Kristine Lilholt Nilsson, Christian Marquard Svane

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 7 (2012), Issue 4, Page 201 - 207

This article deals with the determination of which information is relevant, when determining whether a product, otherwise marketed as a food supplement, should be regarded as a medicinal product by presentation. The Danish authorities have issued a decision on this topic which is likely to have wide-reaching consequences for any company engaging in the selling of food supplements on the Danish market. The Danish approach towards the definition of medicinal products “by presentation” and the fact that the authorities take into account information published on foreign websites both in and outside of the EU will have far-reaching implications. Because of the implications, the Danish interpretation is likely to end up in court one day. At that point it will be interesting to see if the court agrees with the Danish authorities on the interpretation. Until then, companies who are present in the Danish market are advised to take care and consider their online strategy.

Kristine Lilholt Nilsson

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 7 (2012), Issue 1, Page 22 - 27

Food business operators marketing their products in multiple member states know that many issues can arise when a product marketed in one member state is sold in another. This goes for products marketed in third countries as well. Of these many issues, this article will focus on matters relating to the labelling of products. The rules which cover the labelling of foods are fully harmonised within the EU in Directive 2000/13/EC, which have been succeeded by Regulation 1169/2011 (Food Information Package). However, the interpretation and application of these rules are left to the authorities in the individual member states, which leads to significant differences in the ways that the legislation is applied. The legislation provides that the labelling of a product must not mislead the consumer. At the same time the interpretation of whether or not, if and how a consumer is misled differs between member states depending on the legal traditions of that member state. If a product is manufactured and packed in one member state but intended for the market of another, which member state’s standard or interpretation of ‘misleading’ applies when assessing whether the labelling is misleading? And by which authority? These questions are currently under scrutiny in several large criminal cases in Denmark, covering multiple aspects of labelling. While waiting for the cases to be tried before the courts, this article will discuss how the Community’s rules on labelling and authority control should be interpreted in relation to goods that are circulated within the Community.

Susie Stærk Ekstrand, Kristine Lilholt Nilsson

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 6 (2011), Issue 3, Page 167 - 173

More and more companies take an interest in communicating their environmental and ethical conduct in their marketing, especially companies utilising many resources on keeping themselves as environmentally responsible as possible. The Danish Consumer Ombudsman has recently issued Guidelines containing a detailed and very strict framework for when and how environmental and ethical claims can be used in marketing. This is bound to limit the ways in which “storytelling” can be used as a means of marketing. Therefore, the Guidelines will be of great importance. Since the Danish Consumer Ombudsman uses a very wide definition of environmental and ethical claims, the Guidelines cover all information which is likely to give consumers the impression that a given product or activity is a better choice from an environmental or ethical point-of-view, such as “green”, “blue”, “gentle”, “sustainable”, “environmentally friendly” or “fair”. At the same time, the Guidelines are very ambitious in their requirement for environmental and ethical claims to be adequately documented. This raises a very important question for many operators in the market: When does the company hold sufficient documentation to highlight itself?

Susie Stærk Ekstrand, Kristine Lilholt Nilsson

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 5 (2010), Issue 2, Page 4

A Danish Clampdown on Marketing on Websites? In EFFL 4/2006 (“Online marketing of Food – The “Internal Market Clause” of the e-Commerce Directive from a Danish Perspective”) we discussed some aspects of the e-commerce directive and its implementation in Denmark, with particular focus on the extension of the so-called internal market clause and the implication of that clause for companies advertising their products on the Internet. As mentioned in the