Comments on regulatory options The majority of health organisations support Option 2 - overall prohibition ‘Retain of health claims but allow health claims following substantiation on a case by case - but could see merit in aspects of Option 3 claims basis’ – ‘Substantiated generic and co-regulatory framework’. The majority of food industry submissions support Option 4 - ‘Risk management approach differing levels of substantiation and regulation according to assessed – - but with the inclusion of generic claims (Option 3). risks and benefits’ Very few submissions reported any level of support for Option 1 which provides for total prohibition of health claims, or Options 5 and 6 which provide for industry self- regulation and deregulation, respectively. Therefore, the following deals with the issues raised on the preferred options 2, 3 and 4 only. Argument s for and a ga inst p referred Op t ions Options 2 and 3 Support for these options came mainly from health organisations which considered that a mix of features would have the following benefits: ensure credible information for consumers, thus creating consumer confidence, through a rigorous and defensible system of scientific substantiation via a government-controlled process; be more cost-effective in the long run; provide for codification which is the only way to ensure consumer confidence; ensure pre-market approval; and allow for endorsements. The food industry saw some disadvantages with these options, including: substantiation could involve high cost; the substantiation process could limit innovation and prevent or delay products getting to market, to the detriment of consumers; and specific wording of claims could reduce their effectiveness and the industry’s ability to differentiate in the marketplace, and limit the information available to consumers. Option 4 Support for this option was high among industry respondents, however most considered that generic claims should be included. In supporting this option, respondents clearly stated that it required further work, particularly in the area of defining the level of risk and communicating this to industry to avoid confusion. It was also suggested that some guiding principles would be needed.
Comments on regulatory options The majority of health organisations support Option 2 - ‘Retain overall prohibition of health claims but allow health claims following substantiation on a case by case basis’ - but could see merit in aspects of Option 3 – ‘Substantiated generic claims and co-regulatory framework’. The majority of food industry submissions support Option 4 - ‘Risk management approach – differing levels of substantiation and regulation according to assessed risks and benefits’ - but with the inclusion of generic claims (Option 3). Very few submissions reported any level of support for Option 1 which provides for total prohibition of health claims, or Options 5 and 6 which provide for industry self- regulation and deregulation, respectively. Therefore, the following deals with the issues raised on the preferred options 2, 3 and 4 only. Argument s for and a ga inst p referred Op t ions Options 2 and 3 Support for these options came mainly from health organisations which considered that a mix of features would have the following benefits: ensure credible information for consumers, thus creating consumer confidence, through a rigorous and defensible system of scientific substantiation via a government-controlled process; be more cost-effective in the long run; provide for codification which is the only way to ensure consumer confidence; ensure pre-market approval; and allow for endorsements. The food industry saw some disadvantages with these options, including: substantiation could involve high cost; the substantiation process could limit innovation and prevent or delay products getting to market, to the detriment of consumers; and specific wording of claims could reduce their effectiveness and the industry’s ability to differentiate in the marketplace, and limit the information available to consumers. Option 4 Support for this option was high among industry respondents, however most considered that generic claims should be included. In supporting this option, respondents clearly stated that it required further work, particularly in the area of defining the level of risk and communicating this to industry to avoid confusion. It was also suggested that some guiding principles would be needed.
05-2002-FRSC-Consultation%20Paper-Health%20and%20Related%20Claims.docx