Background
Belgian food-supplement competitors challenged Vista-Life’s advertisements for its Vista-D3 and VistaSterol products. The ads included statements such as “stable plasma levels,” “daily better than single dose,” a claim that sublingual administration avoided first-pass liver effects and gastrointestinal enzymatic degradation, and “the solution for controlling cholesterol.”
The Brussels Business Court held several statements to be unauthorised health claims and ordered Vista-Life to stop using them. On appeal, the Brussels Court of Appeal asked the CJEU whether claims about intake frequency or administration route can be health claims, and how the mandatory warning for reduction-of-disease-risk claims under Article 14(2) of Regulation No 1924/2006 must be provided.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that statements about how often a supplement should be taken or how it should be administered are health claims if they present those practical matters as linked to a beneficial health effect, or to avoiding or reducing an adverse health effect. Purely practical consumption instructions, without an express or implied health effect, are not health claims.
For reduction-of-disease-risk claims, Article 14(2) does not require verbatim reproduction of the statutory wording. But the labelling, presentation or advertising must accurately, clearly and understandably tell consumers both that the disease has multiple risk factors and that changing one factor may or may not be beneficial. Written advertising need not repeat that information where it appears on the product’s actual packaging.
Key Takeaways
- Dosage-frequency and administration-route statements may be regulated health claims when tied to health effects.
- The Article 14(2) warning may be paraphrased, but must communicate both required points clearly.
- Where the mandatory risk-factor information is on the product packaging, it need not also appear in written advertising.
Why It Matters
The judgment prevents supplement marketers from avoiding health-claim rules by framing asserted health benefits as advice on dosage or administration method. Such claims require compliance with Regulation No 1924/2006 where they imply a health advantage.
It also gives advertisers practical flexibility on disease-risk warnings: equivalent clear language is permitted, and compliant package labelling can satisfy the warning requirement without duplicating it in written promotional materials.