Commission Regulation (EU) No 536/2013 and fructose health claims
26.11.2013
Question for written answer E-013413-13
to the Commission
Rule 117
Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)
Commission Regulation (EU) No 536/2013 of 11 June 2013 has allowed products that replace at least 30% of glucose and/or sucrose with fructose to contain the claim that ‘consumption of foods containing fructose leads to a lower blood glucose rise compared to foods containing sucrose or glucose’. This claim has been assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and its findings have been published in its Journal (2011; 9(6):2223).
This is a very narrow claim, as glycaemic index (GI) levels are largely irrelevant when assessing fructose: that measure assesses how much a given type of food increases blood glucose levels, and fructose scores well under it simply because it is not glucose. In addition, the report considered only a tiny fraction of the literature on fructose metabolism (with 11 references). A wealth of peer-reviewed literature links fructose to other public health issues, including obesity, and the risk is that the health claim authorised at EU level, whilst narrow, could be both presented to and interpreted by consumers as offering a ‘healthy’ and less fattening alternative to products containing sucrose or glucose.
The EFSA appears to have dismissed the evidence cited in its assessment that fructose ‘induce[s] dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance and increased visceral adiposity in healthy and in hyperinsulinaemic insulin-resistant subjects’, by pointing to a single paper on GI, from 2006.
1. In light of Recital 22 of Regulation 1924/2006, which makes it clear that ‘health claims should only be authorised for use in the Community after a scientific assessment of the highest possible standard’, is the Commission satisfied that this is the case with its assessment of fructose?
2. Has the Commission considered that the claim authorised and contained in Regulation 536/2013 on fructose:
- a)may not be based on the firmest scientific basis;
- b)even if stated on a sound scientific basis, is so narrow that it is generally irrelevant to most consumers;
- c)has the potential to mislead the public as to the wider health effects?
OJ C 239, 23/07/2014