The Claim List in Dutch practice: Anticipation and alternative wordings
[:nl]In nummer 5 - 2012 van het European Food and Feed Law tijdschrift is het "Country Report" voor Nederland verschenen van de hand van Ebba Hoogenraad en Christine Fontaine. Lees het engelstalige artikel hier.
The Claim List in Dutch practice: anticipation and alternative wordings
Recently the Board of Appeal (“CvB”) of the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (“RCC”) showed us one of the first examples of applying regulation EC/432/2012 (“Claim List”) in practice. According to the CvB, the Claim List can already be applied in its judgment, prior to 14 December 2012. Also, the Dutch list of alternative wordings is adapted in this decision of the CvB.
A complaint was filed about claims made for a product called ‘Berry Blaster’. In the advertorials the consumer was lead to believe that ‘Berry Blaster’ supports the “cleaning effect of the liver” and the “cleaning of the body by the liver”. Although the RCC at first instance found these claims to be misleading, the CvB concluded otherwise. The CvB decided it is permitted to make such claims for the ‘Berry Blaster’ product because of the sufficient amount of choline the product contains.
In The Netherlands, some associations have composed a list of indicative terms that can be used as alternatives for the wordings in the Claim List. This list has been prepared in conjunction with the Dutch government and the KOAG/KAG . The list was drafted to clarify the boundaries between permitted and non-permitted claims. In this particular case, the permitted claim from the Claim List could be replaced – according to the Dutch list with alternative wordings – by the claims that were mentioned in the advertisements.
In the ‘Berry Blaster’ case the CvB stated explicitly that it wanted to involve the Claim List in its judgment, although this legislation officially only gets into force on 14 December 2012. Because the European Committee has already approved of various claims about ingredient choline, the CvB found it needed to anticipate of the new European legislation. We see this case as an example of how the Claim List will be applied in the Netherlands in the future. Also, this case shows the added value of the Dutch indicative list: very practical and a good guideline.
Ebba Hoogenraad, advocaat reclamerecht en productinformatie
Christine Fontaine, advocaat reclamerecht en productinformatie
EFFL 2012, Volume 7, number 5, page 287 - 288[:en]In the number 5 - 2012 issue of European Food and Feed Law magazine the "Country Report" for the Netherlands has been written by Ebba Hoogenraad and Christine Fontaine. Click here for the original article.
The Claim List in Dutch practice: anticipation and alternative wordings
Recently the Board of Appeal (“CvB”) of the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (“RCC”) showed us one of the first examples of applying regulation EC/432/2012 (“Claim List”) in practice. According to the CvB, the Claim List can already be applied in its judgment, prior to 14 December 2012. Also, the Dutch list of alternative wordings is adapted in this decision of the CvB.
A complaint was filed about claims made for a product called ‘Berry Blaster’. In the advertorials the consumer was lead to believe that ‘Berry Blaster’ supports the “cleaning effect of the liver” and the “cleaning of the body by the liver”. Although the RCC at first instance found these claims to be misleading, the CvB concluded otherwise. The CvB decided it is permitted to make such claims for the ‘Berry Blaster’ product because of the sufficient amount of choline the product contains.
In The Netherlands, some associations have composed a list of indicative terms that can be used as alternatives for the wordings in the Claim List. This list has been prepared in conjunction with the Dutch government and the KOAG/KAG . The list was drafted to clarify the boundaries between permitted and non-permitted claims. In this particular case, the permitted claim from the Claim List could be replaced – according to the Dutch list with alternative wordings – by the claims that were mentioned in the advertisements.
In the ‘Berry Blaster’ case the CvB stated explicitly that it wanted to involve the Claim List in its judgment, although this legislation officially only gets into force on 14 December 2012. Because the European Committee has already approved of various claims about ingredient choline, the CvB found it needed to anticipate of the new European legislation. We see this case as an example of how the Claim List will be applied in the Netherlands in the future. Also, this case shows the added value of the Dutch indicative list: very practical and a good guideline.
Ebba Hoogenraad, advertisementlaw and productinformation
Christine Fontaine,advertisementlaw and productinformation
EFFL 2012, Volume 7, number 5, page 287-288[:]