Thursday, December 11, 2008

Why Your Child's Food isn't "Bone Stiffening"


I love this story.

So in 2006 the European Food Safety Authority tightened up the requirements for health claims on packaging. They (gasp) required a more rigorous proof be made by corporate applicants that the front-of-package claim was actually scientifically defensible.

So what's happening?

Apparently Big Food is up in arms because sales are suffering as claims like the one put forth by the Beneo-Orafti corporation that was slotted to appear on kids' foods suggesting that the food was "bone stiffening" are not making the cut.

For icing on this blog post, check out this quote from Shane Starling, editor of Big Food newsletter (and source for many of my blog posts) Nutraingredients,

"If one of the aims of the health claims process is to build consumer confidence in healthy food messaging, a mass rejection of those claims by an apparently rational and independent body can only do the opposite."
Yup Shane, it's those crazy rational independent bodies demanding an evidence-based approach to health claims that are going to crush consumer confidence, not asinine and scientifically unsubstantiable claims like, "bone stiffening".

Bookmark and Share

Posted by Yoni Freedhoff at 5:30 AM

Labels: ,

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:25 PM

    Dear sir,

    As the author that piece, I would say I was highlighting a reality, rather than criticising EFSA's approach. If a scientific body rejects 1000s of claims then consumer confidence will take a hit. It's a fact. NutraIngredients has often been the first to draw attention to the negative opinons being issued by EFSA - not something we would do if we were indeed a propaganda mouthpiece for BIG FOOD.

    Best,

    Shane

    ReplyDelete

  2. Thanks for the comment Shane and honestly, thanks for the newsletter. I find it informative and often thought provoking and as mentioned, it often leads me to studies I wouldn't have otherwise seen.

    I don't for a moment believe you're a propaganda mouthpiece for Big Food.

    Your newsletter is however meant to serve the interests of Big Food and hence often highlights things from a perspective important to them - this being a case in point.

    I would argue that if a scientific body rejects 1000s of claims then consumer confidence in those claims left standing will in fact be higher.

    That said, I think even the stricter laws aren't strict enough. Good thing for Big Food what I think doesn't really matter.

    Regards and Merry Christmas,
    Yoni

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)