Komissiolla on toimivaltaa määritellä mitä meille myytävien elintarvikepakettien kyljessä saa lukea. Kuka saa mainostaa paremmin voivaa vatsaa tai terveempää ihoa?
Yksi tutuista terveysväitteistä liittyy kolesterolin alentamiseen. Kolesterolin alentamisen taustalla ovat kaksi yhdistelmää: kasvistanolit ja kasvisterolit. Tieteellinen tutkimus kuitenkin osoittaa, että kasvistanoleilla on merkittävämpi vaikutus kolesterolin alentumiseen annosmäärien kasvaessa.
Alkuperäinen kysymykseni komissiolle liittyi siihen miksi komissio tästä tieteellisestä aineistosta huolimatta kohtelee stanoli- ja steroliyhdisteitä samoilla pelisäännöillä. Eli samaa ”alentaa kolestoria” -terveysväitettä saa käyttää molempien yhdistelmien osalta, vaikka vaikutukset eivät ole yhtäläiset.
Komission vastaus ei ollut erityisen tyydyttävä ja siksi laitoin tällä viikolla eteenpäin uuden kysymyksen. Painetta pitää jatkaa, jotta saadaan tyydyttäviä vastauksia. Tässä alla lähettämäni kysymys.
*********
In its answer to Question No E-006733-13, the Commission replied that the “Member States are responsible for verifying the validity of applications before making them available to EFSA” . However the Commission is the guardian of the EU law and responsible of supervising that the regulations are correctly implemented. In this case it seems that the application Q-2011-01241 does not meet the principles of Article 19 of (EC) 1924/2006. Therefore I would like the Commission to answer the following question in general and in relation to this specific case:
• If an invalid application goes to EFSA for assessment is it not the Commission’s responsibility to correct the mistake as soon as it is noted? In its answer to the question whether the Commission thinks the grouping of plant sterols and plant stanol ester in the assessment is justified the Commission referred to EFSA’s former opinions on phytosterols. The outcome of the assessment in 2009 states that the efficacy for lowering cholesterol is similar for plant sterols and plant stanol ester with daily intakes up to 2 g. Regarding the new application (Q-2011-01241) EFSA made an assumption that the efficacy would be same with daily intakes up to 3 g also and assessed the dossier containing combined plant sterol/plant stanol ester data. The conclusion that the efficacy is similar with 3 g/day is scientifically incorrect: the efficacy of plant sterols at daily intake of 3 g remains unsubstantiated as it has not been assessed without inclusion of plant stanol ester data. In light of Article 3 of (EC) 1924/2006: ”Without prejudice to Directives 2000/13/EC and 84/450/EEC, the use of nutrition and health claims shall not: (a) be false, ambiguous or misleading” I would like the Commission to address the following questions:
• Is the Commission planning to mandate EFSA to assess the efficacy of plant sterols with a daily intake of 2.6 – 3.0 g plant sterols alone? The confusion around the issue is partly due to the fact that the right questions have not been asked from EFSA and EFSA is not responsible of checking the legal scope of applications. • Does the Commission think that the European consumers are not entitled to be correctly informed about the difference in efficacy between plant sterol and plant stanol ester products?
Sirpa Pietikäinen
Europarlamentaarikko
Tutustu Sirpaan