The sweeping claims made for a range of products new to the supermarket shelves have raised concerns for food governing bodies and consumers alike.
Recently, three brands of coconut water were strung up for misleading claims about the benefits of their ‘natural’ and ‘premium’ beverages. ConsumerLab.com research revealed that two of the products had far fewer electrolytes than the companies claimed.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Market Inc, the manufacturer of Vita Coco Coconut Water, for making nutritional claims that its products fail to deliver. Michael Kirban, the founder and CEO of Vita Coco, said the company is questioning the accuracy of the test results.
According to Datamonitor, the functional beverage market was worth US$49.5bn in 2010. By 2014, it’s predicted to rise by 6%. The functional food and drinks market is booming, and food and drink companies know it. Slick marketing is being used to encourage consumers to grab those products that convey a healthy message, yet purchasers fail to check the all-important nutritional information.
As defined by the Institute of Medicine, functional foods are: those foods that encompass potentially healthful products including any modified food or ingredient that may provide a health benefit beyond the traditional nutrients it contains.
Despite some companies taking advantage of any loophole available in order to place a product within that definition, a problem does lie with the airy fairy legal guidelines surrounding what is and what isn’t classed as a ‘functional food’.
Depending on the country, food and drink labelling laws vary, yet the ability for food companies to find ways around these guidelines remains fairly fluid. The law in the UK on food labelling is multifaceted and is spread over many reforms, making it a complex subject, so establishing which government body polices which section of labelling legislation, and what that legislation covers in terms of health claims, isn’t a simple task.
In the UK, the Food Standards Agency is responsible for legislation on labelling and standards that are principally safety-based, but the Department of Health is responsible for nutrition labelling policy, and Defra is responsible for labelling legislation that’s non-safety related. Defra is currently revising these regulations, but claims that the current system ‘ensures consumers are not mislead as to the nature of food products when it’s sold to them’.
Some countries, such as Canada, Sweden and the US, do have specific laws for labelling products with functional claims. In the US, the claims that are permitted are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The health benefits presented on many packaged food labels are a hot topic for the FDA. A report by the Institute of Medicine says the FDA should be able to apply the same degree of scientific rigour to claims about cholesterol-lowering or immunity-boosting foods as it does to drugs and medical devices.
Functional foods under EU Law are not defined as a specific category and are therefore not regulated as such. The term ‘functional food’ may be used for a wide range of food and drink products. The EFSA has decided that a helpdesk will alleviate some of this confusion regarding health claims legitimate within EU food law. This may appear as an attempt to build a better relationship between manufacturers submitting health claims for approval and the scientists assessing them.
It seems there’s a constant battle between food companies and those who police it. It remains to be seen who will eventually win the war.
Rebecca is editorial assistant of FoodBev.com. You can contact her here, or read her blog here.
© FoodBev Media Ltd 2024