From pet food to veterinary medicines: we want the best for our companion animals
Posted: April 28, 2026 Filed under: Food Comments Off on From pet food to veterinary medicines: we want the best for our companion animals
Something has changed in the way we think about our pets. The dog that once slept in the garden now sleeps at the foot of the bed. We want the very best for our companion animals: not just in terms of food, but also when it comes to the medicines they may need. This shift in attitude is evident in the market. The range of premium pet food is growing year on year. Manufacturers promise ‘natural ingredients’, ‘grain-free’ recipes and ‘human-grade’ meat. The packaging looks like products from a delicatessen. But what does the law actually say about pet food? How is it classified, what must be on the label, and where are the legal boundaries?
Pet food is legally qualified as feed
Under EU law, pet food is not treated as food, but as feed. Commercially, pet food sits between the two: it is sold in supermarkets, marketed with language borrowed from the food world, but legally it follows the feed rules. That means the labelling requirements, the rules on claims and the enforcement framework all come from feed legislation, not food law.
The main piece of EU legislation for pet food is the Feed Regulation). Specific ingredients are subject to their own rules: feed additives need pre-market approval under Feed Additives Regulation and animal by-products, such as slaughterhouse offal, blood and blood products, bone meal and fish meal, are classified by risk level under the Animal by-products Regulation.
The spectrum of products for companion animals
When it comes to products intended for companion animals, it helps to think of a spectrum rather than a single category. At one end sits regular pet food and at the other end sit veterinary medicinal products. In between are products that share characteristics of both. Each point on the spectrum has its own legal regime, and moving from one to another has significant legal consequences.
The following table sets out the main categories of products for companion animals, from standard pet food to veterinary medicinal products, along with the applicable legal framework for each.
| Product category | Applicable legislation | Key characteristics |
| Standard pet food | Feed Regulation | Complete meals, complementary feeds and treats; least regulated category |
| PARNUTS (feed for particular nutritional purposes) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 2020/354 | Specially formulated for a specific nutritional need (e.g. kidney support, weight management); must carry a recommendation to consult a vet; permitted purposes listed in a positive list |
| Medicated feed | Regulation (EU) No 2019/4 | Contains one or more veterinary medicines mixed into feed; veterinary prescription required |
| Veterinary medicinal products | Regulation (EU) No 2019/6 | No longer pet food or feed; pre-market approval required; strictest regulatory regime |
Mandatory information on the label of pet food
There are mandatory labelling requirements for pet food. For example, the pet food labels must state whether the product is a complete or complementary feed and it must list the ingredients in descending order by weight. It is good to keep in mind that the term ‘labelling’ in the Feed Regulation covers not only the physical packaging but also the website. What you put on your product page is legally considered part of the label and must meet the same requirements. The same applies to social media if it is directly linked to a product.
Voluntary information on the label of pet food: claims
As discussed above, manufacturers are increasingly pushing the boundaries of what they claim about their products for pets. Claims must be supported by evidence and they must not mislead buyers. The most critical choice often is a single word, namely the word that determines which side of the line between feed and medicine you are on. Words such as ‘treats’ and ‘cures’ in combination with a disease constitute medicinal claims. A pet food product making such claims risks being reclassified as a veterinary medicinal product without marketing authorisation.
A case before the Dutch Advertising Code Committee illustrates that claims on pet food are subject to scrutiny. A radio commercial stated that Royal Canin was ‘so healthy for cat and dog’ that a pet insurer offered premium discounts to customers who fed it to their pets. The Committee found this claim too absolute: Royal Canin had not sufficiently substantiated that its pet food was, in general terms, ‘healthy’. The claim was held to be misleading. On appeal, however, the Board of Appeal overturned the decision after Royal Canin submitted scientific research and expert endorsements supporting the quality of its products. The case underlines a key point: especially a broad health claim on pet food must be substantiated. If challenged, the burden falls on the manufacturer to demonstrate that the claim holds up.
The boundary with veterinary medicines
On 1 March 2026, a revised version of the CAVP Code came into force. CAVP stands for Commissie Aanprijzing van Veterinaire Producten (Committee on Promotion of Veterinary Medicines), the Dutch self-regulatory body that oversees the promotion of veterinary products. The Code was revised in connection with new European legislation and is primarily aimed at manufacturers of veterinary medicines, not at pet food producers. But it is relevant to anyone operating near the boundary between feed and medicine, which is a boundary that pet food producers can approach more easily than they might expect.
The Code’s scope extends beyond vet
erinary medicines: it also covers biocidal products (such as disinfectants and pest control products) and other animal care products. This broader scope reflects the fact that many products used in and around animal care raise similar concerns about responsible promotion. For example, fear-based marketing (e.g. ‘protect your dog against serious diseases’) that encourages excessive or unnecessary use of a product is not permitted under the Code. And for biocidal products specifically, certain words such as ‘harmless’ and ‘animal-friendly’ are simply prohibited, even if they are factually correct. This signals clearly where regulatory thinking is heading on ethical and environmental language more broadly.
The CAVP Code also contains rules on hospitality, gifts and other advantages offered to veterinary professionals (Chapter 7). These rules will be familiar to anyone who knows the CGR Code of Conduct, the self-regulatory framework for the promotion of human medicines in the Netherlands: the underlying principles are strikingly similar. Just as the CGR system does on the human side, the CAVP operates a complaints procedure in cooperation with the Inspection Board (Keuringsraad) and has working arrangements with the NVWA for enforcement purposes.
A recent decision illustrates how this works in practice. On 3 November 2025, the CAVP ruled on a complaint by a vaccine manufacturer alleging that a competitor’s promotional communications about its bluetongue vaccine constituted misleading comparative advertising. The competitor had advised veterinarians and livestock farmers to switch to its vaccine for revaccination, implying, without sufficient scientific substantiation, that it offered better protection than the complainant’s competing product. The CAVP found the complaint partially well-founded: the letter to farmers and a newsletter unconditionally advised readers to switch to its own vaccine, without adding the important caveat “if you choose [our vaccine]” that did appear in the letter to veterinarians, and that omission made those communications misleading under the Code. The letter to veterinarians and a press release were found not to breach the Code. The lesson is straightforward: an unconditional recommendation to switch to one’s own product, without adequate scientific substantiation, is misleading comparative advertising under the Code.
That case concerned vaccines, but the CAVP Code is not limited to veterinary medicines. The definition of ‘veterinary products’ under the Code is broad: it covers not only veterinary medicines and biocidal products, but also animal feed with a particular nutritional purpose and complementary feed. This means that pet food producers whose products fall within these categories are directly subject to the Code’s requirements on promotion.
Conclusion
The pet food market may look like a premium food sector, but legally it is not. Anyone who produces or sells pet food operates within an animal feed framework with its own rules for labelling, claims and categorisation. The greatest risks lie not in major violations, but in subtle word choices: the difference between ‘supports the joints’ and ‘treats joint pain’ can be the difference between standard pet food and an unauthorised veterinary medicinal product.
Our pets don’t read the label. The NVWA does.
When drafting this blogpost, inspiration was found in a presentation by Francesco Planchensteiner at the EFFL conference in Berlin on 27 and 28 November 2025 on the evolution of pet food and its legal implications.
Images by freepik.
Oat beta-glucans and the glucose peak: a new health claim is on its way
Posted: March 11, 2026 Filed under: Food, Health claims Comments Off on Oat beta-glucans and the glucose peak: a new health claim is on its way
You have probably experienced it: that familiar afternoon slump after a lunch heavy on pasta or bread. Blood sugar spikes sharply after a carbohydrate-rich meal, only to drop again shortly after, leaving you tired and unfocused. This postprandial glucose peak is not just a matter of energy levels; it is increasingly a focus of nutrition science and, as it turns out, of EU food law.
Positive outcomes in the EU health claim authorisation process are rare: the EU Register of Health Claims currently lists only 262 authorised health claims, against 2,067 that were not authorised. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (hereinafter: Claims Regulation) harmonises the provisions relating to nutrition and health claims made on food and establishes rules governing the authorisation of health claims across the EU. Health claims are prohibited unless they comply with the requirements of the Claims Regulation, are authorised in accordance with it, and are included in the lists of authorised claims. The majority of health claim applications fail at the scientific hurdle. That alone makes a January 2026 positive opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on oat beta-glucans noteworthy. But there is a second reason this opinion stands out: the application was submitted under article 13(5) of the Claims Regulation. This route is rarely used, and even more rarely with success. At present, only 8 claims have been successfully evaluated via that route.
Article 13(1) versus article 13(5)
Most authorised health claims reached the permitted list via article 13(1) of the Claims Regulation, relating to general function claims. As an example “calcium is needed for the maintenance of normal bones” could be mentioned. These claims are based on generally accepted scientific evidence. Article 13(5) also target general function claims but through a fundamentally different route: it is reserved for claims based on newly developed scientific evidence. Unlike article 13(1), an applicant under article 13(5) must submit an individual application and bear the full burden of demonstrating that the claim is supported by newly developed scientific evidence. It is precisely this route that is at issue in the January 2026 EFSA opinion discussed below.
A new positive scientific opinion on oat beta-glucans
The Swedish industrial research centre ScanOats submitted a health claim for authorisation pursuant to article 13(5) of the Claims Regulation. The health claim was submitted via the Competent Authority of Ireland, and the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of this claim relating to oat beta-glucans and the reduction of postprandial glucose peaks. In its opinion, the EFSA Panel concludes that a cause-and-effect relationship has been established between the consumption of oat beta-glucans and the reduction of postprandial blood glucose peaks. In doing so, the Panel delivers a positive scientific opinion: a crucial step in the authorisation process, though formal authorisation remains with the European Commission.
How does this claim differ from the 2012 authorised health claim?
In its current opinion, the EFSA Panel considers that the following wording reflects the scientific evidence: ‘Consumption of beta-glucans from oats contributes to the reduction of the glucose peak after a meal’. This wording differs from the health claim that was already authorised back in 2012, which reads: ‘Consumption of beta-glucans from oats or barley as part of a meal contributes to the reduction of the blood glucose rise after that meal’. The difference is scientifically and legally significant. Also, the current claim seems easier to understand for the average consumer and, from a commercial point of view, is therefore more attractive.
The first claim focused on the overall rise and fall of glucose over time. The current claim focuses specifically on how high the blood sugar spike gets at its highest point. Because this concerns a different, more precise endpoint supported by new scientific evidence, a fresh authorisation procedure was required.
In order to bear the current claim, food or meals should contain at least 30 grams of available carbohydrates per portion and at least 3 grams of beta-glucans from oats for each 30 grams of available carbohydrates.
Status of this 2026 opinion
It is important to note that a scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel is not an authorisation yet. Following a positive EFSA opinion, the European Commission must still draw up a draft implementing regulation to add the claim to the EU register of permitted health claims. That proposal goes through a comitology procedure involving the Member States, after which the Commission formally adopts and publishes the regulation in the Official Journal of the EU. Only at that point is the claim officially authorised and may it lawfully appear on product labels.
The field is in full development
This latest development illustrates that the field of nutrition and health claims in the EU is far from static. New science can open doors that were previously closed, provided the evidence meets EFSA’s demanding standards. This 2026 opinion on oat beta-glucans is a prime example: built on 16 human intervention studies, it has cleared that bar under the demanding article 13(5) route. Successful article 13(5) applications are rare, but this EFSA opinion is a reminder that the route exists and that it can work. The next steps are now in the hands of the European Commission. For manufacturers, regulators and legal practitioners alike, this is a development worth following closely.
Image is by freepik.
EU Biotech Act and Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus: what’s in it for the food and feed sector?
Posted: January 8, 2026 Filed under: Food Comments Off on EU Biotech Act and Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus: what’s in it for the food and feed sector?
A new era for biotechnology innovation
December 2025 brought not one but two major regulatory proposals from the European Commission: the long-awaited first part of the EU Biotech Act and the Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus. Together, these proposals signal a fundamental shift in how the EU approaches biotechnology and food innovation.
The EU Biotech Act aims to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU biotechnology sector whilst maintaining the highest safety standards for people, animals and the environment. The Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus complements this by proposing amendments to ten existing regulations, simplifying procedures, reducing administrative burdens and accelerating market access for innovative products.
Whilst the EU Biotech Act focuses primarily on health biotech, both proposals contain significant changes for the food and feed sector. In this blog, we break down what these two proposals mean for food and feed businesses, so you can start 2026 fully up to speed!
EU Biotech Act
Expanded pre-submission advice and EFSA’s broader mandate
If it is up to the European Commission, the days of incomplete dossiers and lengthy EFSA procedures are numbered. Under the EU Biotech Act proposal, article 32a(1) of the General Food Law Regulation (GFL) will be revised. Whereas EFSA previously only provided advice regarding procedural aspects of the application for innovative foods or the notification thereof, this is now being expanded to include advice on the design of studies and testing strategies to support such an application or notification. This is particularly valuable for SMEs, helping them submit more complete dossiers and shorten time-to-market.
Additionally, EFSA’s general mandate in the field of human nutrition is being adjusted. Article 22(5)(a) GFL is being amended from “scientific advice and scientific and technical support on human nutrition in relation to Community legislation” to simply “scientific advice and scientific and technical support on human nutrition”. By removing the restriction “in relation to Community legislation”, EFSA is given more scope to provide broad advice on human nutrition, even outside the strict framework of existing EU legislation. Welcome expansions that will benefit biotech companies and ultimately support innovation, without compromising on safety standards.
Regulatory sandboxes: testing innovation in a controlled environment
In addition to expanding EFSA’s pre-submission advice, the European Commission is introducing regulatory sandboxes through the EU Biotech Act. These sandboxes provide a controlled environment where participants can test innovative products or substances and related processes under a set of defined rules and monitoring and for a limited period of time. Participants can be any natural or legal person. To enable these sandboxes, definitions are being added to article 3 GFL and new articles 49a to 49c GFL are being inserted. These articles govern the establishment, operation and conditions of the regulatory sandboxes.
Regulatory sandboxes enable innovative biotech companies to test their new products and processes in a safe, controlled environment before they enter the market. Rather than having to comply immediately with all existing regulations, participants can experiment with new technologies under the supervision of the authorities whilst simultaneously learning what data and studies are required for full market authorisation. This lowers the barrier to innovation, shortens development time and helps companies better understand what is expected of them, whilst safety and oversight remain guaranteed.
Amendments to the GMO Directive: a tailored framework for micro-organisms
A separate proposal accompanying the EU Biotech Act presents substantial changes to Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment. With the addition of new articles 24a to 24g, a specific extension for genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) within the existing GMO framework is being introduced.
The extension is intended to make the regulatory framework more fit for purpose for GMMs, acknowledging that the existing rules were largely designed with genetically modified plants in mind and do not always align well with the distinct characteristics, applications and risk profiles of micro-organisms. By tailoring Directive 2001/18/EC to the specificities of GMMs, the EU aims to strengthen its attractiveness as a location for their development, production and commercialisation. In particular, low-risk GMMs will benefit from faster market access procedures under the proposed changes. For the food and feed sector, this is widely viewed as a positive development: clearer and more proportionate rules should reduce regulatory uncertainty and lower barriers to market entry, while continuing to ensure a high level of safety. In the agri-food sector, GMMs offer significant potential, e.g. in the development of biofertilisers, biopesticides and biological food preservatives. A more tailored regulatory approach could therefore support innovation in sustainable food production, enhance efficiency and enable the introduction of new products to the market.
EU Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus
The Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus amends ten regulations with three overarching objectives: reducing administrative burdens, accelerating market access for safe products, and modernising outdated procedures. Here’s what’s changing:
Accelerating market access for safe products
Several regulations are moving away from time-limited approvals to unlimited authorisations for substances with proven safety profiles, freeing up regulatory capacity to focus on high-risk substances.
The proposed modification of the Plant Protection Products Regulation (No 1107/2009) introduces unlimited approval periods for active substances (article 5), whilst accelerating market access for biocontrol substances through EFSA’s new role as rapporteur Member State (article 7), priority assessment (article 11), tacit approval after 120 days (article 37), and treating the EU as one zone for products containing only biocontrol or low-risk substances (article 3, point 17). The regulation also provides a clear definition of biocontrol substances as occurring in nature (excluding heavy metals) and substances of biological origin or synthetically produced that are functionally identical and structurally similar. Additionally, article 3, point 36 introduces a definition for basic substances as active substances not predominantly used for plant protection but nevertheless useful in plant protection, with articles 23 and 23a clarifying their approval criteria and allowing their placing on the market without Member State authorisation to ensure easier access for farmers.
Similarly, the proposed modification of the Biocidal Products Regulation (528/2012) introduces unlimited approval duration for active substances (article 4), whilst the proposed modification of the Feed Additives Regulation (1831/2003) follows suit with unlimited authorisations (article 9(8)).
Finally, the proposed modification of the Official Controls Regulation (2017/625) tackles potential delays at borders by allowing border control posts to split consignments of plants and plant products and release parts for which controls are completed (article 50(3)), preventing food waste caused by lengthy laboratory analyses.
Reducing administrative burdens
Multiple regulations are being simplified to reduce unnecessary paperwork and duplicate procedures.
The proposed modification of the Plant Protection Products Regulation removes record-keeping obligations for products containing only biocontrol substances (article 67), whilst the proposed modification of the Biocidal Products Regulation simplifies EU authorisation procedures by publishing only summaries in the Official Journal rather than full decisions (article 44).
The proposed modification of the Feed Additives Regulation modernises labelling requirements by permitting digital labels for non-safety-critical information (article 16) and simplifies administrative changes such as transfers of authorisation holders.
The proposed modifications of the Hygiene Regulations (852/2004 and 853/2004) streamline notification procedures for national measures by adopting one uniform procedure instead of two different procedures, whilst the proposed modification of the Regulation 1099/2009 on animal welfare at slaughter removes duplicate reporting obligations on depopulation operations (article 18, paragraphs 4 and 6), as existing reporting under the Official Controls Regulation is sufficient.
The proposed modification of the Official Controls Regulation introduces flexibility in laboratory accreditation requirements, allowing alternative standards and permitting designation of reference laboratories without full accreditation for all methods under certain conditions (articles 41, 93 and 100), reducing costs whilst maintaining reliability.
Modernising outdated procedures
Several regulations are being updated to reflect current scientific knowledge, international standards and market realities.
Regulation 396/2005 on
maximum residue levels (MRLs) is being amended to set MRLs at zero (limit of quantification) for hazardous substances not approved in the EU (article 14), aligning import standards with EU production standards. Simultaneously, new paragraphs in articles 14 and 18 allow for transitional measures for products subject to the old MRLs, preventing unnecessary food waste. Additionally, article 3(2)(f) is amended to replace the term ‘limit of determination (LOD)’ with ‘limit of quantification (LOQ)’.
The proposed modification of the Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed clarifies that products obtained using genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) as production strains are not considered ‘produced from GMOs’ where the GMMs are not present in the final product and any residues are limited to non-viable cells (article 2(10)), resolving long-standing uncertainty for the fermentation sector. This clarification represents a parallel approach to the GMM framework introduced under the EU Biotech Act as discussed above. The EU Biotech Act adapts Directive 2001/18/EC to the specificities of GMMs that are deliberately released or placed on the market for various applications, providing tailored regulatory rules and faster procedures for low-risk micro-organisms. The Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus focuses specifically on GMMs used as production strains for food and feed, ensuring legal certainty for businesses by clarifying when they fall out of scope of the regulation.
The TSE Regulation (999/2001) is being modernised to enable swift updates to BSE control measures through delegated acts (articles 5, 6, 8 and 16) and removes outdated restrictions on gelatine and collagen from ruminant bones (article 16).
Conclusion
The EU Biotech Act and the Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus represent a pragmatic recalibration of EU food and feed regulation. By introducing regulatory sandboxes, expanding EFSA’s advisory role and removing time-limited approvals for proven-safe substances, the European Commission is creating space for innovation whilst maintaining rigorous safety standards.
For food and feed businesses, these proposals offer tangible benefits: faster market access for biocontrol substances and feed additives, reduced administrative burdens through digital labelling and streamlined procedures, and greater legal certainty for fermentation-based products. At the same time, stricter import standards for hazardous pesticide residues and modernised BSE controls demonstrate that simplification does not mean compromising on safety.
The second part of the EU Biotech Act is expected to be released in Q3 2026. Meanwhile, the European Parliament and Council will review the legislative proposals under the Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus, for which a plenary session is planned for March 2026. As these proposals move through the legislative process, business should prepare for a regulatory landscape that rewards innovation, values efficiency and maintains Europe’s reputation for the highest food safety standards. The message is clear: the EU is open for biotech business, but safety remains non-negotiable.
Curious to know what these proposals mean to your business? Let’s get in touch!
This blogpost is written by Karin Verzijden, Jasmin Buijs and Maartje Hop.
Images are by Freepik.
Probiotic health claims remain tricky
Posted: September 11, 2025 Filed under: Advertising, Food, Health claims Comments Off on Probiotic health claims remain tricky
“Supports your intestinal flora” sounds harmless. Yet that promise cannot simply be used in advertising. This becomes extra clear in a recent ruling by the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (ACC). In this blog, I will analyse how the ACC reaches its decision, and what it reveals about the scope, or rather the limitations, for such and similar health claims.
The case
The label of the product Beautiful Immunity Kefir Mild contains, among others, the statements that kefir supports the intestinal flora (in Dutch: kefir ondersteunt de darmflora) and that their kefir drinks are high in protein, low in fat and a source of calcium and vitamin B12 (In Dutch: onze Kefir-drankjes bevatten veel eiwitten, weinig vet en zijn een bron van calcium en vitamine B12). Furthermore, two claims are made: calcium and vitamin B12 for your gut health* and support of your immune system** (In Dutch: calcium en vitamine B12 voor uw darmgezondheid* en ondersteuning van uw immuunsysteem**). The label also contains claims about *calcium supporting the normal function of digestive enzymes (in Dutch: *Calcium draagt bij tot de normale werking van spijsverteringsenzymen) and **vitamin B12 supporting the normal function of the immune system (in Dutch: **Vitamine B12 draagt bij tot de normale werking van het immuunsysteem).
Designation kefir mild
According to the complainant, the naming of the product “kefir mild” is confusing consumers. They would think this variant of kefir contains yeasts and alcohol, like the traditional kefir does, but in reality, it doesn’t. The ACC mentions that the advertiser must use a customary or descriptive name for the product. Kefir is designated as a milk product. In the Netherlands, kefir is not a protected product name or a legally established designation, like other dairy products as milk or cheese. According to Beautiful Immunity, a distinction must be made between commercial and traditional kefir. Since shops will mainly sell the commercial variety, which, like “mild kefir”, does not contain yeasts, the ACC does not consider this designation for “mild kefir” to be incorrect or insufficiently specific. The average consumer will think that it is kefir with a mild taste and not traditional kefir with yeasts. Therefore, the naming of the product “kefir mild” isn’t confusing for consumers. The ACC rejects this complaint. Nevertheless, Beautiful Immunity currently designates its product just as “kefir”.
Health claim
Secondly, the complaint states the text displayed on the label contains a misleading health claim. This concerns the claim that the kefir product supports the intestinal flora and contains billions of live cultures. According to the complainant, this suggests a broader effect than the product actually offers, especially since the product does not contain yeasts and does not undergo a traditional fermentation process. The ACC rules that the claim “supports the intestinal flora” qualifies as a health claim. According to article 10 of the Claims Regulation, only authorised health claims can be used. A quick research in the EU Health Claims Register reveals there is no authorised health claim linked to kefir.
Furthermore, article 5(1)(b) of the Claims Regulation requires a health claim to be specifically linked to ingredients or substances. In this case, the advertiser attributes the claimed effect to kefir and not to the ingredients calcium or vitamin B12. More specifically, Beautiful Immunity indicates that the health claim about kefir supporting the intestinal flora is a generic health claim that is accompanied by to the authorised claim for calcium stated on the back of the packaging (article 10(3) of the Claims Regulation).
The ACC does not agree. According to the ACC, the health claim “supports the intestinal flora” is located under the word “kefir” on the front of the packaging. Consumers will read that Beautiful Immunity claims that kefir supports intestinal flora. The name of the product and the health claim follow each other directly and appear to be related. This claim cannot be linked to the claim “Calcium contributes to the normal function of digestive enzymes”. The reason is that the claim is located on the back of the packaging and an asterisk that can clarify the link between the claims is missing. It is therefore an independent health claim, see the ruling of the Court of Justice of 30 January 2020, case C-524/18.
Because there is no authorised health claim for kefir, the health claim that kefir supports the intestinal flora is contrary to article 10(1) of the Claims Regulation. This results in the ACC concluding that this claim is not in accordance with the law as referred to in article 2 of the Dutch Advertising Code, so the ACC upholds the complaint.
For gut health
Beautiful Immunity states that it regularly updates its labelling and that the claim “supports intestinal flora” no longer appears on the new label. Instead, the text “For gut health” is used. This claim is more generic, but if it substitutes the text “supports the intestinal flora”, it is still displayed under the word “kefir”. So, it remains an independent claim about kefir, that is unauthorised. This shows claims about gut health, intestinal flora and probiotics remain tricky.
Intestinal flora and probiotic claims
In this procedure the ACC rules that the health claim that kefir supports the intestinal flora is not permitted and therefore contrary to article 2 of the Dutch Advertising Code. The health claim was actually intended for calcium. What is striking is that the ACC attributes the unauthorised nature of the health claim to the fact that it refers to kefir rather than calcium. The ACC does not assess the admissibility of claims about intestinal flora in general here. Would the health claim “supports the intestinal flora” be permitted if it referred to calcium rather than kefir?
One could argue that in this case article 10(3) of the Claims Regulation is complied with, assuming that the claim is accompanied by the authorised calcium health claim, but caution should still be exercised with health claims about intestinal flora. In the Netherlands, the list of the on hold claims, drawn up by the Dutch Health Advertising Knowledge and Advice Council (in Dutch: Keuringsraad), distinguishes between the categories of digestion and intestinal flora. This suggests that the claim about intestinal flora cannot be accompanied by the authorised claim that calcium contributes to the normal function of digestive enzymes. In fact, there still aren’t any authorised health claims on intestinal flora or probiotics, see our previous blog about probiotic claims.
In the meantime, the European Ombudsman closed a case about probiotic health claims. This case was about the interpretation of the term probiotics by the European Commission. According to the European Commission, the word probiotics suggests a health claim, while the complainant, an association of producers of probiotics, argued that this word rather suggests a nutrition claim. The European Commission intends to protect consumers from potentially misleading information about food. As such, it is not surprising for the Commission to interpret claims about probiotics as health claims. The European Ombudsman accepts the explanation of the European Commission that it does not rule out submitting new applications to authorise probiotic health claims in the future, if the health benefits are scientifically proven.
Conclusion
The ACC rejects the complaint about the name “kefir mild”, as it is accurate and sufficiently specific. The average consumer will think that the term “kefir mild” refers to kefir with a mild taste, and not to traditional kefir containing yeast (including alcohol). The ACC however upholds the complaint regarding the health claim “supports the intestinal flora”. In essence, the ACC rules that consumers would think that the claim is about kefir. And the claim that kefir supports the intestinal flora is an unauthorised health claim. In fact, all health claims about intestinal flora are unauthorised. The same applies to health claims about probiotics. This may change in future, if and when these types of claims are substantiated by scientific evidence regarding the health benefits offered. So, think twice, when selling the health benefits of your gut health product. And of course, I would be happy to help out in case of doubt.
The full case can be read here (in Dutch).
Image: https://nl.beautifulimmunity.eu/