03.19.12
In joint comments submitted at the end of January on the final three batch opinions from the European Food safety Authority (EFSA) and the risk management decisions taken on the basis of those opinions, the EHPM, EBF and ERNA all believe that a distinction between “maintenance” and “improvement” in the scientific assessment procedure is essential to avoid unnecessary rejections of health claims.
The groups said that the way in which the assessments are currently done makes it “almost impossible to succeed” with a maintenance claim if there is no data supporting an improvement, despite the Terms Of Reference (TOR) on the article 13.1 list recognizing that there are health effects that refer to both the maintenance of a function and to an improvement of a function.
They believe a clear distinction would enable claims of different strengths to coexist on the EU market and have urged the European Commission against establishing a Union Register of rejected claims until the issues of scientific criteria for evaluating these claims has been addressed.
The groups said that the way in which the assessments are currently done makes it “almost impossible to succeed” with a maintenance claim if there is no data supporting an improvement, despite the Terms Of Reference (TOR) on the article 13.1 list recognizing that there are health effects that refer to both the maintenance of a function and to an improvement of a function.
They believe a clear distinction would enable claims of different strengths to coexist on the EU market and have urged the European Commission against establishing a Union Register of rejected claims until the issues of scientific criteria for evaluating these claims has been addressed.