COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1154/2014
of 29 October 2014
refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children‘s development and health
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (1), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.
(2)
Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’, for a scientific assessment, as well as to the Commission and the Member States for information.
(3)
The Authority is to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.
(4)
The Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.
(5)
Following an application from EJP Pharmaceutical ApS, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of zinc and prevention of bad breath (Question No EFSA-Q-2010-01092) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Prevents bad breath by neutralising of volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) in the mouth and oral cavity’.
(6)
On 1 June 2011, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion, from the Authority, which concluded that the claim ‘prevents bad breath by neutralising of volatile sulphur compounds in the mouth and oral cavity’ is related to breath odour rather than to a function of the body as required by Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. During the evaluation of the claim, the applicant was requested to clarify how the proposed claim is linked to a function of the body. The applicant argued that the production of volatile sulphur compounds and halitosis as part of the bacterial flora of the mouth and oral cavity is related to the function of the mouth and oral cavity, and thus to a function of the body. However, the Authority noted that the evidence provided did not demonstrate that the chemical neutralisation of volatile sulphur compounds in the mouth, in order to improve bad breath, constitutes a physiological effect in relation to a function of the body. Therefore, the applicant did not provide evidence that zinc has a physiological effect in relation to a function of the body as required by Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.
(7)
Following an application from Leiber GmbH, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Yestimun? and defence against pathogens in the upper respiratory tract (Question No EFSA-Q-2012-00761) (3). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Daily administration of Yestimun? helps to maintain the body‘s defence against pathogens’.
(8)
On 8 April 2013 the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship could not be established between the consumption of Yestimun? ((1,3)-(1,6)-β-D-glucans from brewer‘s yeast cell wall) and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.
(9)
Following an application from Vivatech, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Transitech? and improvement of bowel function which is maintained after cessation of consumption of the food (Question No EFSA-Q-2013-00087) (4). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Improves transit and durably regulates it’.
(10)
On 13 June 2013, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Transitech? and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.
(11)
Following an application from Clasado Limited, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Bimuno? GOS and reduction of gastro-intestinal discomfort (Question No EFSA-Q-2012-01007) (5). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Regular daily consumption of 1,37 g galacto-oligosaccharides from Bimuno? may reduce abdominal discomfort’.
(12)
On 18 June 2013, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that a health claim on Bimuno? GOS and reducing gastro-intestinal discomfort pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 has already been assessed by the Authority with an unfavourable outcome (6) and that the supplementary information submitted by the applicant did not provide evidence that could be used for the scientific substantiation of this claim. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.
(13)
Following an application from Fuko Pharma Ltd, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and maintenance of normal defecation during antibiotic treatment (Question No EFSA-Q-2013-00015) (7). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG for maintaining normal defecation during oral antibiotic treatment’.
(14)
On 18 June 2013, the Commiss
