The EU’s regulatory framework towards the sports nutrition sector has been largely stable in recent years. However, Dr Adam Carey, chair of the European Specialist Sports Nutrition Alliance (ESSNA) warns of challenges ahead, citing the European Commission’s flagship Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy as one to be aware of. Despite F2F’s ambitious goals of promoting sustainability and healthier diets, the strategy involves biggest review of food legislation, with potentially damning consequences for the sports nutrition sector. For example, a proposal to revise (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers will ensure a harmonised front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPNL) for sports products, setting nutrient profiles which restrict the use of claims on foods high in fats, salt, or sugar. While it goes without saying that the sports nutrition industry is generally supportive of the F2F objectives, Carey says should the Commission promote a blanket application of the new rules, without allowing for exemptions, sports nutrition brands may not be able to effectively market their products. Sports nutrition products, by nature, contain a high concentration of certain nutrients to support optimal performance, which, consequently, may mean they lack other nutrients. This means they may score poorly on nutrient profiles, meaning legitimate health claims may be omitted—by regulation—from the products, “depriving consumers of valuable information”. Likewise, Carey notes, sports nutrition products will score poorly on FOPNL such as the Nutri-Score due to the underlying algorithm not considering specialist categories of food.
“These new obligations coincide with an overall drive against processed foods, which are often mistakenly regarded as unhealthy. ESSNA believes that sports nutrition products should be exempted from these obligations in any future legislation and has been actively engaging with policymakers in this regard.” Across the Atlantic, Bentley cites variable regulatory environments as having an impact on trade. These include “artificial barriers” such as invalidating research not done domestically and limited product category options. However, he does note that Canada’s rules and guidance could be a model for other jurisdictions through modelling their Health Canada Natural and Non-Prescription Drug Products Directorate. In the US, various states are currently trying to regulate the sale of certain supplements to minors, with industry associations advocating against such restrictions, something Bentley isn’t convinced about when considering the political capital for other purposes.
With many brands having business operations or consumers within the UK or EU, Brexit—through its inevitably long process—will continue to create challenges and opportunities for years to come. And although Carey considers the UK as one of the largest markets for the sector, having a high trade volume with EU countries, he outlines an imminent challenge for UK companies. This relates to changes to the EU’s food safety standards, meaning that all UK exporters will be required to meet EU sanitary and phytosanitary requirements for imports into the UK, giving rise to administrative obligations, such as extra documentation and tariffs. Contrastingly, Gay cites that Brexit has led to a shift towards more local manufacturing in the UK, particularly with many companies having mass markets within its jurisdiction. This may increase opportunities for smaller brands and contract manufacturing companies but may ultimately stagnate UK-EU trade, with production of multiple food standards being extremely expensive. Recognising the UK’s fragmented regulatory framework, the UK Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform has published proposals for an overhaul of nutraceutical regulation. Noting that nutraceuticals do not “fit well in our traditional regulatory framework with its binary separation of medicines and food standards,” the report outlines key reforms for the sector “to realise its full potential.”1 Currently governed by retained EU law, the UK are now free to explore the regulatory options available; however, what remains to be seen is how such a regulatory overhaul can occur without ostracising a large global market: the EU. The report has been widely praised within government, but what action is taken is yet to be determined.
1 UK Government Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform