No fortified food application for Marmite received by Danish authorities
Adam Smith Science & Communications Officer, ANH-Intl
KEY POINTS
- News stories appeared this week saying that Denmark has “banned” Marmite
- While it hasn’t strictly been banned, because Marmite hasn’t been ‘notified’ in Denmark, it is effectively illegal
- Denmark has a history of refusing notifications for fortified foods like breakfast cereals
- A brief analysis of Marmite shows how little risk its ingredients pose
As if to remind us of exactly how, well – ‘silly’ is the best word to describe it – European Union (EU) regulations on foods and vitamins have become, it was announced yesterday that the authorities in Denmark have decided that the widely loved/loathed yeast extract, Marmite, “could be illegal”. Less sober sources than the BBC, including the Guardian newspaper, went further and announced that Denmark had banned the spread, and New Zealanders are up in arms as a direct result. Protestors in Guernsey dressed up as Marmite jars in order to draw attention to the situation, in the context of an ongoing discussion in the Guernsey parliament over whether to introduce these very EU regulations to the island, not itself part of the EU.
So what’s really going on? Is the Danish government really banning a harmless spread that contains high levels of B vitamins – purely because of the presence of those vitamins?
Napoleonic law strikes again
In fact, the situation with Marmite in Denmark is broadly the same as the situation with herbal medicinal products under the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD), product-related health claims under the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (NHCR) and the ‘positive list’ of vitamins and minerals under the Food Supplements Directive (FSD). Like all of these other regulations, Marmite in Denmark has fallen victim to pure Napoleonic law, whereby people are guilty until proven innocent and products are unable to be sold (i.e. are banned indirectly) unless specifically allowed.
A statement from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued on 25th May states that “Neither Marmite nor Vegemite and similar products have been banned by the Danish Food And Veterinary Administration”, but goes on to say that foods fortified with vitamins or minerals “can not be marketed in Denmark unless approved by Danish food authorities”.
It’s interesting that the Danish authorities want to focus on whether or not the products have been legally banned, whereas from a consumer point of view, the matter of relevance is whether or not a product is available for sale. To be more transparent, perhaps the Danish government should be telling us succinctly what the situation is, such as: “We haven’t banned Marmite, but we are not currently allowing its sale.”
From Marmite to herbs….spot the difference!
The situation is exactly the same with manufactured herbal products under the THMPD, and is used by its fans to defend the Directive: the legislation doesn’t ban anything, guv’nor! It’s just a licensing system! But herbal medicinal products without a license are illegal to manufacture, if they can’t be sold as food supplements – so, to all extents and purposes, they are, er, banned. Always bear this key fact in mind when you see similar arguments being made by regulators or their allied cheerleaders!
Could the vitamins in Marmite be harmful?
The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration is more specific, pointing out that fortified foods in Denmark are subject to the terms of Regulation No. 1925/2006. Very much like the FSD, Article 3(1) of this Regulation enacts a ‘positive list’ of vitamins and minerals, and their specific formulations, that can be added to foods to fortify them. Anything not on the list is not permissible as a fortifying agent, full stop. In another strong echo of the FSD, Article 6 of Regulation 1925/2006 mandates that vitamins and minerals added to foods shall not exceed the forthcoming EU-wide maximum and minimum permitted levels.
In addition to the terms of Regulation 1925/2006, fortified foods in Denmark must also undergo pre-approval by the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration before they can be marketed, according to the Danish Order on food additives. The approval process risk assessment that uses calculations based on the “upper tolerable levels established by international scientific bodies and available data from national scientific surveys…the Danish method for conducting the risk assessment…has been published in the European Journal of Nutrition, October 2005”.
The Danish method
If we look at the paper in question, we find that the methodology employed by the authors, and by the Danish authorities, is flawed in a similar manner to the risk-assessment methods currently used by the EU to determine maximum permitted levels (MPLs) of vitamins and minerals in food supplements. In short, in a misguided attempt to prevent adverse events in 95% of the population, including children, it examines the risks of micronutrient intake among the age groups most likely to experience adverse events in the first place. Unsurprisingly, their model produces some very low maximum allowable levels of intake from fortified foods: the figure for vitamin C, for example, is only 230 mg/day, or 84 mg vitamin C added per 100 kcal in a diet consisting of 25% fortified foods. One average orange contains around 70 mg of vitamin C, so anyone eating four oranges in a day would exceed this level easily.
Is Marmite potentially dangerous?
The truth is, the Danish authorities really don’t like fortified foods! In 2004, for example, they denied a license to an enriched version of Kellogg’s Cornflakes, because of their opinion that, “They will have toxic effects in the doses Kellogg uses”. Given this, we can speculate that any application from Marmite’s manufacturer, Unilever, for a fortified food approval has a high chance of being rejected on similar grounds. So as an intellectual exercise, we have prepared a table of the micronutrient content of Marmite, to show just how risky the average serving can be.
To reach the Danish model’s maximum level of intake for its micronutrients, an enthusiastic Marmite lover would have to eat at least 23 servings per day of 4 g each! Which would probably damage his or her relationship with Marmite permanently. Only the folic acid level is likely to raise the eyebrows of a Danish regulator, because a 4g serving brings the level to 50% of the oppressively low 200 μg/day maximum level set by Rasmussen and colleagues. But to look at safety, it’s actually more relevant to compare the levels with those agreed by the European Food Safety Authority, which we have argued in the journal Toxicology, are far too low already. Nonetheless, we have used these levels to calculate a ‘safety factor’ (see right hand column of table). You start to see a profile that could hardly be described as unsafe, the ‘safety factor’ ranging from 10 to 3,333-fold, depending on the vitamin!
For far more detail on the issues surrounding faulty risk assessment of micronutrients by Codex, US and EU regulators, please visit our Good Science campaign pages, particularly the two articles in Toxicology published by our own Dr Robert Verkerk.
Danish bacon: a genuine safety concern?
What we find so hypocritical is the way in which governments can on one hand scream about dangerous nutrients, and on the other hand be perfectly tolerant of foods for which there is copious evidence of lack of safety. Check out our Say NO to GM campaign, for example, to see why we’re concerned about genetically modified foods.
But closer to home, what about Danish bacon? Would the Danish authorities really be turning a blind eye to all that sodium nitrite preservative in Danish bacon that has been shown to convert to N-nitroso compounds in the gut and likely contribute to increased rates of colon cancer? Here are some studies and reports for your consideration. You can then decide if the Danish authorities have got their safety priorities the right way around.
- Nitrite-preserved meats increase DNA damage
- Hot dogs cause cancer in rats
- Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in rats and mice
Comments
your voice counts
Anonymous Dane
30 May 2011 at 1:15 pm
The main reason for this "ban with chance of getting a permit" is to stop products like "Nimm 2" and "Kellogs K" which use levels of needless added vitamins to claim they are the healthy alternative (where they indeed are not very healthy at all with the high levels of sugar contained).
Allowing products like these could start a slippery slope.
As the law couldn't be tailored to automatically letting stuff like Marmite slip through while still stopping what it was targeted at (if there were fixed values the people abusing the marketing value of vitamin additions would just aim under that) a permit option was added, where in practice applications are handled on a case-by-case basis.
The law IS though an insult to Danish consumer intelligence. I'm pretty sure we would and could avoid vitamin-marketing-candy like the plague, even without the law.
As for Marmite. I'm pretty sure it's only 700 pounds (for the application) away from approval, because of it's old history as a genuine vitamin supplement in food form.
Anonymous
03 June 2011 at 7:45 am
Reading about the status of Herbs and Vitamins in Europe makes me depressed. It's amazing how ill informed Europeans are about the laws being passed by in their legislative bodies. It's clear that we need to be much more vociferous in our calls for common sense, though I am not sure how to deal with the "legalization of herbs" (really Illegalization") by way of the napoleonic tradition. Thank you for doing this work ANH-International. I'll be working to get the message out both here in the USA and with my friends and colleagues in Europe. I do suggest that you contact true legal experts/academics who are friendly to the health freedom cause. Not only for specific legal action but more importantly for strategic help so that our energy and funds are well placed.
Jubin
29 September 2011 at 8:26 pm
Too difficult for consumers to understand the complex policy made by government regarding food products. Sometime it is becoming very embarrassing for users for such products like marmite. Many are in view of underhand dealing between policy makers and competitors of such products. Otherwise such controversial statement by public authority would not be made. The policy regarding such products should be simple and clear so that if a product does not meet it then it must be banned before coming to market.
ashelfmd
25 March 2013 at 12:54 am
All the company who sources the Marmite for Denmark needs to do is obtain a license.
A lot of Natural health orgs are dubious as it is but people fall for it. Good science claimed by many but not in practice. Stop crying wolf that thr EU is threatening herbal medicine and practice. You can practice it all you like, but it is empirically unsound. Aspirin also has herbal origins, I hope that is kept for 18 years and over. Natural is natural, it proves very little else, not necessarily better nor safer. It's a shame it isn't as effective as people would like it to be, including me.
ANH Admin
12 April 2013 at 10:56 am
Hi there, thanks for your comment. You’re correct about Marmite: ‘all’ anyone wanting to do in order to sell Marmite in Denmark is obtain a government license. For us, this begs the question of whether it’s appropriate to require the manufacturer to jump through government-mandated hoops when the product is clearly safe. As we said in our article, the situation is the same with herbal medicines.
If you take a bit of time to explore our site, you’ll see that we’re by no means “crying wolf” about the threats to herbal medicine and other forms of natural healthcare. In fact, we’ll save you the bother. Simply reading these two articles – http://anhinternational.org/news/natural-health-product-clampdown-gathers-steam and http://anhinternational.org/ANH-Feature_12-step-programme-diminishing-natural-healthcare – ought to be enough for anyone to realise the threats exist. As for herbal medicine specifically being “empirically unsound” – would you care to elaborate on that statement? Even its most ardent detractors are forced to admit that there is an obvious chemical and biochemical basis underpinning the use of a very wide variety of herbs and herbal products, and there are literally hundreds of years of documented clinical evidence that demonstrate just how effective it can be – although you, like some detractors, may not be swayed by such empirical evidence despite it being some of the most relevant.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences