News from the world of jurisprudence - vitamin designations!

An article appeared today in the newsletter of the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safetythat I find quite thought-provoking... See below for the original text.

In fact, the Food Information Regulation (LMIV) and the Food Supplements Regulation set out precise rules on how a substance must be labelled. See also our information page:https://www.energyvital.de/vit-min-erlaubte-stoffe

After all, there is no such thing as ‘vitamin C’ or ‘iron’ in the abstract; rather, every vitamin or mineral must be added to a food supplement, for example, in a chemical form that enables the body to absorb it. There are better and less effective compounds, both in terms of absorption and tolerability in the gastrointestinal tract.
See also our blog post: The quality of dietary supplements.

There is often a direct cost-benefit relationship: expensive ingredients are absorbed very well, whilst cheap ingredients are poorly absorbed or may cause, for example, nausea after ingestion.

It’s only natural that manufacturers like to ‘cut corners’ here, preferring to list ‘vitamin B12’ in the ingredients list even if it only contains cheap cyanocobalamin. Or ‘vitamin C’ instead of ascorbic acid, as otherwise they would have to admit that they are using the cheapest synthetic form of vitamin C rather than, for example, high-quality natural vitamin C from acerola.

For me, as an expert, it’s always fascinating and entertaining to investigate what’s actually in those very expensive dietary supplements that are particularly popular with customers.  Many will be familiar with this from magazines, tips from friends or sales trips: completely overpriced products where the ingredients list (if there is one at all) simply states, for example, ‘vitamin C’ and ‘vitamin B12’ instead of the actual names.

I have always regarded this practice as deceptive. Unfortunately, the Federal Office has now taught me otherwise… (or rather, the opposite…)

In my shop, customers can be assured that the ingredient lists are 1. as complete as possible and 2. that I do my utmost to avoid this kind of obfuscation!

Appendix

Published in the Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety

J Consum Prot Food Saf (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-019-01252-2
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00003-019-01252-2

Statement by the Working Group of Food Chemistry Experts from the Federal States and the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (ALS)

Pursuant to Section 8(6) of the Rules of Procedure, the Working Group of Food Chemistry Experts from the Federal States and the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (ALS) publishes the technical statement adopted at the 113th meeting held from 8 to 10 April 2019 in Hamburg:

Statement No. 2019/18:

Labelling of vitamins

Facts/Question:

In accordance with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (Food Information Regulation), the ingredients of a food must be listed in the list of ingredients using their specific names in accordance with Article 17(1) of the Food Information Regulation.

Is this requirement met by using the designation ‘vitamin […]’?

Decision:

Under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (LMIV), the ‘name commonly used in trade’ is deemed to be the name of the food in the absence of a legally prescribed name. This applies in the case of vitamins used as ingredients in the manufacture of foodstuffs.

The working group does not regard the designations for vitamins listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 as legally prescribed designations, but rather as possible designations.

The ‘name commonly used in trade’ is, in accordance with Article 2(2)(o) of the LMIV, a name that is accepted by consumers in the Member State in which the food is sold as the name of that food, without the need for further explanation. The designation ‘VITAMIN […]’ meets this requirement.

Notwithstanding this, the specific name of the vitamin compound is, of course, also a permissible entry in the list of ingredients.

This opinion (No 2019/18) replaces Opinion No 2014/42.