The N°1, healthy, rich in learning webinar about claims
Is your product a No. 1 seller? Good for your health or rich in fiber? Does it contain no parabens? Do you want to shout it loudly from the rooftops or at least on your packaging?
During this webinar, you will get an overview of the principles that need to be respected in order to claim your products legally. Our experts will discuss the rules for No. 1 claims, cosmetic claims and health and nutrition claims, and will give you an overview of the most important issues as well as practical guidelines.
This webinar has been awarded one point of continuous education by the Institut des Juristes d’Entreprise / Instituut voor Bedrijfsjuristen.
We hope to see you online on 14 March, from 13:30 to 14:30!
Your hosts
Recommended articles
Food Hygiene for Fish: EU General Court Requires Scientific Basis to “Clarify” the Law
Food company Mowi Poland successfully challenged the European Commission’s new hygiene rules governing ‘stiffening’—a specialised fish processing technique—on the grounds that the Commission failed to obtain mandatory scientific consultation. While the Commission defended its approach by characterising the measures as mere “clarification” of existing law and citing industry guidelines as support, the EU General Court […]
Read on
Combination therapies in Belgium: how to collaborate without breaching competition law
As the landscape of modern medicine evolves, combination therapies—those that use two or more distinct medicines, often from different companies—are becoming increasingly vital, especially in treating complex diseases like cancer. These therapies promise improved clinical outcomes through synergistic mechanisms of action. However, the reimbursement process for such therapies presents significant regulatory and legal challenges, particularly […]
Read on
Titanium dioxide: General Court strikes down classification as human carcinogen and ECJ now confirms
The European Commission often relies on scientific evidence for its regulatory decisions. But when challenged, how much deference is owed to the regulator’s interpretation of the underlying science?
Read on