Some european organisation?
That's right, just the small and little known European Union, most likely some understaffed department of the Commission.
The link is BBC news, not Daily M, and it's a real law pursuing real claims by real companies. Some products may be good for some things, but do not really deliver all that's claimed of them (glocusamine may be a case in point).
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 9:25, Reply)
(oops my wrong, thought it was fail, but then some bbc stuff is on that level) Some might not deliver all that's claimed
indeed, but do you honestly think that EU standards commision get it right all the time? Personally I trust our own governing bodies above anything that the EU then throw over the top. And sugar free gum being chewed after eating is one of them, if they can't even test that one correctly then how the fuck can they get the others right?
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 9:31,
Reply)
For me
I trust EU bodies more than our national government as they're less likely to be influenced by local or national political issues.
Anyway, take a look at this link which has a list of all the investigations to date: they're taking specific claims for nutritional or health outcomes and then looking at the evidence to see if the claims are supported. The process looks transparent to me. Who'd have thought that there's no scientific evidence that prunes help you crap? Those old wives didn't know what they were talking about.
The claim about sugar free chewing gum and plaque reduction is here and is specific to plaque reduction rather than any other benefits. On the other hand this one refers to other health benfits and fins that sugar-free chewing gum can increase plaque acid neutralisation, maintain tooth mineralisation and reduce oral dryness, but that there's no evidence to support maintaining 'normal body weight'. Sounds ok to me.
Interesting to read through some of those claims - most are not supported by evidence. Doesn't say that they don't exist, just that the claims cannot be scientifically justified. Which some people might say is the same thing.
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 10:27, Reply)
If the EU is less likely to be influence by local or national political issues
then explain the CAP
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 13:42, Reply)
Exactly the point
EU is constrained by what national governments will agree to when making laws - it's the Council of Ministers & Euro parliament who have to agree to CAP, and they are all country representatives thinking about the right thing for their country, not Europe. The safety regulations in the link are made by the Commission and related bodies, and they have a very different agenda - talk to people in the commission and they want to abolish or at least massively change CAP. It's country governemtns who won't let it happen.
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 14:16, Reply)