The European Commission should call a ‘time out’ over health claims regulations that threaten the future of thousands of health food products says the chair of the Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA), Martin Last.

Last made the comment in a discussion on EC Health Claims legislation on BBC TV’s World News Today.

Setting the scene the BBC’s health reporter, Neil Bowdler, explained that a large percentage of claims put before the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) had been rejected. Claims so far rejected included apple cider to improve bowel movements, green tea to help control blood pressure and improve bone and eye health, and probiotic yoghurt to boost the immune system.

“Subject to EC approval, and after a transition period,” said Bowlder, “claims not approved will have be dropped from packs and marketing.” Accompanying the voiceover, film shot inside a health food store panned across shelves of well known food supplement brands.

Bowdler said that brand names also were under threat, and gave the example of Slim-Fast. Helen Darracott of The Proprietary Association of Great Britain agreed that a brand name like Slim-Fast could fall foul of the legislation: “Because it says ‘slim’ and ‘fast’, in effect it is making a claim about the rate of weightloss.”

The film also included an interview with Stephen Moon, ceo of Provexis, the nutraceuticals firm which developed Fruitflow, the tomato-based heart health product. Moon argued in favour of EFSA’s current claims process, which he said was “appropriately tough”. He told the BBC: “It’s a tough process and it should be a tough process. That way consumers can be confident that the products they are buying deliver on the claims made for them.”

But in the studio the HFMA chair told the presenter George Alagia: “We too want good, robust laws that will enable claims to be made. Our concerns are that this law has moved away from what it was intended to do — and for which all the data was provided — to somewhere else. The data supplied by the companies is based on where we all started from — but the goalposts have been moved.”

Last continued: “Adequate guidelines on claims already exist, this is just over-regulation that is adding disproportionately to the burden. We think if you have a process that is eliminating 90% of the claims, you really should be looking again at that process. So what we’re saying is let’s call a time-out on the process and have a proper debate.

Amanda Watson, representing the consumer magazine Which? said she welcomed the new regulations on health claims. “It’s really reassuring, at last, to know that when you go into a supermarket and you are looking at all the claims, you’ll be able to see which is a properly researched claim, and which is just a boast.” She added that responsible firms would benefit from the new rules. “I’d say that this actually creates a more level playing field for responsible manufacturers. Companies who have done the proper research can benefit from being able to use approved claims while those who haven’t won’t — consumers will be encouraged to buy the products from the responsible manufacturers. Consumers do want signposting on issues such as health and nutrition and this legislation will help by getting rid of bogus claims.”

But Martin Last pointed said the claims evaluation process favoured major multinationals and disadvantaged smaller firms. And he warned that, as things stood, there was the risk of “ending up with less information, so consumers turn to unregulated sources”.