Amid controversy as to the effects of the ECJ ruling on food supplements in Europe, the ANH attempts to shed some light on what is really going on.
What really happened
ANH argues that the ECJ ruling has a 'silver lining'. As you will see below, this is not the same interpretation as all parties.
The ANH has always been about using good science and good law to protect natural health and our view of the ECJ judgment handed down on 12th July 2005 is, and continues to be, based on the opinion of our legal team, led by one of the top European and Competition Law barristers, Paul Lasok QC. Had the Food Supplements Directive been invalidated we would now be facing a complicated system of re-negotiation where many competing interests would have attempted to leave their mark. This could have resulted in a long and drawn out affair which may well have left us in a worse position. This now does not need to happen. The Court has made clear some key provisions of the Directive which massively reduce the difficulty of getting on to the once-feared positive list.
Time will tell if the European Commission is prepared to recognise and accept the findings of the European Court, which, at least in theory, has supreme authority.