Supplements: EU Court Hears Case As UK Commons Debate Directive
Luxembourg - The European Court of Justice heard oral arguments yesterday in a case brought by the Alliance for Natural Health, the British Health Food Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Health Food Stores, to overturn the prohibitive provisions of the European food supplements directive.
The directive, passed in 2002 for the purpose of harmonizing European laws on health products, is set to require expensive research to prove the innocence of numerous vitamin and mineral ingredients in supplements, for products to be allowed to stay on the market. Many current supplements will not make the grade and are expected to vanish some time after August 2005, the date by which supplements must conform to the new rules.
On the same day in London's Westminster Hall, the House of Commons debated an opposition motion asking Tony Blair to re-negotiate the directive in the coming semester of British presidency of the EU. While the government strenuously opposed the motion, conservative politicians as well as some in the ranks of the government's Labour party pointed out that the directive will be bad for both consumers and the smaller, more innovative producers of supplements. The government was unable to provide evidence of any harm that must be averted from consumers and said they got "the best possible deal" in the negotiations leading up to the passage of the directive.
Some of the British Members of Parliament point out that a prohibition of supplements is really without sense because consumers will buy what they will over the internet. The issue is a political hot patato. "Why do people think less and less of Europe", said one of the MPs, continuing "it is precisely because of issues such as this one. Government thinks it's a small matter, but people are concerned about their access to natural products". However despite a good debate, the opposition motion was defeated and replaced by a government sponsored motion that lauds the government's handling of the matter.
Earlier in the day, these same concerns had reverberated around a court room in the European Court of Justice, where a challenge against the British laws to put the directive into effect was heard. At one point, Advocate General Geelhoed described the procedure for adding nutrients to the "positive list" of those allowed by the directive to be "as transparent as a black box". The Advocate General is expected to file an opinion on 5 April, while the final decision of the court is expected to come some time in June, just before the July/August deadline of enforcement for the directive.
- - -
The Alliance for Natural Health, one of the parties to the action, describes the hearing as follows:EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ADVOCATE GENERAL DESCRIBES VITAMIN AND MINERAL BAN "AS TRANSPARENT AS A BLACK BOX"
UK GOVERNMENT DECIDES NOT TO ATTEND COURT HEARING TO MAKE ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE CHALLENGE
The Alliance for Natural Health today presented its oral submission to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in its landmark case challenging the ban in the EU Food Supplements Directive on 75% of vitamin and mineral forms currently sold in the EU market. Unless listed on an approved so called “positive list” these nutrients will be banned throughout the EU from 1st August 2005.
Opposing oral submissions were made by the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and only one EU Member State, Greece.
UK Government does not present its objections to the challenge
Interestingly, neither the UK government nor Portugal attended to present oral arguments despite having filed Written Observations in the case. This means that none of the major EU countries felt the need to oppose the ANH’s application for a declaration that the ban in the Directive was unlawful.
David Hinde Solicitor and ANH Legal Director said:
“Given the vigour with which the UK government resisted this application at the Judicial Review stage, it was extraordinary it did not now think the issue sufficiently important to warrant being represented at the ECJ to make oral submissions. The question inevitably arises whether this signifies a change of attitude on their part and a retreat from their previously bullish position about the legality of the Directive.”Paul Lasok QC, a world leading expert on EU law, representing the ANH opened the proceedings and systematically undermined the legal and scientific basis of the Directive’s positive list, highlighting contradictions between various arguments put forward by the key bodies involved in developing the Directive, namely the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
When asked by Judge Lenaerts as to the origin of the positive list, which appeared to have been derived from a list produced by the European Commission for another Directive with a quite different purpose and so omitted a vast array of nutrients that can normally be found in food, Mr Lasok responded:
“The list was indeed the same, without adding, without subtracting and without thinking.”Advocate General Geelhoed, (the senior legal Advisor to the Court) appeared to be baffled by the procedure for adding nutrients to the positive list, which he described:
“As transparent as a black box.”
Dr Robert Verkerk, executive director of the ANH said after the hearing:“It was remarkable that the vast majority of points that we had gone to great length to show the Court were not countered in any effective way by the opposing parties. The Commission, the Council and the Parliament were not able to give any adequate scientific explanations for why so many forms of vitamins and minerals that naturally occur in foods could be banned across the EU.”Final judgement expected in June 2005
The Advocate General announced that he would deliver his opinion on 5 April 2005, while the Court is expected to give its judgment in June, shortly before the ban would otherwise be set to come into effect on 1 August 2005.
For further information contact:Alliance for Natural Health
http://www.anh-europe.org/David C. Hinde, Solicitor, Legal Director
Tel: 0207 738 1640
Mobile: 07958 548 186
E-mail: davidh@alliance-natural-health.orgDr Robert Verkerk, Executive Director
Tel: 01252 371 275
Mobile: 0771 484 7225
E-mail: robv@alliance-natural-health.orgSee also related articles:
Financial Times: Vitamin sellers fight EU rules on supplements
Yorkshire Post: Ministers blasted over EU pills ban
The Times: Are health foods good for us?
The Times: Caplin joins protest at EU ban on natural remedies
Mary Ann Sieghart in The Times: Pro-drink, anti-vitamins. How's that for a shot in the foot?
And here some more details about the discussion in Parliament, provided by Paul Taylor:
The Hansard transcript of yesterday's debate in the British House of Commons is enclosed.
Unfortunately, and not at all surprisingly, the opposition motion.....
"That this House regrets the passing of the Food Supplements Regulations (England) 2003; mandates the Government to use the UK Presidency to renegotiate the Food Supplements Directive with the European Union; and indicates a willingness to repeal the regulations if the renegotiation does not reach a satisfactory compromise to protect the interests of consumers and manufacturers in the United Kingdom."
.....was roundly defeated, by 283 votes to 189.
In its place, the Government put an amended motion.....
"That this House congratulates the Government on successfully negotiating a final text of the Directive that works in the interests of UK consumers and industry by ensuring that products are safe, properly labelled, and can be freely traded across EU member states; notes that UK legislation gives maximum flexibility that ensures that as many products as possible can continue to be marketed after the Directive comes into effect on 1st August, and that all of the vitamins and most of the minerals currently on sale in the UK will still be available; agrees with the Government's assessment that re-opening discussion on the Directive at this point runs the risk of making its effects more restrictive and is thus against UK interests; and welcomes the Government's continued commitment to working with the industry on assessing the safety of individual food supplements, and to facilitating negotiations with the European Food Standards Agency."
.....that was passed by 279 votes to 172.
Interested in the details of the debate? Here is the transcript in MS Word (.doc) format for download.
See also:ISIS Report 13/01/2003 - Hands Off Vitamins and Herbs
Visits to Complementary Alternative Medicine practitioners throughout Europe outnumber those to doctors by two to one. Government figures show UK citizens spend £70 million per year on nutritional supplements and about 20% of the population use vitamins and minerals in their diets. But European Parliament Directives passed in March 2002 will ban food supplements, in a bid to re-classify them as medical drugs. Sam Burcher reports.
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Wednesday January 26 2005
updated on Wednesday December 8 2010URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/01/26/supplements_eu_court_hears_case_as_uk_commons_debate_directive.htm
Related ArticlesFood Supplements: European Court To Hear Anti-Prohibition Case In January
The European Court of Justice has set 25 January 2005 as the date for hearing a case challenging the new European Directive on Food Supplements. The EU supplement law's prohibition clause will go into effect in July 2005, taking off the market many supplements consumers are now buying, unless the directive is overturned or substantially modified. The case was referred to the EU court by judge Richards of the London... [read more]
December 09, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerFood Supplements in Europe - What is the Problem?
The European Union has issued a Directive to regulate the commerce of food supplements, which is in the process of being implemented in the member states. If reading the referenced text does not tell you what problems this directive might bring to your ability to either buy or sell supplements in one of the European Community member states, don't feel alone. That is a problem most observers have and I... [read more]
April 21, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerDenmark To Eliminate Concept Of Supplements: 'They're All Medicines'
August 2004 - Danish Health Authorities have issued a proposed national "Guidance on Supplements" for public discussion which, according to MayDay, an association campaigning for freedom of choice in health matters, "is worse than any legislation we have ever seen before, as it will erase the concept of supplements, this actually means that Denmark is about to be the most totalitarian state experiment in Europe concerning health." The Danes refer to... [read more]
September 07, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerFood Supplements: German Risk Institute Takes Dim View
The German Federal Institute for Risk Evaluation, formerly the Federal Office for Consumer Health Protection, has established a risk assessment model for deducing maximum safe levels of nutrients provided in supplements and fortified foods, according to a recent report of nutraingredients.com. The report was published in two parts, one dealing with minerals, the other with vitamins, both available in PDF format - so far only in German language (Minerals here)... [read more]
January 20, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerCodex Nutrition Committee: Supplement Guidelines Final
Tuesday 2 November 2004 - The Codex Alimentarius Nutrition Committee sitting in a week-long conclave here in Bonn, formerly the capital of Germany, has concluded its deliberations of proposed international Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. I am sitting in this meeting together with Scott Tips and Paul Taylor of the National Health Federation, one of the only consumer-centered bodies allowed in the meetings, and certainly the only NGO that... [read more]
November 03, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerCodex: WHO/FAO Told Nutrient Risk Assessment Must Consider Benefits
In a submission to the FAO/WHO nutrient risk assessment project, Dr. Robert Verkerk, Director of the Alliance for Natural Health charges that assessment of the possible risks of nutrient overdose must also consider the beneficial effects of nutrients. He says that risk assessments undertaken to date "are not based on a sufficiently rational scientific platform" and "will provide misleading information for policy decision-makers". At stake is the continued availability of... [read more]
December 16, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
