Compliance crisis Food and Food Supplements?

The DVFA inspection results indicate a high level of non-compliance – are food business operators generally non-compliant?

The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration (DVFA) has published the results of its 2024 inspection campaign focusing on food supplements and the use of health claims in labelling and marketing.

According to the DVFA, more than half of the inspected companies were found to be using unlawful health or medicinal claims, with 61% of businesses receiving sanctions for making unauthorised health or disease-related claims. A substantial number of companies were subject to multiple sanctions, and 20% were fined for using illegal disease-related claims. A significant number of violations were identified on company websites and social media platforms.

The DVFA has emphasised the need for increased guidance and regulatory oversight, which could be understood as a stricter enforcement regime to ensure compliance with food legislation.

The area appears to be significantly influenced by decisions based on subjective opinions rather than scientific data

While the DVFA’s statistics on non-compliance in the food supplements sector may appear high, it is important to note that a significant portion of DVFA assessments of nutrition and health claims appears to be based on individual caseworkers’ subjective opinions rather than scientific data.

In our experience, there may often seem to be a need to discuss whether a statement falls within the scope of the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (Regulation No. 1924/2006)—i.e., whether it is indeed a nutrition or health claim.

Also, the use of unspecific health claims is frequently debated. The question arises as to whether such claims are supported by a specific authorised health claim according to Article 10(3) of Regulation No. 1924/2006, and whether the authorised health claim is displayed on the product packaging in compliance with the applicable requirements, including the latest ECJ practice?

Notwithstanding the years of implementation of the Regulation No. 1924/2006, its interpretation remains intricate. This complexity poses significant challenges to the marketing of products with identical labelling and marketing claims across several EU markets.

Implications for businesses

The findings of this inspection campaign serve as a significant reminder for businesses operating within the food supplement sector to undertake a review of their marketing practices and ensure full compliance with the relevant regulatory requirements.

At the same time, this area appears to be subject to individual decisions based on subjective opinions. Is the DVFA’s interpretation of, for example, the definition of health claims too broad? The Danish Appeal Board for Food and Environment has concluded that, in some cases, the DVFA’s interpretation was not in compliance with Regulation No. 1924/2006.

Given the increased focus on enforcement, businesses should consider undertaking proactive legal reviews of their marketing materials to avoid potential sanctions and fines. The heightened regulatory scrutiny of digital marketing further underlines the importance of responsible advertising and consumer protection.

Gorrissen Federspiel’s Life Sciences team is ready to assist with this, including potential appeals against the DVFA’s interpretations based on subjective opinions rather than scientific data.

Please reach out to: Partner, Martin Dræbye Gantzhorn or Senior Food and Life Sciences Counsel, Gundula Kjaer.