Policy and Regulatory Issues 297
Nutrition claims
In general, claims in the fi eld of food and health can
be divided in several ways in matrix form. The fi rst
division is into claims which are “generic” (any manu-
facturer can use it if they meet the criteria) and claims
which are “unique,” that is specifi c to a brand which
has some unique attribute on which a claim can be
made. In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has favored generic claims such as “saturated
fats raise cholesterol” or “calcium helps bone health.”
The FDA accepts petitions in this area where industry
groupings put forward a scientifi c case as to why such
a generic claim might be used. If accepted, the regula-
tor can now decide what the conditions for making a
claim are. For example, a typical serving of the food
would have to achieve a minimum percentage of
some reference value before a claim could be made. A
product where a serving size gave 1% of the require-
ment for calcium would surely not be allowed to
make any claim on bone health.
The other type of claim can be classifi ed into three
levels (Table 12.4)
At the time of writing, there are developments in
different parts of the world as to how such claims can
be handled. As one goes up from level 1 to level 3, the
scientifi c rigor must increase exponentially. Quite
probably, level 2 and level 3 will need to be accompa-
nied by signifi cant supportive evidence from human
dietary intervention studies. Again, such claims will
require that certain specifi ed attributes of the food be
met before a claim can be made, and different parts
of the globe are taking various approaches to these
issues. As with many aspects of labeling communica-
tion, some refl ection will help reveal the complexity
of the task. If companies are to innovate and develop
new foods with enhanced nutritional properties or
functions, they need to invest in research and devel-
opment. If their research, industry supporting human
intervention studies, shows clear evidence of an effect
in lowering the risk of a disease or condition, they
need to be able to make that claim and to prevent
others who have not done this research from simply
adopting that claim. In that way, they stand a chance
of developing a market leader and of recouping their
research investment. This approach is perfectly under-
standable but it does cause problems for smaller com-
panies and for industrial sectors in less developed
countries for which such high stakes are unthinkable.
The terms and conditions for the use of such claims
has led to a third area in nutrition communication –
nutrition profi ling.
Nutrition profi ling
This is by far the newest area and without doubt the
most controversial. In the EU, the law now requires
that for a food to make a claim, it must meet certain
nutritional standards. This is often referred to as the
Jelly Bean Rule – that is, if you added zinc to jelly
beans, would one support the promotion of jelly bean
consumption on the grounds that increased zinc
intake may assist in minimizing poor immune func-
tion. The idea is that if the food supply needs zinc to
be added, then a more suitable vehicle needs to be
found. In principle this is not complex. In the real
world it is an intellectual minefi eld. In terms of devel-
oping nutrient profi les for whatever reason, there are
two approaches in operation. One seeks to take a
single set of criteria and apply that universally to all
foods. This has been the approach of what is called
the UK Traffi c Light System. All foods are classifi ed
into three types, which can be described as good
(green), bad (red), or neither (orange). Inevitably, the
application of such a simple system to something as
complex as the human food chain leads to exceptions.
Walnuts might get a red color because of their high
fat content, and yet walnuts have been shown along
with other nuts to be protective against heart disease.
Maybe walnuts are now exceptionally excluded from
a red sign. But the process goes on to exceptionally
include or exclude and the objectivity of the simple
approach becomes gradually replaced with the sub-
jectivity of exceptions.
The second nutrient-profi ling approach is to take
each food category separately and devise nutritional
standards for each category. An example of this is the
Swedish Keyhole Method. For breads, certain stan-
dards are set and breads that meet these standards
carry the keyhole symbol, which consumers recognize
Table 12.4 Nutrition claims
Level 1. Nutrition
content
This product is a rich source of some
omega-3 fats
Level 2. Function
claim
This product is rich in omega-3 fats, which
promote heart health
Level 3. Disease
reduction claim
This product is rich in omega-3 fats, which
reduce the risk of cognitive impairment
in older people