to tell us what we already know...

...except as barriers against truthful commercial speech, for the ultimate benefit, not of the public, but of those who participate in the financial gains derived from the limited number of drugs that have been granted political approval.

There is no health freedom without freedom to make health claims about food substances!