“In the late ‘90s and early 2000s, issues like contamination and inadvertent doping were prevalent, which damaged the industry’s credibility,” he said during a recent webinar hosted by Vitafoods Insights. “Retailers, wary of these concerns, were reluctant to stock sports nutrition products.”
Over time, however, ESSNA, along with brands and distributors, has worked to restore trust by enforcing rigorous product testing and leveraging expertise to positively influence policymakers, he added.
And today, despite the misconception that companies can sell anything, the sports nutrition industry is highly regulated.
Current guidelines
The current dietary guidelines for the general population, as established by health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), provide broad recommendations based on a balanced diet that supports overall health.
However, standard guidelines often do not consider the unique needs of athletes, such as increased requirements for recovery, performance and specific fitness goals.
“ESSNA’s first priority is to remove regulatory barriers and promote a positive environment for sports nutrition products by highlighting the unique needs of the sector,” Jurkiw said.
“To put this into context, active consumers have different nutritional requirements compared to those who are sedentary.
“Take protein, carbohydrates, sodium, vitamins and minerals as examples. Legislation often sets generalized recommendations for these nutrients, however, these broad guidelines may not be appropriate for active individuals.”
Active consumers typically require protein for muscle repair, carbohydrates for energy and electrolytes like sodium to replace what’s lost in sweat. They also need more vitamins and minerals to support metabolism, immune function and muscle health.
Therefore, tailored nutrition is essential to meet these elevated demands and optimize performance, Jurkiw noted.
Regulation shapes market trends
While the United States and other regions are making strong progress, the EU risks falling behind, according to Jurkiw.
“One of the main challenges at the moment is nutrition and health claims,” he said. “Within Europe, there’s a register of claims that you’re allowed to make—whether it’s a nutrition claim, like low-fat or low-sugar, or a health claim, such as contributing to a reduction in tiredness and fatigue or an increase in muscle mass. For anyone to make these claims, they must be on the approved register.”
While this system is beneficial as it helps protect the consumer by ensuring there is adequate evidence to substantiate claims, it also creates challenges.
“For the past 15 years, there have been very few additions to the register,” Jurkiw said. “In contrast, in other regions like the U.S., the regulatory environment is different, and as long as a claim can be substantiated with appropriate scientific evidence, brands have more flexibility to make a broader range of claims.”
He added that the register primarily consists of claims related to vitamins and minerals, meaning that brands are often limited to adding vitamins and minerals to their products to make claims.
“For example, B vitamins have numerous claims associated with them, so many companies are adding more and more B vitamins to their products,” he said. “From a consumer standpoint, this can lead to the overconsumption of certain nutrients if multiple products are being used.”
As Jurkiw noted, the issue lies in the slow pace of approving new claims, and some claims that could be perceived as valid have been rejected, with “hundreds of botanical claims still on hold—neither approved nor rejected.”
Furthermore, regulations on permissible claims may vary across European countries, making it difficult for brands to scale across different markets.
“Ultimately, businesses need a harmonized framework that is based on independent scientific evidence and reflects the needs of the active consumer,” he said. “While the premise of the system is good, its practicality is not working out as intended.”
Novel foods
Another significant challenge strongly linked to market trends is the issue of novel foods.
In Europe, novel foods refer to new food ingredients or new forms of existing ingredients that were not sold in the EU before May 1997. If a food does not meet this criteria, it must undergo a detailed and rigorous approval process to ensure its safety before it can be introduced to the market.
“While the premise of the legislation is to protect consumers and ensure that potentially harmful products aren’t sold, the process can take years,” Jurkiw said.
“This delay means Europe is falling behind, especially when exciting ingredients are already being sold in other parts of the world.
“For example, if you look at pre-workout supplements, there are at least 10 different ingredients used in American products that cannot be sold in Europe—this is a significant issue.”
The impact is that ingredient manufacturers and distributors often focus less on Europe and more on other markets where their products can be sold, which is ultimately “stifling innovation in the European market,” he added.
“We need a more streamlined system for novel foods to make sure that consumer safety is absolutely protected but also that innovation isn’t stifled and that Europe doesn’t get left behind.”
Maximum permitted levels
Another area that needs significant focus at the moment is the maximum permitted levels (MPLs), particularly in relation to vitamins and minerals.
“Unfortunately, the situation in Europe is a bit messy at the moment[…]the theory is that everything should be harmonized across Europe, meaning if you can sell a product in one country, you should be able to sell it in another,” Jurkiw said.
“That’s the premise, however, the reality is that, for example, the level of vitamin D allowed in products in France is different from the level in Germany, and various other countries have different regulations.”
He noted that this leaves brands with two options: Either to create a different product for each country, which is not particularly scalable for smaller businesses as it is complex and expensive, or to formulate using the lowest permitted level even if higher levels are permitted in some countries.
“The downside of this approach is that you become non-competitive in some other territories,” he said.
This is currently being acknowledged through calls to reassess MPLs and harmonize them across all countries. However, the challenge remains in sports and active nutrition that some of the proposed levels are particularly low.
“For example, the proposed level for vitamin B6 is so low that it would require reformulation across the entire industry,” Jurkiw said.
“Naturally, reformulation is problematic and significantly expensive, involving product write-off costs, labor costs, etc., and while there are typically transition periods, there will ultimately be costs to businesses.”
From ESSNA’s perspective, he continued, the key is that this change is inevitable, and therefore the main goal must be to ensure that the needs of sports and active nutrition consumers are differentiated from those of completely sedentary individuals.
“We must avoid a ‘one-size-fits-all’ piece of legislation, ensuring that vitamins and minerals for active individuals are fit for purpose,” he said.