A Formal Complaint of Maladministration regarding the European Union Food Supplement Directive

Dear Ombudsman

I am a British citizen living in London UK, and I am writing to you to file a formal complaint concerning maladministration in the activities of the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

The complaint concerns administrative irregularities, illegal
administration, unfair and unnecessary infringement upon human rights and freedom of choice, unfair and discriminatory use of the legislative process, and a refusal to supply requested information; all of which relate to the passing of the EU Food Supplements Directive, which was approved in its' second reading in the EU Parliament on 13 March 2002.

The evidence for this complaint is as follows:

1) Every piece of EU legislation affecting trade or productive activities must be accompanied by a statement of the impact that the legislation will have on the ability of SMEs (Small and Medium sized Enterprises) to do business and survive. This requirement was introduced in response to allegations that the EU favours multinational companies over the activities of smaller companies. The EU commission failed to accomplish and release an
SME impact study in conjunction with the EU Food Supplement Directive, a fact which has already been brought to the attention of Commissioner Byrne by Caroline Jackson, who is a UK MEP and the Chair of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee of the European Parliament.

Clearly, by introducing a restrictive and limited list of substances that may be employed in the formulation of food supplements, and by eliminating some of the higher dosages that are mainly produced by the SMEs, the directive will have a tremendous impact on SMEs and specialist shops, all of whom are currently providing employment by producing, and trading in, higher-dose food supplements. It is also a fact that only the very largest companies will be able to afford the large fees necessary in order to submit the dossiers on safety that the directive requires. Smaller companies will be unable to afford the costs of submitting dossiers for all of their products, and many have said that they will inevitably be forced into closure as a direct result of this requirement alone. The removal of up to 300 products from open sale will also cause the closure of many health food
and whole-food shops, as the sale of food supplements is in most cases intrinsic to their financial viability.

I therefore contend that the lack of a SME impact statement for the Food Supplement Directive is clear evidence of an administrative irregularity with regard to the passage of the legislation into EU law.

2) The EU does not have the legal right to legislate in health matters until the Treaty of Nice has been ratified by all 15 countries. Although the directive is treated by the EU Commission as being merely food related, its' affect is primarily on health, given that the nutritional substances affected by the legislation are essential to life itself. Assuming that the current upper limit recommendations of the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) remain unchanged, higher-dose supplements will eventually be available
only by prescription from a doctor. It is thus an inarguable fact that the directive is legislating in the area of health.

I therefore contend that this irregularity represents clear evidence of illegal administration in the activities of the European Commission, the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

3) The EU also does not have the legal right to legislate in food matters until the Treaty of Nice has been ratified by all 15 countries. Thus, regardless of whether the Commission are prepared to concede that the directive is legislating on health matters, the European Council of Ministers do not have the legal right to issue the directive because the EU Parliament was asked to vote on legislation that the Commission has currently no legal right to enforce.

I therefore contend that this irregularity represents clear evidence of illegal administration in the activities of the European Commission, the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

4) The legislation has been voted on and approved by the EU Parliament before its' full legislative content has been established. Specifically, article 5 of the directive, which deals with the upper doses allowed under the legislation, does not yet specify what these permissible levels will be. Therefore MEPs have been asked to vote on a directive when a vital part of the legislation (which could potentially make over 300 products illegal in the UK alone) has not yet been published.

I therefore contend that this administrative irregularity represents clear evidence of maladministration in the activities of the European Commission, the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

5) There are now tens of thousands of positive studies demonstrating the safe therapeutic use of vitamins, even when used in megadoses.

Given that there now exists this truly enormous body of research attesting to the safety and efficacy of food supplements in both preventing and treating disease, I contend that this directive is an unfair and unnecessary infringement upon the human rights and freedom of choice of those consumers who wish to purchase higher-dose food supplements for the maintenance and improvement of their health. I furthermore contend that the actions of the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament amount to an
unfair and discriminatory use of the legislative process, in that through "harmonisation" of the legislation relating to food supplements the directive threatens to benefit multinational pharmaceutical companies by removing from the market many safe and natural competitors to pharmaceutical drugs, and hence will unfairly limit the available alternatives for the growing numbers of consumers who eschew those pharmaceutical drugs.

6) Paola Testori Coggi - writing on18 January 2002 on behalf of
Commissioner Byrne - stated in a reply to Jan Klyve (leader of Fritt
Helsevalg, in Oslo, Norway) that "there is also a very large number of
consumers that support the draft directive and are very happy with the guarantees that it will offer for the safety of these products." Despite numerous communications from myself and others, Commissioner Byrne has since ignored all requests to provide full details of the exact nature of this assumed consumer support. Although I am obviously aware that the EU Commission see BEUC as "the voice of the consumer" in Brussels, it should here be pointed out that neither BEUC nor any of their member organisations
have polled their individual consumer members as to whether they support EU restrictions on the sale of food supplements.

I therefore contend that Commissioner Byrne's refusal to supply information relating to the exact nature of this assumed consumer support amounts to clear evidence of maladministration in the passage of the directive.

I therefore urge you to consider the directive in light of the above evidence, and to give due consideration to my complaint. I can confirm that I have already written to Romano Prodi, David Byrne, Robert Coleman and
Basil Mathioudakis concerning this directive. I have also written to a number of MEPs and to members of the British Parliament.

Sincerely and respectfully

Paul Anthony Taylor

Honorary Member of the UK National Association of Health Stores

London UK


HOW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT?