asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they support the European Union food supplements directive.

My Lords, the UK Government support the EC food supplements directive and its broad objectives of ensuring safe supplements that are accurately labelled to facilitate consumer choice and of creating a level playing field for trade in these products throughout the European Community.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that somewhat surprising Answer and congratulate her on her courage in responding to this awkward Question. Perhaps it should have been answered by the Foreign Office, which got us into this mess in the first place. Do the Government not appreciate the damage that this directive, together with 10 similar pieces of EU legislation, is already doing to our health food sector and the havoc and suffering that this legislation will cause if the Government cannot alter it radically in Brussels or escape from it altogether? Secondly, I ask a question that I have asked before: why can we not deal with this matter ourselves? What has happened to subsidiarity?

My Lords, there are certainly a number of pieces of legislation that apply to the supplements industry. All these are designed to protect consumers and to ensure that they are not misled by the information given about products. Each piece of legislation has a sufficient lead-in time to enable the industry to collect the necessary data. The UK Government negotiated hard to make the food supplements directive as flexible as possible in order to allow substances to remain on the market while undergoing a safety assessment by the European Food Safety Authority. The website of the Health Food Manufacturers’ Association says:

“The HFMA supports the creation of a harmonised European regulatory framework that recognises industry’s excellent safety record and permits the use of dietary supplements … The absence of harmonised legislation will hinder the free circulation of these products within the European Community and create barriers to trade”.

My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that the Government will continue to make every effort, in negotiations with the Commission and other member states, to ensure that the maximum permitted mineral and vitamin supplements will be in accordance with scientific assessments of risk made by expert bodies within the United Kingdom and endorsed by the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency?

My Lords, the directive created an obligation to set maximum levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements on the basis of scientific risk assessment. Work is under way on this and proposals from the European Commission are expected in January 2009. The Food Standards Agency, on behalf of the UK, has been actively engaging in the Commission’s work on setting maximum levels through discussions. As noble Lords will appreciate, other member states in Europe take a different view from that of the UK. We have the most liberal market in this respect. We are working with member states to ensure that the levels set are flexible and risk-based, to balance consumer protection with the impact on UK business.

My Lords, does the Minister not find it bizarre that everybody wants a single market but that, when the Commission tries to create one in certain special products, everyone is against it, particularly in the UK, for various reasons? Was not the recent answer by Commissioner Kyprianou on the proposed tabulation system for maximum amounts for food supplements a perfect balance between the legitimate special interests of member states and the need for a genuine single market that gives strong guidance to users in an increasingly mobile European Union?

My Lords, the noble Lord is completely correct. As I said, many UK food supplement manufacturers wish to expand their markets across Europe and we are keen that the food supplements directive should enable them to do so. At the same time, we are working hard with the industry to ensure that the domestic market is protected and allowed to grow and develop.

My Lords, will my noble friend remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that it was the Government led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who in their wisdom created the single European market and that the European Union has an obligation to oversee that market, not only for the protection of consumers but also so that entrepreneurs—in this case, food supplement businesses—can operate freely and successfully within it?

My Lords, I probably do not need to remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, of these issues. The UK Government, supported by the FSA, are indeed negotiating hard to make the supplements directive as flexible and workable as possible.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government are working to establish a liberal rather than a restrictive market in these products, not least bearing in mind the fact that European citizens of whatever country are subject to the same general physiological laws relating to poison?

My Lords, that is absolutely correct.

My Lords, the latest figures from the Department of Health indicate that some 5,000 people have died from adverse drug reactions. Can the Minister give a comparable figure for the number of people who have died as a direct result of poisoning from food supplements?

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have those figures but I shall endeavour to find them and let the noble Countess have them.

My Lords, in view of the renowned energy and determination of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, can the Minister encourage him to tell us what supplements he is on?

My Lords, I would not dream of encroaching on the noble Lord on such a matter.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness was good enough to mention me, perhaps I may respond. I cannot believe that it is of interest to the House, but I have to confess that I am not on any food supplements or any medication. However, a very good friend of mine will suffer seriously if this directive goes through. As there is a minute left on the Clock, perhaps I could ask the Minister whether she has consulted another website, that of the National Association of Health Stores, which says that these directives are on the verge of overwhelming the whole industry and that it wants,

“upper levels which are indicated as safe by the scientific consensus, not levels which are going to be whittled down in order to achieve a shu-thru in the Council of Ministers”.

My Lords, I did indeed look at that website. The UK Government and the FSA share the concern that the maximum amounts are set at levels based on risk; in other words, we do not wish to encroach on the liberal regime that we have in the UK.

My Lords, at the moment some 300 nutrient sources are not on the Commission’s positive lists but have temporary exemption from prohibition. However, the derogation lasts only until 2009 and for many ingredients the cost and work involved in providing further and detailed information prior to the deadline will be prohibitive. Is there not a case for encouraging the Commission to agree a rolling extension of those derogations for key ingredients, unless of course they are deemed unsafe?

My Lords, the noble Earl’s last point is the key one. My information is that there are some 120 outstanding submissions relating to nutrient sources that currently do not have adequate scientific assessment, but that does not mean that they will not have that assessment. If some of them are deemed unsafe, there are substitutes for almost everything on that list.