Last week we wrote an open letter to Expo Commissioner Giuseppe Sala asking for the removal of a sign displayed at the Malaysian pavilion theorizing that legitimate claims such as ‘palm oil-free’ on food labels are absurdly contrary to European law. The commissioner did not have time to respond, perhaps because of more important issues that had emerged in Milan in the meantime, and in any case the sign was removed. We verified this today during a visit that nevertheless uncovered other problems.
The Malaysian pavilion devotes an entire space to promoting palm oil. A promotion in itself understandable, given that much of that country’s land has been deforested to produce palm. To the point of forcing local producers to look for new forests to ‘convert’ into intensive mono-crops of oil palm, outside national borders. However, it is curious – and indeed, unacceptable – that the very people who dared to point to the contrary to European law of a simple label statement, such as ‘palm oil free,’ come to boast of the most improbable health virtues associated with the consumption of palm oil, in the most blatant violation of existing EU criteria.
‘… Prevents Heart Attacks’, ‘… Anti-Tumor Properties’, ‘Easy to digest’, ‘Helps increase beneficial HDL Cholesterol’. But we are kidding??? EC Regulation 1924/06, on nutrition and health claims that may be used in food advertising, is strict in prohibiting any reference to diseases. Heart attacks and cancer, no way. So-called ‘health claims’ on digestive functions, antioxidants, and interaction with blood cholesterol, in turn, can only be admitted if they are based on double-blind versus placebo clinical trials on healthy individuals, published in international scientific journals with high ‘impact factor’ and subjected to ‘peer review’ after evaluation by the AEuropean Food Safety Authority and authorization from the European Commission.
‘Cholesterol-Free’, ‘Trans-Fatty Acid-Free’. The aforementioned European regulation bears at attached is an exhaustive list of the only nutrition claims allowed in Europe, how they are communicated and what conditions a food must meet in order to boast a so-called ‘nutrition claim.’ It is forbidden to refer to cholesterol in the product, to avoid consumers’ misunderstanding of blood cholesterol. And it is also forbidden to refer to so-called ‘Trans-Fatty Acids’ (TFA). Even cholesterol and trans-fatty acids-unlike monounsaturated fatty acids (in which olive oil is rich) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (typical of seed oils)-are excluded from voluntary information in nutrition labeling.
‘Balanced Saturated Fat Profile’, ‘Nutritional Wellness’, ‘Rich in Carotenoids, pro-vitamin A’. It is misleading, as well as outlawed, to refer to a hypothetical ‘saturated fat balance.’ What does this statement mean for the consumer? Perhaps you should prefer a palm-based margarine over butter? And why on what scientific basis? As for the alleged ‘nutritional well-being,’ as with any generic claim that in any way subtends a favorable relationship between the consumption of a food and health, it is necessary for the product to possess the characteristics, and actually carry a nutritional or health-related ‘claim’ on the label that complies with EC Regulation 1924/06. Regarding the alleged carotenoid richness, it would be interesting to learn the values on the refined oil that ends up on our tables as a food ingredient.
In connection with all the above, only one doubt arises. Who to write the next open letter to, the already overburdened Expo Commissioner or other consumer protection authorities?
Dario Dongo
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
