Nutrient Profiles

Nutrient Profiles Advertising Ban Violates the Law of the European Union

Prof. Dr. Alfred Hagen Meyer

Herausgeber

meyer. rechtsanwältePartnerschaftSophienstr. 5, Etage 3D - 80333 MünchenFon + 49 (0)89 /85 63 88 0 - 0Fax + 49 (0)89 / 85 63 88 0 - 22info @ meyerlegal.demeyerlegal.de

Layout

Paré - DesignHaselsbergerstraße 16aD - 85764 Oberschleißheimwww.pare-design.de

Zuvor veröffentlicht Verlag

Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbHGüntzelstraße 63D-10717 Berlin

Erscheinungsjahr: 2 | 2012

I. Nutrient Profiles Without ObjectiveJustification

The requirements of nutrient profiles and theirapplication in practice would lead to advertisingbans that lastingly restrict the freedom to advertise,since foods that do not satisfy the requirementscould not be advertised using health claims or, asregards claims relating to nutrients, only with a stig-matizing disclaimer in certain cases.

The Commission Regulation establishing nutri-ent profiles provided for in Article 4(1) of Regula-tion No. 1924/2006 [HCR]2 would also lastinglyrestrict the freedom of information of an economicnature. But the EU legislature would have to provethat it had “reasonable grounds of public interest”for adopting this measure. Specifically, the legis-lature would have to produce convincing proofthat the measure does in fact achieve the aim inthe public interest as cited and that less restrictingmeasures would not have had an equivalent

effect.3 Thereby the legislature has to incorporatethe proportionality principle; one of the generalprinciples of EU law, this requires that the meansdeployed by an EU regulation in order to achievethe intended objective be appropriate and remainwithin the bounds of what is necessary to this end.

The grounds for nutrient profiles do not neces-sarily have to be based on “hard” scientific studies,but may also be produced on the basis of evidenceof a social scientific nature that is based on pastbehaviour and future responses of consumers, andpredicts reduced advertising activities.4 In his finalopinion in the tobacco advertising case, AdvocateGeneral Fennelly stated however that freedom ofexpression would not be sufficiently respected ifthe legislature were permitted to restrict the exer-cise of that right without any clear evidence thatsuch restriction is likely to lead to changes in behav-iour which, in turn, are likely to benefit publichealth.5

Nutrient Profiles62

* Prof. Dr. Alfred Hagen Meyer, lawyer, meyer.rechtsanwaelteMunich, lecturer on food law at Technical University Munich.Thanks to Dr. Marion Gebhart and Walther Michl, LL.M.

Conflict of interest: the expert opinion is sponsored by third parties.

1 Please note: Unless explicitly mentioned this opinion relates tothe undated draft of the Commission; if reference is made to thelatest draft of the Commission dated 17 March 2009, this will benamed expressly.

2 Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claimsmade on foods, abbreviated as the Health Claims Regulation (OJ EC L 12/3 of 18 January 2007).

3 Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 15 June 2000in cases C-376/98 (Federal Republic of Germany v EuropeanParliament and Council of the European Union) and C-74/99(Imperial Tobacco, [2000] ECR I-8419, No. 145), paragraph 158.

4 Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 15 June 2000in cases C-376/98 (Federal Republic of Germany v EuropeanParliament and Council of the European Union) and C-74/99(Imperial Tobacco, [2000] ECR I-8419, No. 145), paragraph 160.

5 Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 15 June 2000in cases C-376/98 (Federal Republic of Germany v EuropeanParliament and Council of the European Union) and C-74/99(Imperial Tobacco, [2000] ECR I-8419, No. 145), paragraph 161.

EFFL 2|2012

Nutrient ProfilesAdvertising Ban Violates the Law of the European Union

Alfred Hagen Meyer*

The so called “nutrient profiles” are still under discussion (in the versions of an undated

draft and a draft of 17.3.2009 at the latest concerning a Commission Regulation (EC)

“establishing nutrient profiles provided for in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No

1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council” 1).

The author is assuming that the advertising ban that the use of nutrient profiles entails

is not consistent with Art. 11 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in con-

junction with Art. 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms and in this respect violates the law of the European Union.

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 62

Nutrient Profiles

The nutrient profiles are however devoid of anyobjective justification. Renate Sommer, member ofthe European Parliament, formulated the issue con-cisely in the grounds for amendment motion 124of her report on the draft regulation put forwardby the European Parliament and the Council onconsumer information on foods:

‘Nutrient profile’ is a political term, not a scientifi-cally tenable concept. It is a form of indoctrina-tion, not a means of providing information“.6

II. Nutrient Profiles – UnscientificApproach

1. Requirements Made of NutrientProfiles

The term ‘nutrient profile’ refers to the nutrientcomposition of a food or diet. ‘Nutrient profiling’is the classification of foods for specific purposesbased on their nutrient composition. The purposein the sense of the Health Claims Regulation [HCR]is solely for the regulation of nutrition and healthclaims made on foods.

According to Article 4 HCR, the nutrient profilesshall be based on scientific knowledge about dietand nutrition, and their relation to health. Theyshould be based on “generally accepted scientificevidence”.

Hence the same requirements applicable to healthclaims also apply to nutrient profiles (Article 5 HCR).

2. Opinion Issued by EFSA

Therefore the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA) has been asked by the Commission to pro-vide scientific advice on the establishing of nutrient

profiles as indicated in Article 4 of the Regulationin February 2007. The opinion dealing with theterms of reference provided by the Commissionwas adopted on 31 January 2008.7

However, the EFSA opinion issued on nutrientprofiles has not yet led to scientifically reliableguidelines. The EFSA comes to the conclusion thatthere are limitations on the use of nutrient profiles,above all:

– The lack of uniform data on food composi-tion and food consumption across the EU

– Differences in nutrient intake recommen-dations and food based dietary guidelinesbetween Member States.

In No. 11 of the opinion – Limitations – EFSAremarks sceptically on the establishing of scientifi-cally supported nutrient profiles:

“There are limitations on the use of nutrient pro-files based on the composition of foods as pur-chased to classify foods as eligible to bear claims.There is an inherent difficulty in seeking to applyto individual food products nutrient intakerecommendations that are established for theoverall diet. Furthermore, the potential of foodproducts as purchased to adversely affect theoverall dietary balance does not take into accountchanges in nutrient content that occur duringcooking or preparation, such as addition of fat,sugar or salt nor does it take into account theusual intake of the food (based on portion sizeand the frequency of intake or the pattern ofconsumption) or particular combinations offoods that are purchased separately but usuallyconsumed together (such as dry cereals con-sumed with milk). In addition, the lack of uni-form data for food composition and food con-sumption across the EU, as well as differences innutrient intake recommendations and food baseddietary guidelines between Member States, makesit more difficult to set nutrient profiles at EUlevel than at national level. The basis for expertjudgements needed to address such limitationsshould be transparent in order to avoid variableoutcomes.”

This opinion thus differs markedly from the “Scien-tific and technical Guidance for the preparation andpresentation of the application for authorisation ofa Health Claim”,8 in which EFSA explained in detailwhat data is required so that a claim can be consid-

6 European Parliament, Committee on the Environment, PublicHealth and Food Safety, Rapporteur: Renate Sommer,2008/0028(COD), 7 November 2008, DRAFT REPORT on theproposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of theCouncil on the provision of food information to consumers(COM(2008)0040 – C6-0052/2008 – 2008/0028(COD)).

7 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products,Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adoptedon 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, 1–44.

8 EFSA, Scientific and technical Guidance for the preparation andpresentation of the application for authorisation of a Health Claim,Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies(Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-066), adopted on 6 July 2007, The EFSAJournal (2007) 530, 1–44.

EFFL 2|2012 63

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 63

ered sufficiently scientifically supported. In theGuidance EFSA also describes the handling of thedata and the type of presentation in order toachieve the best possible transparency. In addition,in Commission Regulation (EC) No 353/2008 of18 April 2008 establishing implementing rules forapplications for authorisation of health claims asprovided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No1924/2006,9 among other things the general princi-ples for scientific underpinning are listed (e.g.human studies on the target group, criteria compa-rable with evidence based medicine). It is on thatbasis alone that health claims can presently beassessed validly and transparently.

The question then is why merely epidemiologicaldata (with, if any, a significantly lower scientificlevel) suffices for restrictions on advertising usinghealth claims based on nutrient profiles, whereasproof based on intervention studies is required forhealth claims although – as seen – the same require-ments are made of nutrient profiles as are of healthclaims?

As regards the nutrient profiles, with the assis-tance of the Inter Service Steering Group, theCommission is holding various consultations withEFSA, the Member States and stakeholders. A firstreport with a proposal of nutrient profiles waspresented to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on15 December 2008,10 which asks for improvementof certain aspects of the report and its resubmis-sion. The new report from 28 January 2009 hasbeen subject to a further opinion with recommen-dations for improvements from 9 February 2009.11

The recommendations of IAB show that there isstill no comprehensible and transparent scientificevidence for nutrient profiles:

– The justification for the proposed approachto nutrient profiling still needs to be signif-icantly strengthened.

– It is not explained why only sodium, sugarsand saturated fat are considered and notwider options.12

– More explicit arguments why certain cate-gories of foods were awarded exemptionswhile this was not the case for others thatwere suggested by stakeholders.

– The report still needs to explain more con-vincingly why the relevant data is not avail-able, and provide more qualitative and illus-trative evidence of the impacts of the pro-posed option.

3. Draft Regulation on Nutrient Profilesin 2009

a. Fundamental Criticism

Despite this criticism to which the EU Commissionhas not yet responded, the Commission prepared adraft Regulation on nutrient profiles in 2009.13

Recital No. 7 of the draft Regulation states:“It emerges that it is appropriate to set up a sys-tem of nutrient profiles for food in general, fromwhich adjustments and exemptions should beallowed for a limited number of categories offoods or of specific foods that have importantdietary roles.”

Hence the present draft is not based on the resultsof a well-founded scientific/statistical evaluation,contrary to what was called for.

The following fundamental criticism is directedat the draft:

The basic data and impact on the development ofthe nutrient profile for “other foods” as food in gen-eral has not been discussed in any of the reports orthe EFSA-opinion. There is only a vague respec-tively no link to the WHO recommendations datingfrom 2003.14

Nutrient Profiles64

9 Regulation (EC) No. 353/2008 of 18 April 2008 establishingimplementing rules for applications for authorisation of healthclaims as provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 109/11 of 19 April 2008).

10 Commission, Working Document on the Setting of NutrientProfiles, 16/12/2008-1; Commission, Note for the Attention,Sanco/E4/CD/cp (2009) D/540114.

11 Commission, Impact Assessment Board, Impact Assessment ona Commission Decision on the Setting of nutrient profiles,Resubmission (draft version of 28 January 2009), 09-02-2009,D(2009) 1016.

12 Wider options would be the incorporation of different nutrientswith a benefit; f.ex. 37 nutrients – form Beta-Carotine to Zinc –are mentioned in the so called „Referenzwerte für die Nähr-stoffzufuhr“ [reference value for nutrients], D-A-CH Referenz-werte der DGE, ÖGE, SGE/SVE [D-A-CH reference value, interalia German Ass. For Nutrition].

13 Draft Commission Regulation (EC) establishing nutrient profilesprovided for in Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006of the European Parliament and of the Council, Annex 2 toFCP/110/09E.

14 WHO (World Health Organisation) (2003). Diet, nutrition andthe prevention of chronic diseases. Report of the WHO(FAO JointExpert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series 916, Geneva.

EFFL 2|2012

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 64

Nutrient Profiles

Furthermore it is unclear if certain topics havebeen considered and it seems they have not:– different conditions for children, adults and

the elderly– certain risk groups as mentioned in Article

4 HCR– food consumption per day (absolute

amount or calorie-based)– The main energy supplier are staple foods

[largely exempted in the new draft dated17.3.2009]. In contrast the energy absorp-tion for confectionary is only 8 % (men)respectively 9 % (women).15

The main focus of the draft lies on the certain foodcategories profiting from adapted nutrient profiles.In comparison to the preferred options for thresh-old values from 16 December 2008 and 9 February2009 (unchanged) there have been some interestingmodifications in the draft: – (In the undated draft of the Commission) breads

(source of fibre) have been added to the cerealand cereal product category as a new sub-cate-gory with a relatively high sodium content (to bereduced after six years of adoption).Meanwhile the latest draft of the Commissiondated 17 March 2009 exempts bread (source offibre).

– (In the undated draft of the Commission) crus-taceans and molluscs have been added to the cat-egory fish and fishery products and the thresholdfor sodium has been elevated.

Meanwhile the latest draft of the Commissiondated 17 March 2009 exempts fish and crus-taceans, molluscs and other aquatic inverte-brates. It has to be questioned if these products(apart from fish) are really “important basic ele-ments of traditional diets across Europe” as men-tioned in Recital No 5.

– Nuts have been separated from fruits and vegeta-bles with a higher threshold for saturated fats. But they have not been exempted in the latestdraft of the Commission dated 17 March 2009.Even this would be a category that is an impor-tant basic element of traditional diets acrossEurope included in some national dietary guide-lines.

– For most categories specific conditions have beenintroduced. These refer mainly to the ratio of thatcategory in rather complex (convenience) food.

The initiative for these adoptions comes mainlyfrom the discussion with the different stakehold-ers/industry. The aim behind these changes is toallow certain products/categories of food to bearclaims at all.

On no account is this procedure based on scien-tific data relating to nutrition and health asrequired in Article 4 HCR. It is obvious that theCommission pursue the policy to make the proposalcapable of winning a majority.

In contrast, a valid scientific route has beenshown by the EFSA. The EFSA discussed in itspaper16 several possibilities to develop thresholdssuch as using the average or median value of thenutrient content of foods in a given food group.Alternatively, when starting from a selection ofproducts, which have been identified by experts aseligible to bear claims, statistical approaches couldbe used.

The present discussion behind this unscientificsetting of thresholds is documented in the impactassessment report17 and information from theworking group meetings provided by the BritishFSA.18 This procedure is not consistent with thepostulated robustness of the nutrient profiles byEFSA.

b. Criticism in Detail

Regarding the single categories and their thresh-olds, there are some aspects that are not at all trans-parent and/or plausible.

15 German Studies on Nutrition [Nationale Verzehrsstudie II = NVS II).

16 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products,Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adoptedon 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, 1–44.

17 Commission, Draft, Commission Staff Working Document, ImpactAssessment Report accompanying the Commission Decision onthe setting of nutrient profiles pursuant article 4(1) of RegulationNo 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims made onfoods, Annex 3 to FCP/110/09E.

18 Food Standard Agency: Commission Working Group, 16 February2009: Nutrient profiles, Article 13 health claims update andauthorisation of claims under Article 13(5) and 14, IP Letter CWG16 Feb 2009. Commission Working Group, 12 January 2009:Nutrient profiles, Article 13 health claims update and authorisa-tion of claims under Article 13(5) and 14, IP Letter CWG 12 Jan2009. Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,18 December, SC and CWG 18–19 Dec 2008. Interested Parties’letter: Commission Working Group on Nutrition and HealthClaims, 21 November 2008, Ref. CPD/0016.

EFFL 2|2012 65

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 65

Some examples:– Oils and spreadable fat: There is some confusion

regarding the units; the proposal referring to sat-urates changed from 30 kcal/100 g (which wassaid to be an error) to 30 g/100 g.

– The high threshold of sodium in meat and meatproducts is set to allow some cooked ham withlow levels of salt to bear claims at all.

– The impact of crustaceans and molluscs on Euro-pean nutrition has been considered importantenough to elevate the sodium threshold for fishand fish products from 500 to 700 mg/100g. Thejustification is not at all transparent. Evensodium intakes of populations in Europe are wellin excess of recommended intakes.

– Cheese: It has been discussed to elevate thethreshold of saturated fat from 10 g/100g to 12 or12.5 g/100 g. The Commission noted that most(working group members) would not oppose this.Scientific arguments, if there are any, have notbeen made transparent.

– Ready meals, sandwiches and soups: The settingof the special criteria (200 g serving size, mini-mum of two times 30 g of food of other cate-gories) is not transparent. This category withquite complex foods in a broad range of types ofproducts (convenience) cannot be subject to avalid scientific assessment.

Furthermore it has to be questioned if this last cate-gory even will fit in the approach of setting nutrientprofiles only for food groups with an importantdietary role and a significant contribution to theoverall diet of the population19.

The “non alcoholic beverages” are discussed to bedefined as “liquid foods” which would includegravies and sauces.20 In the primary intentionmainly products such as soft drinks were in thefocus, leading to a single threshold for sugar. Withthe new definition concerns arise due to the lackingthresholds for sodium and saturated fatty acids.

Meanwhile in the new draft dated 17.3.2009thresholds for sodium and saturates have beenadded; they are the same as for other foods. Thisequality in treating solid and liquid foods withpartly completely different consumption patternsdoes not seem plausible.

The exemptions of food or food categories fromcompliance with the nutrient profiles includebesides fruits and vegetables, food supplements,table top sweeteners and some dietetic foods such

as “honey,” the only directly named food. However,in the draft Impact Assessment report21 it is clearlystated that typical daily intakes of honey can lead tosignificant or frequent consumption of sugars. Thisis a privilege compared to other foods such as, e.g.,confectionary.

The intention of this sudden change that is notscientifically based has not yet been made public.The comparison to nuts which are not exemptedbut even included in some national dietary guide-lines does not seem to be plausible.

According to the specific categories, certain con-ditions have been set. These define special ratios ofingredients in more complex (convenience) food.The setting of these specific conditions for the foodcategories has not been made transparent except fordairy products. The minimum of 50 % required byCodex Standards has been transferred to all theother categories only by consideration. It is notbased on composition data of concrete and relevantproducts.

Furthermore, when selecting the relevant nutri-ents the calorie content/energy density and thequantity of consumption were not taken intoaccount. The argument that the calorie content isalready covered by the obligatory labelling of nutri-ent values is not tenable in view of the presentdraft. The nutrients now planned, saturated fattyacids, sugar and sodium are all components of thebroadened labelling of nutrient value under Art. 7HCR. This unequal treatment is not plausible froma scientific point of view.

The present mode of procedure which is basedmore on general considerations and discussionswith the associations and food enterprises affected,overlooks several issues which were addressed inthe run-up (especially by EFSA). This discussiondemonstrates the weaknesses in the concept of

Nutrient Profiles66

19 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products,Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adoptedon 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, p. 2.

20 Food Standard Agency: Commission Working Group, 16 February2009: Nutrient profiles, Article 13 health claims update andauthorisation of claims under Article 13(5) and 14, IP LetterCWG 16 Feb 2009.

21 Commission, Draft, Commission Staff Working Document, ImpactAssessment Report accompanying the Commission Decision onthe setting of nutrient profiles pursuant article 4(1) of RegulationNo 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims made onfoods, Annex 3 to FCP/110/09E, p. 23.

EFFL 2|2012

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 66

Nutrient Profiles

nutrient profiles in general and with regard to thespecific issues outlined above.

c. Nutrients in Detail

Body weight is a factor with convincing evidencerelated to multiple diet-related chronic diseases.Weight loss and physical activity are thereforedesired factors. But the evidence relating highintake of sugars, compared to high intakes of starch,to weight gain is inconsistent. There is only someevidence that high intakes of sugars in the form ofsugar-sweetened beverages might contribute toweight gain. Even the evidence for an association ofmicronutrient dilution with added sugar intake islimited and inconsistent.22 Nevertheless there arethresholds for sugar in most categories. In contraryEFSA suggested that total sugar content might onlybe included for particular food groups.

The nutrient „saturated fatty acids“ is mentionedin Art. 4 of the Health Claim Regulation 1924/2006as possible substances for restriction. Meanwhilethere is scientific evidence that saturated fatty acidscannot be treated uniformly from the nutritionalpoint of view. The wide-spread saturated stearicacid (18: 0) does not increase risk as well as themedium-chain triglycerides.23 This differentiationhas not yet been taken into account. This is mainlyimportant for the category vegetable oils andspreadable fats where products relatively high instearic acid such as cocoa butter could be favouredto other solid fats.

d. Single Foodstuffs in the Context of the OverallDietary Habits

The present draft on nutrient profiles disregardscompletely one of the essential leitmotifs behind

the Health Claims Regulation No. 1924/2006: “Thereare no good and bad foods but rather good and baddiets” (draft Health Claim Regulation). Neverthelessthe setting of nutrient profiles was already in thefocus, but should only be adopted “after careful andadequate consideration”. At that time the proposalsfor nutrient profiles were “far from meeting therequired consensus”. 24

One main limitation is an inherent difficulty inseeking to apply to individual food products nutri-ent intake recommendations that are establishedfor the overall diet. The nutrient profile of a bal-anced diet is already defined on a well establishedscientific base.25 The role of the food in a person’sdiet or the fact that the consumption of a food canbe compensated by the consumption of anotherfood with different nutritional properties cannot betaken into account by overall nutrient profiles26.The decisive WHO report on diet, nutrition and theprevention of chronic diseases (2003)27 also focusesalways on the effect of the daily diet or specialnutrients and their thresholds but not on individualfood products. A comprehensive evaluation of foodsas such is not possible according to the GermanAssociation for Nutrition [in German: “DeutscheGesellschaft für Ernährung”]. This association takesthe view that precise figures for an exact evaluationof foods cannot be derived on a correct scientificbasis, since the requisite scientific evidence is lack-ing.28

e. General Criticism

No direct effect of nutrient profiles arises on thediet of individual consumers, since the nutrient pro-files are not communicated to consumers. Nutrientprofiles do not change, let alone exercise a favour-able influence on (incorrect) dietary behaviour. At

22 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products,Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adoptedon 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, p. 14.

23 Schweizer D (2008): Nährwertprofile – Zugangsvoraussetzungfür nährwert- und gesundheitsbezogene Angaben, DeutscheLebensmittel-Rundschau 104, 4, 157–160.

24 Commission: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEANPARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on nutrition and healthclaims made on foods, COM(2003)424 final; 2003/0165 (COD),16.7.2003, recital 14.

25 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC)No 1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic

Products, Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adopted on 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008)644, p. 1.

26 Commission, Draft, Commission Staff Working Document,Impact Assessment Report accompanying the Commission Deci-sison on the setting of nutrient profiles pursuant article 4(1) ofRegulation No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and theCouncil of 20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claimsmade on foods, Annex 3 to FCP/110/09E, p. 18.

27 WHO (World Health Organisation) (2003). Diet, nutrition andthe prevention of chronic diseases. Report of the WHO(FAO JointExpert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series 916, Geneva.

28 German Association for Nutrition [Deutsche Gesellschaft fürErnährung DGE] (2008): „1 plus 4“ Modell – Stellungnahme derDGE e.V. zur erweiterten Nährwertinformation, p.2.

EFFL 2|2012 67

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 67

the most nutrient profiles reach those consumerswho select products bearing health and nutritionclaims. The actual proportion of products currentlybearing such claims is unknown. According to theImpact Assessment Report, it was not possible toobtain exact data on the number of products bear-ing nutrition or health claims (IAR, p. 1829).

The question whether it is possible to influencepublic health via nutrient profiles remains unde-cided. A healthy way of life alone combined withsufficient physical activity is what has a proveneffect. The WHO report30 provided convincing evi-dence for weight loss and physical activity for allimportant diseases (except dental disease); in com-parison: the positive effects of consumption of fruitis only partly convincing, only “probable” evidencewas obtained with regard to Type 2 diabetes andcancer.31

The WHO set certain criteria for the strength ofevidence in the field of dietary/nutrition practiceand risk factors. The highest level “convincing evi-dence” is based on a substantial number of epidemi-ological studies showing consistent associations.WHO is aware that evidence based on the gold stan-dard with intervention studies is often not avail-able.

f. Scientific Based Nutrient Profiling

In the following section we will focus on the aspectsof scientific based nutrient profiling which wereidentified by the EFSA consultation and have nothitherto been considered. The present draft doesnot achieve the scientific level required by EFSA asregards the various terms of reference pursuant toArt. 4 HCR.

Nutrient profiles should consider nutrients thatoften exceed recommended levels. Yet data on

dietary intakes are only available for 22 EuropeanMember States. The methods used for estimatingdietary intake vary among Member States and evenwithin countries.

There is no common scientific evidence on whichnutrients and to which extent exceed the recom-mendations in the European population. TheHealth Claim Regulation requires that the variabil-ity of dietary habits and traditions in the EU betaken into account. Yet the local differences arereflected in the varying role and contribution of dif-ferent food groups and of individual foods to thediet as listed in the EFSA-opinion [see Annex 2].32

There is still no scientific approach on how to dealwith this aspect.

The EFSA considers that a nutrient profile forfood in general with exemptions from the generalprofile, if necessary, for a limited number of foodgroups as a kind of mixed concept might be a goodagreement. The category-based scheme is said tohave several advantages such as the general compa-rability of portion size, the frequency of intake andthe pattern of consumption.33

However, in the same context is stated that thereare no EU-standardised food groups that are basedon their nutrient contribution (the existing EuroFirfood classification system focuses more on the ori-gin of foods.) Hence the data basis for comparabil-ity is even less available. Therefore a valid statisticalapproach is not possible at the current stage.

In its position paper the German Federal Insti-tute for Risk Assessment (German abbr. “BfR”) wasonly able to refer to food categories based on thedata of the Federal nutrient database [in German socalled “Bundeslebensmittelschlüssel”, abbr. “BLS”]and to foods that are (only) frequently consumed inGermany.34 Certainly the whole consumption inother Member States would be entirely different.

Nutrient Profiles68

29 Commission, Draft, Commission Staff Working Document,Impact Assessment Report accompanying the Commission Deci-sion on the setting of nutrient profiles pursuant article 4(1) ofRegulation No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and theCouncil of 20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claimsmade on foods, Annex 3 to FCP/110/09E, p. 18.

30 WHO (World Health Organisation) (2003). Diet, nutrition andthe prevention of chronic diseases. Report of the WHO(FAO JointExpert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series 916, Geneva.Annex.

31 WHO (World Health Organisation) (2003). Diet, nutrition andthe prevention of chronic diseases. Report of the WHO(FAO JointExpert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series 916, Geneva.p. 54–55.

32 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products,Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adoptedon 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, p. 12. – seeTable 2.

33 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products,Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adoptedon 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, p. 2.

34 Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitut für Risikobe-wertung – BfR): Nutrient Profiles – The Precondition for HealthClaims, Updated BfR Position Paper, 12 March 2007.

EFFL 2|2012

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 68

Nutrient Profiles

EFSA mentioned differences in consumption pat-terns across Members too.35

Furthermore, the increasing complexity of thefood supply is mentioned as a disadvantage. In thislight the setting of specific conditions for foodcategories that requires a minimum of 50 % in thefinished product seems to further contribute to theexisting complexity. A clear distinction between twocategories can no longer be justified (e.g. combina-tion of 51 % fruits with 49 % dairy). A differentia-tion between the food-based categories and the cate-gory “ready meals” also becomes difficult withoutfurther explanation. It will not be possible to attrib-ute foods unequivocally to the category of “readymeals” if they fall within one of the other categoriesat the rate of at least 50% (e.g. for meat dishes ahigher salt content would be allowed in the “meat”category than in the category of “ready meals”).

Result: The proposed separations lead to arbi-trary categories and in the practical feasibility toallocation problems.

g. Further Topics

aa. Reference Quantity

In the draft of the Regulation on nutrient profiles36

it has been decided to refer to 100 g/100 ml as refer-ence quantity instead of serving size/portion orenergy. This is mainly based on pragmatic consider-ations, but not on scientific base. The only approachthat is directly related to the quantity of food typi-cally consumed, expressing the nutrient content perserving, has not been considered.

bb. Threshold or Scoring System

This decision in favour of setting thresholds is alsoonly a pragmatic, but not a scientific decision. In theabsence of a gold standard methodology to evaluatenutrient profiles, advantages and drawbacks can onlybe analysed from a narrow theoretical point of view.

This is demonstrated by various working groupswhich compared the use of different systems on thesame food panel and demonstrated that they lead todiscrepancies. EFSA judged the proposed thresholdsystem as possibly being too simplistic.37 Apartfrom the thresholds for the special categories (dueto the conditions complex enough), this appliesmainly to the general category “other foods”.

cc. Testing

For testing of a nutrient profile scheme according toArticle 4 para.1 Health Claim Regulation, a well-established database of energy and nutrient con-tents of a range of foods is required. But actuallythere is still a lack of uniform data on food composi-tion and food consumption across the EU. A step-wise testing and evaluation of the results with pos-sible refining and retesting as proposed by EFSA38

is limited. The dietary role and importance of the food must

also be taken into account, allowing for the variabil-ity in dietary habits and traditions across differentEU countries. The classification of foods as beingeligible to bear nutrition and/or health claimsshould be consistent with food based dietary guide-lines established in Member States, although it isrecognized that such guidelines are not uniformacross countries.

It is therefore questionable whether this topiccan be solved consistently for the European Com-munity. In the White Paper on a strategy for Europeon nutrition, overweight and obesity the regionaland local aspect is highlighted: “The variance in dietacross Member States, and the difference in policyapproaches, is important. Moreover it is essentialthat actions continue to be developed at regionaland local levels as these are closer to the EU citi-zens. Interventions at these levels are vital to tailordesigned and validated general approaches to spe-cific local contexts”.39

35 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products,Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adoptedon 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, p. 12. – seeTable 2.

36 Draft Commission Regulation (EC) establishing nutrient profilesprovided for in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 21924/2006 ofthe European Parliament and of the Council, Annex 2 toFCP/110/09E.

37 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC)

No 1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on DieteticProducts, Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adopted on 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644,p. 24.

38 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC) No1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products,Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058), adoptedon 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, p. 25.

39 Commission: White paper on a strategy for Europe on nutrition,overweight and obesity related health issues, COM(2007) 279final, 30.5.2007, p. 9-10.

EFFL 2|2012 69

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 69

dd. Feasibility

In the discussion on the selection of relevant nutri-ents, EFSA specifies as a prerequisite that the nutri-ents have to be easily available in charts or data-bases or easy to analyse.40 As a rule, however, chartssuch as EuroFir41, the German nutrient database[BLS]42 or data deriving from collections of litera-ture43 indicate an area of fluctuation in addition toa median value. In view of the clear thresholds set(in the draft on nutrient profiles), on the one hand,and the natural fluctuation in the composition offoods, especially of processed or composite prod-ucts, on the other hand, the question as to tolerancein the face of divergences does arise. This issue,which plays an important role e.g. where the riskassessment of substances is concerned, has notbeen taken into account so far in the draft on nutri-ent profiles, yet it is of practical relevance for imple-mentation and monitoring (under the heading of“feasibility”). For example, the German ChemicalSociety recommends in nutrition labelling toler-ances of up to 20% for sodium or of up to 1.5 g forsugar and saturated fatty acids (less than10g/100g).44

III. Legal Aspects

1. Examination Criterion: Art. 11 EUCharter of Fundamental Rights andFreedoms

The requirements of nutrient profiles and theirapplication in practice would lead to advertisingbans that lastingly restrict the freedom to advertise,since foods that do not satisfy the requirementscould not be advertised using health claims or, asregards claims relating to nutrients, only with thestigmatizing disclaimer “high […(*)] content.”

This restriction on commercial advertising affectsand/or violates the scope of protection of Art. 11 EUCharter of Fundamental Rights (hereinafter: CFR),read in conjunction with Art. 10 of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights.

Art. 6(1) of the Treaty of the European Union(TEU) provides that the CFR has the same legal sta-tus as the Treaties, i.e. the Charter is part of EU pri-mary law. Art. 51(1) CFR adds that its provisions arechiefly addressed to the bodies and institutions ofthe Union so that legislative acts adopted by Coun-cil and Parliament have to be judged according to

the requirements of Art. 11 CFR. The latter has to beinterpreted applying the principles enshrined inArt. 52 CFR which lays down general rules on thescope of guaranteed rights. Above all, Art. 52(3), 1st

sentence CFR stipulates: “Insofar as this Chartercontains rights which correspond to rights guaran-teed by the Convention for the Protection ofHuman Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, themeaning and scope of those rights shall be the sameas those laid down by the said Convention.“ Theexplanations relating to the Charter of Fundamen-tal Rights45, which must be given due regard towhen interpreting the Charter (Art. 52(7) CFR), con-tain a list of articles covered by Art. 52(3) CFRwhich include Art. 11 CFR. Consequently, the con-tent of said provision is largely determined byArt. 10 ECHR whose scope and limitations are uni-laterally incorporated into EU law. As the EuropeanCourt of Justice (ECJ) has pointed out in its recentcase law, the reference to the ECHR in Art. 52(3)CFR includes the case law of the European Court ofHuman Rights (ECtHR).46 Art. 52(3), 2nd sentencerounds the legal framework off by stipulating thatUnion law is not prevented from providing moreextensive protection. This entails that the Unioncourts may only deviate from the Convention stan-dards in favour of the applicant, never to his detri-ment.

Therefore, the guarantee of freedom of expres-sion enshrined in Art. 10 ECHR has to be the start-ing point of the present legal analysis. Additionally,the case law of the ECJ has to be taken into consid-eration to verify whether there are autonomous,further-reaching standards in EU law.

Nutrient Profiles70

40 EFSA, The setting of nutrient profiles for foods bearing nutritionand health claims pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EC)No 1924/2006, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Prod-ucts, Nutrition and Allergies (Request Nº EFSA-Q-2007-058),adopted on 31 January 2008, The EFSA Journal (2008) 644, p. 26.

41 European Food Information Resource Network EuroFir,http://www.eurofir.net/public.asp?id=4210

42 Bundeslebensmittelschlüsssel, http://www.bls.nvs2.de.

43 Souci-Fachmann-Kraut: Nutrition Tables/Die Zusammensetzungder Lebensmittel/Nährwerttabellen: 6. Aufl.-Stuttgart: medparmScientific Publ., 2000.

44 The German Chemical Society (DGE): Empfehlungen zu Toler-anzen für Nährstoffschwankungen bei der Nährwertkennzeich-nung, Lebensmittelchemie, 52, 25, 1998 und Ergänzungen 52,132–133, 1998; 53, 69, 1999.

45 OJ 2007 C 303/17.

46 ECJ decision of 22 December 2010 (C-279/09, nyr, paragraph 35);of 5 October 2010, J. McB./L. E. (C-400/10 PPU, nyr, pararaph53).

EFFL 2|2012

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 70

Nutrient Profiles

2. Freedom to Advertise as Part of the Scope of Art. 11 CFR

As the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)has clarified in its Casado Coca judgement of 24February 1994, the right to freedom of expressionhas to be construed in a very broad manner, thusmaking no distinction as to the type of informationimparted:

“35. [...] Article 10 (art. 10) does not apply solelyto certain types of information or ideas or formsof expression, in particular those of a politicalnature; it also encompasses artistic expression,information of a commercial nature – as theCommission rightly pointed out – and evenlight music and commercials transmitted bycable.“47

Having regard to Art. 52(3) CFR, this finding of theECtHR puts the EU courts under an obligation tointegrate commercial advertising, e.g. for food, intothe scope of protection of Art. 11 CFR.48

3. Restriction on Advertising

According to Art. 10(2) ECHR, this right may onlybe restricted under the conditions provided for inArt. 10(2) ECHR, which reads:

“the exercise of these freedoms, since it carrieswith it duties and responsibilities, may be subjectto such formalities, conditions, restrictions orpenalties as are prescribed by law and arenecessary in a democratic society, in the interestsof national security, territorial integrity or publicsafety, for the prevention of disorder or crime,for the protection of health or morals, for the pro-tection of the reputation or the rights of others,for preventing the disclosure of information

received in confidence, or for maintaining theauthority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

According to the Court of Human Rights, those lim-itations must however be interpreted restrictively.The adjective ‘necessary‘ involves, for the purposesof Article 10(2), a ‘pressing social need‘ and,although ‘[t]he contracting States have a certainmargin of appreciation in assessing whether such aneed exists‘, the interference must be ‘proportionateto the legitimate aim pursued‘ and ‘the reasonsadduced by the national authorities to justify it‘must be ‘relevant and sufficient‘.49 Furthermore,any prior restriction requires particular considera-tion.50

With regard to the particular situation of adver-tising bans, the ECtHR set up the following princi-ples in its judgement Stambuk/Germany of 17 Octo-ber 2002:

“39. The Court recalls that, for the citizen, adver-tising is a means of discovering the characteristicsof services and goods offered to him. Neverthe-less, it may sometimes be restricted, especially toprevent unfair competition and untruthful ormisleading advertising. In some contexts, thepublication of even objective, truthful advertise-ments might be restricted in order to ensurerespect for the rights of others or owing to thespecial circumstances of particular businessactivities and professions. Any such restrictionsmust, however, be closely scrutinised by the Court,which must weigh the requirements of those par-ticular features against the advertising in ques-tion; […]”51

The key element, therefore, lies in the assessment ofthe proportionality of the restriction of a right (here:freedom to advertise) which in the words of Advo-cate General Jääskinen ‘requires that the measures

47 ECtHR judgement of 24 February 1994, Casado Coca (15450/89,Series A, No. 285-A, paragraph 35; internal quotations omitted).Cf also ECtHR judgement of 20 November 1989, MarktIntern/Germany (Series A, No. 165, paragraph 25-26).

48 Cf the express reference to the aforementioned ECtHR judge-ments in Advocate General Jääskinen’s opinion of 19 October2010 (case C-249/09, Novo Nordisk, nyr, paragraph 44) concern-ing advertisements for medicinal products.

49 ECJ decision of 6 March 2001, case C-274/99, paragraph 41 –Connolly, with reference to ECtHR Vogt v Germany, paragraph52; and Wille v Liechtenstein judgement of 28 October 1999, no28396/95, paragraphs 61- 63). See also ECJ decisions of 13 July1989 (Wachauf, 5/88, [1989] ECR 2609), of 10 January 1992

(Kühn, C-177/90, [1992] ECR I-35), of 15 April 1997 (Irish Farm-ers Association et al, C-22/94, [1997] ECR I-1809), and of 10 July2003 (Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd, C-20/00 and C-64/00, [2003]ECR I-7411).

50 ECJ decision of 6 March 2001, case C-274/99 P, paragraph 41 –Connolly, with reference to ECtHR decision Wingrove/UK of 25November 1996, Reports of Judgements and Decisions, 1996-V,p. 1957, paragraphs 58 and 60.

51 ECtHR, judgement of 17 October 2002, application no.37928/97, Stambuk v Germany, paragraph 39 (emphasis added);reiterated in the decisions of 23 October 2007, application no.7969/04, Brzank v Germany, and application no. 2357/05,Heimann v Germany.

EFFL 2|2012 71

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 71

concerned satisfy criteria of aptitude, necessity andproportionality stricto sensu‘.52 When these re-quirements are scrutinized by a court, a broad scopeof discretion has to be awarded to the EU legislatorin an area such as the one presently under discus-sion, in which political, economic and social deci-sions are needed and in which the legislative bodieshave to undertake complex evaluations.53 More-over, the ECtHR’s standing case law shows thatadvertising can generally be subject to stricterrestrictions than the expression of political ideas.54

The ECJ seconded this stance in its Karner judge-ment by stating:

“When the exercise of the freedom does not con-tribute to a discussion of public interest and, inaddition, arises in a context in which the MemberStates have a certain amount of discretion,review is limited to an examination of the reason-ableness and proportionality of the interference.This holds true for the commercial use of free-dom of expression, particularly in a field as com-plex and fluctuating as advertising’.55

The sequentiality of ‘reasonableness’ and ‘propor-tionality’ implies that the latter should be read as‘proportionality stricto sensu’. The most up-to-dateanalysis of the functioning of that requirement inthe material context can be found in Advocate Gen-eral Jääskinen’s opinion of 19 October 2010 in thecase of Novo Nordisk:

“49. In my view, the principle of proportionalitystricto sensu does not apply to the balancing oftwo fundamental freedoms, namely, the right tohealth and freedom of expression, if it is con-ceived as a requirement to minimise the formerand maximise the latter. Here, the purpose of theapplication of the principle of proportionality is

to attach weight to the relative importance of thetwo fundamental rights rather than to minimisethe obstacles to freedom of commercial expres-sion caused by the measures relating to theadvertising of medicinal products adopted by theUnion legislature in order to safeguard publichealth. Public health must be safeguarded inorder to guarantee the fundamental rights,human dignity, the right to life and the right tophysical and mental integrity referred to in Arti-cles 1 to 3 of the Charter.50. In the system of fundamental rights, the rightto life is the foremost and must take precedenceover the fundamental rights of freedom of action.Freedom of commercial expression is not at theheart of that fundamental right. Therefore, theUnion legislature has a wide discretion withregard to the level of protection granted to publichealth and it is therefore not required to restrictitself to the minimum necessary to protect free-dom of expression. The argument that the princi-ple of proportionality requires the adoption ofa restrictive approach with regard to the inter-pretation of the limitations on the advertisingof medicinal products is therefore, in my view,unfounded.“56

Despite this wide margin of appreciation for the leg-islator, there remains the aforementioned criterionof ‘reasonableness’. The ECJ continuously uses theformula that a measure adopted in an area of largelegislative discretion will only be deemed unlawfulif it is ‘manifestly inappropriate having regard tothe objective which the competent institutions areseeking to pursue‘.57 The ECtHR likewise verifies ifthe reasons adduced by the national authorities can‘be said to be arbitrary’.58 As Advocate General

Nutrient Profiles72

52 Jääskinen, Opinion of 19 October 2010 (case C-249/09, NovoNordisk, nyr, paragraph 48).

53 ECJ decision of 12 December 2006, C-380/03, paragraph 145.

54 ECtHR judgement of 5 May 1979 in case 7805/77, X and Churchof Scientology v Sweden, Decisions and Reports 16 (1979), 68,73. Frowein, in: Frowein/Peukert, Europäische Menschenrecht-skonvention (3rd ed. 2009), Art. 10 margin No. 9 with further ref-erences; Grabenwarter, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention(4th ed. 2009), § 23 margin No. 34; van Dijk/van Hoof, Theoryand practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (2nd ed. 1990), Art. 10 margin No. 8, p. 425.

55 ECJ decision of 25 March 2004, C-71/02, [2004] ECR I-3025,paragraph 51, with reference to the decision of 23 October 2003in case C-245/01, RTL Television, paragraph 73, and ECtHRjudgements in the case Markt Intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus

Beermann of 20 November 1989, Reports of judgements anddecisions, Series A, Nr. 165, paragraph 33, and VGT Vereingegen Tierfabriken/Switzerland of 28 June 2001, Reports ofjudgements and decisions 2001-VI, paragraphs 69-70. Cf alsothe recent ECJ (Second Chamber) decision of 2. April 2009,Case C-421/07, Frede Damgaard, paragraphs 26, 27.

56 Advocate General Jääskinen, opinion of 19 October 2010 (case C-249/09, Novo Nordisk, nyr, paragraphs 49–50).

57 ECJ decision of 12 December 2006, C-380/03, paragraph 145 –Directive 2003/33/EC on the approximation of the laws, regula-tions and administrative provisions of the Member States relatingto the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products, withextensive references.

58 ECtHR, decision of 23 October 2007, application no. 2357/05,Heimann v Germany.

EFFL 2|2012

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 72

Nutrient Profiles

Fenelly put it in his opinion in the case of the Direc-tive on Tobacco Advertising, again with reference tothe ECtHR’s judgement in “Markt Intern”, limits oncommercial expression ‘are acceptable where thecompetent authorities, on reasonable grounds, hadconsidered the restrictions to be necessary‘.59 In theparticular case of areas where there is a lack of una-nimity in scientific circles as to the effectiveness ofa measure, however, the Advocate General consid-ered it ‘insufficiently respectful of freedom of

expression […] to permit the legislator to restrict theexercise of that right without any clear evidencethat such a restriction is likely to result in changesin behaviour which, in turn, were likely to benefitpublic health.‘60

Drawing on the conclusions of part 2 of the pres-ent opinion, there is no doubt that the nutrient pro-files are devoid of any objective justification andcan accordingly be proven to lack the necessary rea-sonableness. Notably, there are no indications at allthat any possible changes in consumer behaviourwill lead to factually healthier lifestyle choices andthus benefit public health.

Therefore, the draft commission regulation estab-lishing nutrient profiles provided for in Article 4(1)of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council violates Art. 11 CFR,read in conjunction with Art. 10 ECHR.

59 Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly delivered on 15 June 2000in cases C-376/98 (Federal Republic of Germany v EuropeanParliament and Council of the European Union) and C-74/99(Imperial Tobacco, [2000] ECR I-8419, No. 145), paragraph 158(emphasis added).

61 Ibid, paragraph 161.

EFFL 2|2012 73

EffL 2-12 16.04.2012 11:23 Uhr Seite 73

Stand: 20.12.2011

mailandVia Caradosso, 12

I - 20123 Milano Fon +39 02 / 43 51 42 21 Fax +39 02 / 43 41 69 82

info @ meyerlegal.eu meyerlegal.eu

münchenSophienstr. 5, Etage 3

D - 80333 München Fon + 49 (0)89 / 85 63 88 0 - 0

Fax + 49 (0)89 / 85 63 88 0 - 22 info @ meyerlegal.de

meyerlegal.de

meyer. rechtsanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft

Handbücher „Functional Food“ und „Verkehrsauffassung im Lebensmittel-recht“ sowie Themenverantwortlicher und Autor bei Römpp Lexikon Lebens-mittelchemie (Thieme).

Herausgeber der Deutschen Lebensmit-tel Rundschau (DLR).

Geschäftsführender Vorstand des Förder-vereins der Forschungsstelle für deut-sches und europäisches Lebensmittel-recht in Bayreuth, zudem Vorsitzender des Verwaltungsrats der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ernährung (DGE), Mit-glied des Stiftungsrats der Deutschen Forschungsanstalt für Lebensmittelche-mie (DFA) und im Wissenschaftlichen Bei-trat des Milchindustrieverbands (MIV).

Korrespondierendes Mitglied der Arbeits-gemeinschaft „Fragen der Ernährung“ der Lebensmittelchemischen Gesellschaft in der GDCh und Mitglied des Rechtsaus-schusses des Bundes für Lebensmittel-recht und Lebensmittelkunde (BLL).

Meyer leitet regelmäßig deutsche und internationale Veranstaltungen und refe-riert in deutscher und englischer Sprache.

Prof. Dr. Meyer ist Partner der meyer.rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft.

Schwerpunkte seiner Tätigkeit sind das Lebensmittel- und Bedarfsgegenstände-recht mit allen seinen Facetten wie Pro-duktentwicklung, Kennzeichnung und health claims, Risk Assessment und Kri-senmanagement sowie Lobbyarbeit auf nationaler und europäischer Ebene.

Honorarprofessur an der TU München; er unterrichtet seit dem Wintersemester 1995/1996 das Fach Lebensmittelrecht am Institut für Lebensmittelchemie an der TU München.

Seine wissenschaftlichen Leistungen belegt er durch über 200 Veröffentli-chungen, darunter die Kommentierung der „Lebensmittelwerbung“ in Fezer (Hrsg.), UWG – Lauterkeitsrecht, Kom-mentar (C.H.Beck-Verlag, 2009) sowie der 2007 erschienene, mit Prof. Streinz her-ausgegebene Kommentar zur BasisVO 178/2002 und zum LFGB (C.H.Beck). Er ist des Weiteren Herausgeber der bei C.H.Beck publizierten Textsammlung „Meyer - Lebensmittelrecht“, Mitheraus-geber der bei Behr´s erscheinenden

Prof. Dr. Alfred Hagen Meyer

mailandVia Caradosso, 12

I - 20123 Milano Fon +39 02 / 43 51 42 21 Fax +39 02 / 43 41 69 82

info @ meyerlegal.eu www.meyerlegal.eu

münchenSophienstr. 5, Etage 3

D - 80333 München Fon + 49 (0)89 / 85 63 88 0 - 0

Fax + 49 (0)89 / 85 63 88 0 - 22 info @ meyerlegal.de www.meyerlegal.de

meyer. rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft