The Association of social competition from Berlin keep on firing against companies that sell nutritional supplements and other health products, and advertise for them with health-related statements. In a case by the higher regional court (OLG) Dusseldorf, it went to a dietary supplement composed of hyaluronic acid and pomegranate powder. Continue to learn more with: actress. The product was advertised with persen anti-aging statements. The Court considers the company but not nearly proved that the selected effects are scientifically guaranteed or accepted. In particular, no sound clinical studies were submitted. A similar fate overtook the provider of a dietary supplement with Glucosamine and Chondroitin substances. The product was advertised with different statements to the joint health. The higher regional court of Cologne also came to the conclusion that the statements due to lack of scientific protection are misleading.
The Court is against the widespread literature considers that the European authority to examine proposed health claims sufficiently secured should be regarded for food safety up to a negative decision always as scientific (E.g. master Ernst, WRP 2010, 481, 490). Rather it can’t 1924/2006 Glucosamine and Chondroitin to the floating currently at European level authorisation procedure for the substances within the framework of the health claims regulation. Rather, it is crucial to the current legal situation, according to which the selected effects for substances should be sufficiently scientifically. This, it is not decisive that a draft of the European Commission certain others in the product contained substances (manganese, copper, folic acid, vitamin B12, etc.) foresees an authorisation, since the positive effects related to the joint functions just to the materials of Glucosamine and Chondroitin. Finally an expert reports ordered by the Court for the decision was crucial then, that the information to promoting joint health with Glucosamine – Chondroitin Sulfate cannot be sufficiently scientifically backed up and certainly”not by General recognized scientific knowledge be demonstrated.
Finally, the relevant association even before the regional court (LG) of Trier in a case has received right, which is the health claims regulation about compulsory labelling under article 10. In the case of a mineral water among other things with the statement was “without the article 10 of regulation required note on the importance of a varied and balanced diet and healthy lifestyle advertised and marked. so that the body takes no damage The LG Trier has classified 1924/2006 as misleading this due to the said article 10 of the regulation. The Court clarifies this, that contrary to Persians voices in the legal literature (including Hagenmeyer, WRP 2009, 554 et seq.) the required information even outside of the label in the advertised health promotion must be made.Other non-binding and free information relating to food law, see