Bundesverband der Deutschen Süßwarenindustrie

Bundesverband der Deutschen Süßwarenindustrie

Association of the German
Confectionery Industry
Overview
of the BDSI Positions
on Nutrition Policy
Schumannstraße 4–6,
53113 Bonn, Germany
P.O. Box 19 01 28,
53037 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 228 26007-0
Fax: +49 228 26007-89
[email protected]
www.bdsi.de
The BDSI’s positions in brief:
 Overweight has many causes which is why solution proposals need to be
multifactorial and cover all influential factors. Focusing on nutrition or even
banning the consumption of individual foods, such as confectionery, is the
wrong path to take – positive guidelines on how to lead a healthy lifestyle are
much more promising.
 The German Platform on Diet and Physical Activity (peb) is right in having
chosen an integrated approach to preventing overweight. The BDSI supports peb
as an active member and calls for the German platform to be used as a model for
Europe and be given a central role in the German government’s “IN FORM”
initiative.
 Restricting the freedom of advertising in the case of foods is unconducive to
getting to grips with the problem of overweight. Advertising only plays a minor
role – if at all – in influencing children’s eating habits. This is borne out by
scientific studies as well as by practice in the field. Today’s advertising is already
conducted in a responsible manner and is sufficiently regulated. More should be
done to teach people how to deal with media and advertising.
 The confectionery industry always views the changing needs and desires of
consumers as an opportunity and takes them on board. It already offers a great
diversity of pack sizes and formulations for its products while constantly
developing its product range still further and responding to new needs and
desires. In addition to its classic products, it also offers numerous sugar-reduced,
fat-reduced, and salt-reduced versions. The choice of formulation must remain
the direct responsibility of the company, without intervention from the legislator
(reformulation).
 In addition to the well-known list of ingredients used for decades, the Food
Information Regulation secures a high degree of product transparency for the
consumer regarding energy and nutrient content such as carbohydrates, sugar,
fat, saturated fatty acids, protein, and salt. Guidance given to consumers in
addition to this mandatory nutrition labelling must be scientifically founded and
clearly understandable. The reference-intake model envisaged by the Food
Information Regulation, which allows for voluntary front-of-pack reference intake
levels in addition to the nutrition table, ensures this is so. By contrast, evaluatory
and non-scientifically-based labelling systems – such as “traffic-light labelling” –
must be rejected.
 Nutrient profiles are no longer necessary and should therefore not be pursued
since the European Food Information Regulation comprehensively covers all
information required by consumers. In addition, they are not only scientifically
untenable but are politically motivated, fail to achieve their intended purpose,
will hardly stand up to legal scrutiny according to experts in the field, act as an
impediment to innovation, and stigmatise traditional products.
 The food industry’s concerns that the internet portal “lebensmittelklarheit.de”,
launched in July 2011, would vilify products that are manufactured and labelled in
full accordance with the law have unfortunately been utterly confirmed. Hence
the BDSI continues to reject the product-specific area of the internet portal which
names specific products and manufacturers. The internet portal needs to be
rectified. The BDSI and its members continue to support comprehensive
consumer information and consumer education and are also prepared to actively
participate in a fair and objective modelling of the internet portal.
Overweight has many causes which is why solution proposals need to be
multifactorial and cover all influential factors. Focusing on nutrition or even
banning the consumption of individual foods, such as confectionery, is the wrong
path to take – positive guidelines on how to lead a healthy lifestyle are much more
promising.
Qualitative causes-and-effects model showing the complex interplay of influential factors on,
1
and effects of, overweight/obesity
Overweight is caused by many factors – as science has shown. Solution proposals
must be correspondingly holistic in order to bring about changes in all lifestyle
factors. In keeping with the general scientific consensus and the facts at hand, the
BDSI calls for a departure from one-dimensional approaches. Neither eating habits
alone nor the consumption of individual foods or even the intake of certain nutrients
can be made responsible for the occurrence of overweight.
Long-term surveys of children’s nutrition in Germany have shown that the latter take
in no more energy (calories) than about 20 years ago2. And yet in this period our
world of physical activity has become a sedentary world, i.e. less calories are
expended in children through physical activity3.
2
The significance of dietary habits as a whole, and the consumption of confectionery
in particular, is vastly overestimated as a cause of overweight. Large-scale surveys on
children’s eating habits in Germany have shown that both eating patterns and the
consumption of individual foods (such as confectionery, for example) have hardly any
correlation to the nutrition status4-7. It was even shown that all in all there are few
differences between the food choices made by overweight and normal weight
children8. This is corroborated by an international survey which shows that 31 out of
34 countries have a negative correlation between body mass index (BMI) and
confectionery consumption8, i.e. the consumption of confectionery among people
with a high BMI was low and vice versa.
The National Food Consumption Survey II (NVS II) initiated by the German federal
government in 2008 also confirms that confectionery plays a subordinate role as a
source of energy: women averagely cover only 4% and men only around 3% of their
energy requirement through classic confectionery such as chocolate products and
sugar confectionery. Moreover, the median energy intake among adults corresponds
to the reference values of the German Nutrition Society (DGE) for energy intake at a
low level of physical activity10.
Focusing on food or even banning the consumption of individual foods is hence the
wrong approach to take: only a motivational type of lifestyle guidance can help
people develop a health-conscious lifestyle. It should include positive sensory
experiences, e.g. the conscious enjoyment of confectionery and snacks, for this is the
only way of maintaining a healthy way of living over the long term. The BDSI calls for
a departure from rigid requirements or even consumption bans since these are
counter-productive and could even give impetus to eating disorders. The notion of
dividing foods into allegedly good and bad products is completely unfounded. It is
always a question of the amounts consumed, i.e. the right measure, and the overall
balance of selected foods.
The German Platform on Diet and Physical Activity (peb) is right in having chosen
an integrated approach to preventing overweight. The BDSI supports peb as an
active member and calls for the German platform to be used as a model for Europe
and be given a central role in the German government’s “IN FORM” initiative.
peb has brought together Germany’s key stakeholders from politics, industry, sports,
the Trade Union of Food, Beverages, Tobacco, Hotel and Catering and Allied Workers
(NGG), as well as parents and doctors, to form Europe’s largest network for the
prevention of overweight among children and adolescents. It unites action-oriented
solution developments which are actively put into effect by many partners
throughout a host of projects. peb provides a forum for all societal groups to work
together with the children and adolescents and their parents. The platform’s
activities are all properly based on scientific knowledge and it has its activities
reviewed for their effectiveness.
The BDSI has been a member of peb since its inception and in this respect actively
promotes health conscious eating habits, more physical activity and relaxation as key
elements of a healthy lifestyle among children and adolescents. The success achieved
by peb’s activities so far indicates that peb was the right approach to take in seeking
to prevent overweight.
3
In its capacity as a best practice initiator, peb should also serve as a model for Europe.
However, the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health is onesidedly focused on nutrition.
peb in Germany still requires broader political support, especially from Germany’s
federal states, but also from the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(BMEL). Communal networks must be supported in a more targeted manner and the
framework conditions for this must be created and improved. peb also sets a good
example in this respect. Moreover, the BDSI believes peb must be given a central role
as a competence centre and networking platform for promoting health among
children and adolescents within the scope of “IN FORM – Germany’s Initiative for
Healthy Nutrition and more Physical Activity”, a national action plan introduced by
Germany’s federal government at the end of 2008.
Restricting the freedom of advertising in the case of foods is unconducive to getting
to grips with the problem of overweight. Advertising only plays a minor role – if at
all – in influencing children’s eating habits. This is borne out by scientific studies as
well as by practice in the field. Today’s advertising is already conducted in a
responsible manner and is sufficiently regulated. More should be done to teach
people how to deal with media and advertising.
A host of studies, with partially differing results, have been conducted on the
influence of advertising on children’s behaviour. According to scientists, however,
advertising only plays a minor role – if at all – in influencing children’s eating habits.
This is also borne out by the survey results of the Nutrition Report prepared by the
German Nutrition Society (DGE) in 2000. Essentially it observes that Children who
watch TV and food advertising do not eat more of the advertised products than
children who do not watch such advertising11. Surveys of adolescents have shown
that advertising creates a shift in market shares within a certain food category in
favour of the advertised product (e.g. chocolate bar A instead of chocolate bar B) but
does not lead to increased consumption overall12.
Far more significant factors related to the occurrence of overweight are lifestyle
choices and a lack of physical activity as well as socio-economic factors (educational
level, social stratum, background), genetic predisposition, and psycho-social aspects.
Overweight is therefore a problem with many facets, affecting society as a whole,
which is only to be resolved by adopting a comprehensive and integrative
approach.13–16
Practical experience abroad also corroborates the aforementioned findings. In the
Canadian province of Quebec, food advertising to children under the age of 13 has
been legally banned since 1980. However, the proportion of overweight children is
just as high there as it is in the remaining provinces of Canada, where there is no such
ban on advertising17. The same effect is also to be found in Sweden.
A lack of physical activity can lead to a positive energy balance (i.e. more energy
taken in than expended) and hence to overweight18. Studies show that body weight
rises with increasing daily TV viewing11, 19-22. Scientists do not regard what is watched
on TV, including advertising, as a decisive cause of weight gain.
The BDSI holds the view that the existing statutory provisions and voluntary controls
applied in food advertising do indeed take account of the recognised need to protect
children and are sufficient to ensure foods are advertised in a responsible manner.
4
Instead of introducing additional advertising controls, it is more important to pursue
the goal of teaching and strengthening media literacy as an educational objective –
particularly among children and adolescents – and promote measures to encourage a
positive and open attitude to media and advertising23, 24. For advertising and
marketing are an indispensable part of our society and play a fundamental role in
ensuring fair and honest competition.
The BDSI supports the Code of Practice for Commercial Food Advertising of the
German Advertising Standards Council (DW) which has been in force since 1 July
200925. This body of rules and regulations is to be observed by all German food sector
companies and guarantees a responsible market communication in general and, in
particular, with respect to children.
At European level renowned companies have taken a united stand within the scope
of the so-called EU Pledge. The signatory companies of the EU Pledge have
voluntarily committed to not directing any product advertising at children under
12 years of age, with the exception of products that fulfil specific nutrition criteria.
The confectionery industry always views the changing needs and desires of
consumers as an opportunity and takes them on board. It already offers a great
diversity of pack sizes and formulations for its products while constantly
developing its product range still further and responding to new needs and desires.
In addition to its classic products, it also offers numerous sugar-reduced, fatreduced, and salt-reduced versions. The choice of formulation must remain the
direct responsibility of the company, without intervention from the legislator
(reformulation).
The confectionery industry offers consumers a choice of product formulations to suit
their widely divergent needs. For example, in addition to the classic products, sugar
confectionery includes sugar-free versions made using sugar substitutes and
sweeteners, fine bakery wares include sugar-reduced and fat-reduced products, and
snacks offer fat-reduced product versions, such as the innovation “oven-baked
crisps” with a significantly reduced fat content, and there are also other fat-reduced
and salt reduced-versions. What is more, the industry offers gluten-free or lactosefree products as well as products for consumers who favour a vegetarian or vegan
lifestyle. There is also a great diversity of pack sizes.
The choice of formulation must remain the direct responsibility of the company,
without intervention from the legislator, since formulations are often the basis of a
brand or trademark. The company alone, after carefully weighing up current
consumer requirements and current market conditions, should decide if and what
changes are desirable in its products.
State-prescribed reformulations limit both the entrepreneurial freedom of
manufacturers as well as the freedom of choice and individual responsibility of
consumers. A more important task is to teach people how to manage their nutrition
needs by informing them about the significance of nutrients within the framework of
a balanced diet so as to enable them to make an informed choice from among the
broad range of offered foods. It is not the formulation of an individual food which is
decisive, but the overall balance of a person’s nutrition and lifestyle.
What is more, there are limits to how far confectionery can be reformulated, on the
one hand due to existing legislation (e.g. in the case of chocolate), on the other hand
5
for technological reasons (e.g. fine bakery wares), and last but not least in respect of
product quality and product safety. For ingredients such as salt and sugar also play a
key role when it comes to durability – which, depending on the product, could not be
guaranteed to the same degree if such content levels were reduced.
Reformulations which make sense and are necessary have always been implemented
by the confectionery industry. For example, far-reaching reformulations in the two
product groups fine bakery wares and snacks have considerably reduced acrylamide
and trans-fatty acid levels as part of the voluntary measures adopted by the
industrial sector in the interests of preventive consumer protection.
In addition to the well-known list of ingredients used for decades, the Food
Information Regulation secures a high degree of product transparency for the
consumer regarding energy and nutrient content such as carbohydrates, sugar, fat,
saturated fatty acids, protein, and salt. Guidance given to consumers in addition to
this mandatory nutrition labelling must be scientifically founded and clearly
understandable. The reference-intake model envisaged by the Food Information
Regulation, which allows for voluntary front-of-pack reference intake levels in
addition to the nutrition table, ensures this is so. By contrast, evaluatory and nonscientifically-based labelling systems – such as “traffic-light labelling” – must be
rejected.
As regards nutrition labelling, the Food Information Regulation (FIR) now makes it
mandatory for energy, carbohydrates, sugar, protein, fat, saturated fatty acids, and
salt per 100 g/ml of food or beverage to be declared in a nutrition table. In addition,
a nutrition information item can be stated per serving or based on the guideline daily
amount (GDA).
Other labelling models that are not information-based but
evaluatory, such as the “traffic light” system, must be rejected
since they are scientifically unfounded. A single food should not be
evaluated in terms of its health properties; its significance is only
given within the context of all foods eaten by a particular person
and only within the context of that person’s overall lifestyle. Hence
a division of foods into allegedly good and bad ones, as with the
traffic-light system by labelling select nutrients using red, yellow,
and green dots, lacks any scientific basis. What is more, the
threshold values for a colour-based division system cannot be
determined scientifically. This has also been confirmed by the German Nutrition
Society (DGE), both in a press statement and a statement of position27, 28.
In addition, consumers misunderstand a “traffic-light labelling” system: the colour
green suggests the highest beneficial value for health. However, a diet consisting of
foods whose labelling predominantly shows green dots can be completely
unbalanced. The colour red is understood by most consumers to mean “Do not eat!”
rather than “Eat in moderation!”, as a pan-European consumer survey conducted by
the European Food Information Council shows29. What is more, the colour red
apparently even encourages children to eat so labelled foods, as is indicated by a
Dutch survey entitled “Do not eat the red food!”30.
If a food happens to be labelled with several different colours, confusion reigns
supreme. For example, what do two green dots and two red dots mean for the
consumer? Do I eat it or not?
6
Hence, according to the German Nutrition Society (DGE), a traffic-light labelling
system would have counteractive effect on efforts being made to educate and inform
consumers in respect of improving their approach to foods. The idea of it being a
useful instrument in preventing overweight or helping people to lose weight is
disputed by scientists. For overweight has many causes and hence integrated
solution proposals are required when considering prevention and therapy. In this
respect, food labelling can only be a small part of the overall picture.
Nutrient profiles are no longer necessary and should therefore not be pursued
since the European Food Information Regulation now comprehensively covers all
information required by consumers. In addition, they are not only scientifically
untenable but are politically motivated, fail to achieve their intended purpose, will
hardly stand up to legal scrutiny according to experts in the field, act as an
impediment to innovation, and stigmatise traditional products.
The BDSI calls for the planned introduction of nutrient profiles to be dropped. The
latter are made completely redundant by the Food Information Regulation (FIR). In
addition to the well-known list of ingredients used for decades, the FIR secures a high
degree of product transparency regarding energy and nutrient content such as
carbohydrates, sugar, fat, saturated fatty acids, protein, and salt. It would therefore
be legally disproportionate to introduce market-communication bans via nutrient
profiles when the consumer is simultaneously being given information as a point of
orientation.
Health claims are scientifically reviewed and permitted by EFSA. Nutrient profiles
should thus have become redundant, even in the eyes of their advocates.
Dividing foods into allegedly good and bad foods, as would be the case if nutrient
profiles were introduced, is scientifically untenable and deceives the consumer. The
EU Commission has so far failed to provide an explanation of how nutrient profiles
are to be established in a scientifically sound manner. Many nutrition experts reject
the isolated evaluation of a single food since only the nutrition intake from overall
food consumption can reasonably be assessed27, 28. Correspondingly there is no basis
for determining tolerance limits for the individual nutrients in a food31.
Hence it is clear that the recently made proposals by the EU commission were a
politically motivated measure. This is already clear from the fact that only three
nutrients were picked out from a host of around 40 nutrients required by the human
body. What is more, the classification of foods into groups was so implemented that
even traditional foods, such as chocolate, for example, are disadvantaged.
Nutrient profiles fall short of their original purpose to protect consumers from being
misled and prevent overweight. What gives even greater cause for concern is that
they even contribute to consumers being misled. If products fail to meet the nutrient
profile prerequisites, they are barred from bearing any health or nutrition claims,
even if these are scientifically proven and considered validated. This means that key
product information is withheld from the consumer. How is he or she supposed to
make self-determined and correct buying decisions?
Moreover, nutrient profiles also fail to achieve their self-set objective of combating
overweight. Different consumption amounts of different foods throughout the
diverse eating cultures of Europe are completely ignored. Many traditional products
(for example wholegrain bread, cheese specialities, but also chocolate and
7
wholegrain biscuits) will no longer stand a chance of making nutrition and health
claims. Moreover, there are currently already so many exemptions planned that the
nutrient profile concept no longer makes sense to the consumer.
What is more, according to experts in the field, nutrient profiles will not stand up to
legal scrutiny by the European Court of Justice. Several legal opinions32–35 see the
concept as a violation of the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, and the
prohibition of arbitrariness. It also infringes the so-called freedom of commercial
speech.
The nutrient profile concept will prove to be an impediment to innovation since if, for
example, wholegrain biscuits can no longer bear claims referring to fibre content and
the “light variants” of a product can no longer claim to be “energy-reduced” ,
manufacturers will lack any innovation incentives.
The food industry’s concerns that the internet portal “lebensmittelklarheit.de”,
launched in July 2011, would vilify products that are manufactured and labelled in
full accordance with the law have unfortunately been utterly confirmed. Hence the
BDSI continues to reject the product-specific area of the internet portal which
names specific products and manufacturers. The internet portal needs to be
rectified. The BDSI and its members continue to support comprehensive consumer
information and consumer education and are also prepared to actively participate
in a fair and objective modelling of the internet portal.
In the view of the BDSI, given the accompanying public debate on individual foods,
the product-focused section of the internet portal “lebensmittelklarheit.de” infringes
basic principles of constitutional law, for example the principle of separation of
powers. The tax-funded internet portal needs to be rectified. It fails to meet the
expectations of transparency, fairness, and objectivity which are associated with it
and hence does not do justice to its self-set objectives in any way. Deception
perceived on the part of individuals may not be used as a measuring stick for passing
judgement on specific products. The portal is duty bound to accept existing food
legislation as an objective benchmark.
The vzbv is not a neutral entity and the consumer organisation of Hesse is not a
suitable operator for the internet portal. With Hesse’s consumer organisation acting
as operator, the claimant is made judge and jury. This is clearly borne out by the food
industry’s current experience with the portal. Effective legal regulations against
misleading and deceptive labelling, presentation, and advertising of foods have
already been in place and in force for many years. An internet portal would not have
been needed for this purpose.
The “lebensmittelklarheit.de” internet portal creates the unwarranted impression
that the food industry stoops to deception and trickery on a grand scale. In actual
fact the portal covers only several hundred product examples and hence merely an
increasingly small proportion of around 160,000 products offered throughout the
German food trade.
The BDSI and its members continue to support comprehensive consumer information
and consumer education and are also prepared to actively participate in a fair and
objective modelling of the internet portal.
8
References
1
Hummel E., Wittig F., Schneider K., Gebhardt N., Hoffmann I. (2013): Das komplexe
Zusammenspiel von Einflussfaktoren auf und Auswirkungen von Übergewicht/
Adipositas. Ernährungs-Umschau international 1: 2–7
2
Kersting M., Alexy U., Kroke A., Lentze M. J. (2004): Kinderernährung in Deutschland.
Ergebnisse der DONALD-Studie. Bundesgesundheitsblatt (Federal German Health Gazette)
Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 213–219.
3
Opper E., Worth A., Wagner M., Bös K. (2007): Motorik-Modul (MoMo) im Rahmen des
Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurveys (KIGGS) – Motorische Leistungsfähigkeit und
körperlich-sportliche Aktivität von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland.
Bundesgesundheitsbl-Gesundheitsforsch-Gesundheitsschutz 50: 879–888
4
Richter A., Heidemann C., Schulze M. B., Roosen J., Thiele S., Mensink G. B. M. (2012):
Dietary patterns of adolescents in Germany – Associations with nutrient intake and other
health related lifestyle characteristics. BMC Pediatrics 12: 35–49
5
Koletzko B. (2005): Was macht Kinder dick? Ursachen und Folgen kindlichen Übergewichts.
Ernährungs-Umschau 52 (Heft 3): 94–98
6
Müller M. J. (2003): Übergewicht bei Kindern und Jugendlichen – Ursachen und
Möglichkeiten der Prävention. Kieler Adipositas-Studie in: BLL: In Sachen Lebensmittel.
Jahrestagung 2003. Ansprachen und Vorträge: 28–64
7
Koletzko B. (2003): Ernährung im Kindesalter: Wie kann Übergewicht vorgebeugt werden?
Kongress „Kinder leicht. Besser essen. Mehr bewegen.“ des Bundesministeriums für
Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, July 2003, Berlin
8
Danielzik S., Czerwinski-Mast M., Langnäse K., Dilba B., Müller M. J. (2004): Parental
overweight, socioeconomic status and high birth weight are the major determinants of
overweight and obesity in 5–7 y-old children: baseline data of the Kiel Obesity Prevention
Study (KOPS). Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 28 (11): 1494–1502
9
Janssen I., Katzmarzyk P. T., Boyce W. F., Vereecken C., Mulvihill C., Roberts C., Currie C.,
Pickett W. – The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Obesity Working Group (2005):
Comparison of overweight and obesity prevalence in school-aged youth from 34 countries
and their relationships with physical activity and dietary patterns. Obes Rev 6: 123–132
10
Max Rubner-Institut, Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ernährung und Lebensmittel, Hrsg.
(2008): Nationale Verzehrsstudie II, Ergebnisbericht Teil 2, S. 49–51 und S. 92–93
11
Pudel V., Borchardt A., Ellrott T., Maaß P., Mensing B., Spirik J. (2000): Essverhalten und
Ernährungszustand von Kindern und Jugendlichen – eine Repräsentativerhebung in
Deutschland. In: German Nutrition Society (publisher): Ernährungsbericht 2000. Druckerei
Henrich Frankfurt: 115–146
12
Diehl J. M. (2004): Macht Werbung dick? Einfluss der Lebensmittelwerbung auf Kinder und
Jugendliche. Jahrestagung des Bundes für Lebensmittelrecht und Lebensmittelkunde e. V.,
Berlin
13
Kleiser C., Schaffrath Rosario A., Mensink G., Prinz-Langenohl R., Kurth B. M. (2009):
Potential determinants of obesity among children and adolecents in Germany: results from
the cross-sectional KiGGS study. BMC Public Health 2009, 9:46
14
Müller M. J., Lange D., Landsberg B., Plachta-Danielzik S. (2010): Soziale Ungleichheit im
Übergewicht bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Ernährungs-Umschau 2: 78–83
15
Lambeck A., Kuhr M., Berg A. (2012): Leben im Rhythmus. Der Einfluss von Schlaf,
Wachzeiten, Mahlzeiten und Bewegung auf die Entwicklung von Gewicht und Gesundheit.
In: Moderne Ernährung heute. Wissenschaftlicher Pressedienst 2/2012, Matissek R
(publisher), Food Chemistry Institute (LCI) of the Association of the German Confectionery
Industry (BDSI), Cologne
9
16
Hummel E., Wittig F., Schneider K., Gebhardt N., Hoffmann I. (2013): Das komplexe
Zusammenspiel von Einflussfaktoren auf und Auswirkungen von Übergewicht/
Adipositas. Ernährungs-Umschau international 1: 2–7
17
Willms J. D., Tremblay M. S., Katzmarzyk P. T. (2003): Geographical and demographic
variation in the prevalence of overweight in Canadian children. Obesity Res 11: 668–673
18
Huber G. (2010): Adipositas entsteht durch Bewegungsmangel – Epidemiologie und
Entstehung. B & G Bewegungstherapie und Gesundheitssport 26 (2): 46–51
19
Summerbell C. D., Douthwaite W., Whittaker V., Ells L. J., Hillier F., Smith S., Kelly S.,
Edmunds L. D., Macdonald I. (2009): The association between diet and physical activity and
subsequent excess weight gain and obesity assessed at 5 years of age and older: a
systematic review of the epidemiological evidence. Int J Obesity 33 (3): 78–81
20
Nunez-Smith M., Wolf E., Huang H. M., Chen P. G., Lee L., Emanuel E. J. and Gross C. P.
(2008) Media and child and adolescent health: a systematic review. Common Sense Media.
URL: http://www.commonsensemedia.org (Retrieval on 3 December 2012)
21
Mendoza J. A., Zimmerman F. J., Christakis D. A. (2007): Television Viewing, computer use,
obestity, and adiposity in US preschool schildren. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 4: 44–54
22
Gortmaker S. L., Must A., Sobol A. M., Peterson K., Colditz G. A., Dietz W. H. (1996):
Television viewing as a cause of increasing obesity among children in the United States,
1986–1990. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 150: 356–362
23
Sander U. (2013): Medienkompetenz von Kindern fördern. In: Moderne Ernährung heute.
Wissenschaftlicher Pressedienst 3/2013, Matissek R (publisher), Food Chemistry Institute
(LCI) of the Association of the German Confectionery Industry (BDSI), Cologne
24
Aufenanger S. (2011): Medienkompetenz von Kindern stärken. Niketta M. (2011): Werbung
erkennen und verstehen. In: Moderne Ernährung heute. Wissenschaftlicher Pressedienst
3/2013, Matissek R (publisher), Food Chemistry Institute (LCI) of the Association of the
German Confectionery Industry (BDSI), Cologne
25
Deutscher Werberat (2009): Verhaltensregeln des Deutschen Werberats über die
kommerzielle Kommunikation für Lebensmittel; Fassung vom 1. Juli 2009.
URL http://www.zaw.de/doc/DW_Flyer_Lebensmittel.pdf (Retrieval on 3 December 2012)
26
Gatenby S. J., Aaron J. I., Jack V. A., Mela D. J. (1997): Extended use of foods modified in fat
and sugar content: nutritional implications in a free-living female population. Am J Clin
Nutr 65: 1867–1873
27
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung DGE (2009): Wissenschaftliche Basis für
Ampelkennzeichnung einzelner Lebensmittel fehlt. DGE aktuell 9/2009 vom 25.09.2009
URL:
http://www.dge.de/pdf/presse/2009/aktuell/DGE-Pressemeldung-aktuell-09-2009
_Ampelkennzeichnung.pdf (Retrieval on 3 December 2012)
28
German Nutrition Society (DGE) (2008): Stellungnahme zur erweiterten
Nährwertinformation auf der Basis des „1 plus 4“-Modells. September 2008. URL:
http://www.dge.de/pdf/ws/DGE-Stellungnahme-LM-Kennzeichnung-2008-09-09.pdf
(Retrieval on 3 December 2012)
29
European Food Information Council EUFIC (2008): One in four UK consumers look for
nutrition information on food labels… Pressemitteilung vom 25.09.2008. URL:
http://www.eufic.org/jpage/en/page/PRESS/fftid/Consumer-Insights-UK-results/
#_ftnref1 (Retrieval on 3 December 2012)
30
Jansen E., Mulkens S., Jansen A. (2007): Do not eat the red food! Prohibition of snacks
leads to their relatively higher consumption in children. Appetite 49 (3): 572–577
31
Hahn A. (2008): Weniger Übergewicht durch mehr Information? In: Moderne Ernährung
heute. Wissenschaftlicher Pressedienst 3/2008, publisher, Prof. Dr. Reinhard Matissek,
Food Chemistry Institute (LCI) of the Association of the German Confectionery Industry
(BDSI), Cologne
10
32
Professor Dr. Thomas von Danwitz, D.I.A.P. (ENA, Paris), Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht
und Europarecht an der Universität zu Köln: „Die Freiheit von Lebensmittelkennzeichnung
und -werbung in der Europäischen Union – Rechtsgutachten über die Vereinbarkeit der
Vorschläge der Kommission für eine Verordnung über nährwert- und gesundheitsbezogene
Angaben über Lebensmittel sowie für eine Verordnung über den Zusatz von Vitaminen und
Mineralien sowie bestimmten anderen Stoffen zu Lebensmitteln mit den Vorgaben des EGVertragsrechtes und des deutschen Grundgesetzes“, submitted to the German Federation
for Food Law and Food Science (BLL), Bonn, 7 January 2004
33
Professor Dr. Michael Schweitzer, Passau, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Hans-Georg Kamann, Frankfurt
am Main, Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Assessor Florian Vogel, Passau, Centrum für
Europarecht an der Universität Passau (CEP): „Rechtsgutachten Zulässigkeit der geplanten
Harmonisierung von Vorschriften über den Zusatz von bestimmten Stoffen zu
Lebensmitteln sowie über nährwert- und gesundheitsbezogene Angaben über Lebensmittel
durch die Europäische Gemeinschaft“, commissioned by the Association of the German
Confectionery Industry (BDSI), October 2006
34
Professor Dr. Alfred Hagen Meyer, meyer//meisterernst Rechtsanwälte, München: „Expert
Opinion on the Admissibility of Nutrient Profiles“, commissioned by the Association of the
German Confectionery Industry (BDSI), 5 May 2009
35
Professor Dr. Wolfgang Voit, Sprecher der Forschungsstelle für Deutsches und
Europäisches Lebens- und Futtermittelrecht Philipps-Universität Marburg: „Die Zulässigkeit
und Erforderlichkeit von Nährwertprofilen in der Health-Claims-Verordnung“, submitted to
the German Federation for Food Law and Food Science (BLL), Marburg, 1 November 2011
For more information on the Platform on Diet and Physical Activity (peb) visit
www.ernaehrung-und-bewegung.de
For more information on BDSI positions please visit
http://www.bdsi.de/de/positionen_themen
Bonn, 12 June 2015
The sector association:
The BDSI represents the economic interests of over 200 mostly medium-sized German confectionery
companies. It is both a trade association and an employers’ association. The German confectionery industry
is the fourth-largest sector of the German food industry, accounting for around 10% of overall sales. It is
particularly characterised by its strong focus on exports. Germany’s confectionery manufacturers have an
overall workforce of around 50,000 employees.
11