Is this finally the end of misleading healthy food claims?

In my experience there is no consistency in the foods, one batch is okay, another isn’t fit to give to a dog. When I complain I get a “we’re very sorry” letter. They are so very sorry that they give me a couple of vouchers to buy more of the Horrid Stuff that I just shoved in the postbox.
I’ve had hour long phone calls with Trading Standards Officers who told me how ‘reputable’ these companies are, which is easier than actually investigating the complaint.
And when they do, they make it worse.
One such complaint was about Babyfood. It was superdrug that were selling it. They had it on a high shelf and there was a heater directly above that was belting out heat to the entire store.
So the jars were warming all day, then cooling at night.

Babyfood needs to be stored right.
I informed Trading Standards and expected a quick formality of perhaps the guy going around there, having a quick word with the Manager and the jars would get moved to a different place in the store at least. It would be better the advice coming from him than a shopper.

The Trading Standards Guy rang me back, said he’d been round there, examined where the food was, talked to the Manager and told him that there was absolutely nothing wrong with where the food was being placed. And then told me about how he’d been to the factory once and how they’d sterilised everything.

What had that got to do with the baby food being cooked and cooled every day ?
Not much.

This is a move to be welcomed and is long overdue. But there are many other product groups that need the same kind of attention, not the least of which are those relating to personal care / cosmetics. Some of the claims for them are outrageously overstated and misleading in my opinion, many health-related – toothpastes, skincare, haircare and so on. I strongly suspect that as with health foods, if challenged the manufacturers would be hard-pressed produce to the evidence needed to valdate their claims.

I have heard the health claim “water rehydrates the body” was dismissed by EFSA along with numerous other facts! In principle good legislation but yet again EU got it wrong; applying a pharmaceutical model of evidence to foods – legislators trying to put square pegs in round holes. Note that a herbal medicine can use ‘traditional use’ data and obtain a licence to treat/cure; food cannot e.g. peppermint (if you pay for a licence it “treats digestive complaints; dyspepsia, flatulence & stomach cramps” yet if you eat peppermint apparently it doesn’t have the same effect – or at least you can’t claim so; same for echinacea for colds/flu). Why? because foods/supplements are for healthy people (not their original intention), medicines are for sick people; yet this regulation tries to put food in the pharmaceutical ‘box’ – it will never fit! If Westerners ate a healthy diet everyday then maybe their intentions would make logical/common sense; the fact is most do not even manage the minimum ‘5-a-day’ and therefore require additional foods/supplements (as well as a better nutritional education) to help them prevent deficiencies (note resurgence of rickets & scurvy in the modern West!!!). Now companies have the answer i.e. eat artificially constructed ‘spreads’ with added sterols to keep your cholesterol low instead of eating legumes & other vegetables containing phytosterols & excercise, lol! Glucosamine is the active ingredient in two licensed (paid for) medicines in the UK; the evidence used for the medicine claim couldn’t be used for foods claiming ‘joint health maintenance’ because it was performed on unhealthy individuals (i.e. with arthritis). Who has the funds to run trials showing that non-patentable foods work on ‘healthy’ people? If it is for the benefit of the tax-paying public surely the government should (the food standards agency I note no longer exists! …or perhaps Which!?). The “antioxidant” food claim (which can be validated by lab testing ORAC value & by very definition means ‘mitigates free radical damage’) was rejected even though EFSA recognise foods have antioxidant properties they didn’t have the level of evidence to show that stopping free radicals relates to physiological activity, however such claims e.g. ‘protecting cells from premature aging’ are permitted on cosmetics (product that do not reach the digestive system for absorption)! The list goes on and the consumer looses out – this isn’t education it is red tape & bureaucracy. There is a reason certain foods are eaten together and/or have substantial evidence of ‘traditional’ use; it’s because they work. Note cosmetics don’t have such restrictions (e.g. antioxidants for premature aging are rife), yet it is fact the epithelial tissue in the digestive tract absorbs nutrients far better than our external epithelial layer (the skin). BTW Oliver – I agree with you; but if the next ‘miracle cure’ plant was found being eaten in say darkest Peru, WE couldn’t eat it in the UK because of EU Novel food Regs, which prohibit anything without at least 15 years EU use! However if a company paid to extract that plant’s specific ‘active component’ it may be patentable for a time/profitable to them as a drug (not a food) – the traditional holistic (whole greater than sum of parts) principle is being wiped out by £££ making machines… who fund our government, who legislate, which benefits these multi-billion £ companies, who provide more £ to our government…