The Fix Is In: Supplement directive is valid, surprise court decision

[Guest guest]

Consumers are getting screwed. Whenever it relies on some political

body for justice in today's world they wind up losing. The justice

system should be renamed to " the dependent on big money justice

system " . F.

 

 

 

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=61240 & m=1NIE712 & c=wokvpgxagwnympq

 

Supplement directive is valid, surprise court decision

 

12/07/2005 - The European food supplements directive is valid,

decided a European court ruling today, ending months of uncertainty

for much of the region's supplements industry, and disappointing those

behind a major effort to overturn the law, reports Dominique Patton.

 

The decision this morning came as a surprise after the advocate

general on the case indicated in April that the directive should be

considered invalid as it flouted principles of community law.

 

Most European court case rulings follow the opinion of the advocate

general.

 

However the EU directive will now go ahead, scheduled for

implementation next month. It will restrict all vitamin and mineral

supplement ingredients to those on an approved list.

 

For some, the laws will guarantee a new freedom to market food

supplements across European borders and in countries where supplements

have not been recognized as a food category. These more restrictive

markets, like Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic and Poland, have been

keenly awaiting the directive.

 

In other markets however, particularly the more liberal UK, Ireland

and Netherlands, the directive is likely to see a slimmer choice of

products on the shelves.

 

The UK's Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA) and the National

Association of Health food Stores (NAHS), responsible for a joint case

against the Commission, say the directive threatens up to 5,000

commonly consumed products on sale in the UK because they contain more

than 200 nutrients not on the directive's `positive' list of permitted

substances.

 

The trade bodies have today asked the British prime minister to

intervene in Europe following their defeat.

 

" We're extremely disappointed with today's verdict, " said David Adams,

director of HFMA.

 

" We call on the prime minister, who currently holds the EU presidency,

to deliver now on his stated commitments and go to Brussels to get the

legislation rewritten in such a way that the UK is allowed to permit

onto its national market products, which otherwise lie outside its

restrictive scope. "

 

Lawyers for the HFMA and the NAHS argued at the European Court of

Justice in January that the directive would impose an unnecessary

burden on British business and there were no reasons to believe it was

necessary to protect consumers' welfare.

 

They also said the directive violated the central community principle

of subsidiarity, meaning decisions should be taken at the lowest

practical level – in this case by competent authorities in the UK –

and was an unlawful restriction on the freedom to trade.

 

Yet the ECJ said that the postivie list system " is appropriate for

securing the free movement of food supplements and ensuring the

protection of human health " .

 

The regulatory costs required to gain permission for a nutrient not on

the current positive list, as well as other implied by the directive,

are expected to hit many smaller, more specialist supplement suppliers

hardest.

 

Associations for other parts of the European industry were happy with

the decision however.

 

Lorène Courrège, director of regulatory affairs at the European Health

Product Manufacturers' association (EHPM), said the decision ends a

real concern in more restrictive markets that if the directive was

annulled, supplement makers would have to face the previous situation

of vitamins and minerals being regulated under medicines law.

 

Patrick Coppens, secretary general of the ERNA, told

NutraIngredients.com: " It lays down the principle of risk assessment

to regulate supplements. We are quite relieved that the court did not

annul the directive. This would have put harmonization back two to

three years. "

 

Correge added: " We are now looking ahead to the next stage, which will

be a key priority for us – the setting of maximum levels. This will

shape the market. "

 

The Commission has said it will come up with a proposal for maximum

permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in 2006 with a view to

adopting these as part of the directive by 2007.

 

Meanwhile France has still not implemented the 2002 directive into its

national laws and could face action by the Commission.