The directive on food supplements aims to protect consumers' health, argues EU Commissioner David Byrne.
The passage of the EU directive on food supplements designed to ensure the safety of vitamin and mineral pills was not uncontroversial. However, one could have assumed from reading Sylvia Thompson's article on this page last week that a major clampdown on the rights of consumers to buy food supplements was imminent.
It would, of course, be easy to fall prey to such suggestions if one were to listen only to the lobby that does not want food supplements to be regulated at European level. The aim of the European directive in this area is to assure consumers that these products are safe and that the doses available are not excessive and potentially dangerous.
One can only wonder at the motives of those who suggest that effective public regulation in this sector is not warranted.
Fears expressed about possible future restrictions in relation to maximum strengths of vitamin and mineral supplements are, in my view, greatly exaggerated. Maximum doses will be based on upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals that are to be established by the European Food Safety Authority. Decisions will, therefore, be informed by independent scientific evaluation.
The claim that 300 nutrient forms are missing from the permitted list in the directive misses an important point. No independent scientific evaluation about the safety and bioavailability of these nutrient forms has yet been carried out at European level. I would add that, according to professional bodies, the number of substances for which evaluations are likely to be needed by EFSA is likely to be fewer than 60, and not the 300 as claimed by some.
For a substance currently on the market, a seven-year national derogation may be obtained during which time the substance in question can be properly evaluated. There should therefore be little or no market disruption for substances found to be safe.
Regarding the specific examples cited in the article, boron is currently absent because it has not previously been tested: this does not however rule out its future inclusion. For selenium, some compounds have in the past been rejected on safety grounds by European scientists. Other mineral forms, such as chelates, are currently being evaluated on safety grounds. Finally, glucosulphate and chondroitin are neither vitamins nor minerals, so they fall outside the scope of the directive.
I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion about the directive. I would stress that my aim is not to stifle choice for consumers, but to ensure that their health is properly protected by an effective regulatory system underpinned by the very best scientific advice.
David Byrne is EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection