26 November 2024 – In its decision of 26 September 2024, the Cantonal Court of Fribourg upheld the actions of the Cantonal Office for Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs (Amt für Lebensmittelsicherheit und Veterinärwesen, LSVW) concerning the beverages D. and E. marketed by the appellant. The court confirmed that Steviol Glycosides (E 960), used as a sweetener, must be disclosed in the ingredient list of these products. The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, which sought to overturn the LSVW’s ruling to amend the product labeling.

The LSVW intervened in August 2020 following an official inspection of the products, during which it was discovered that Steviol Glycosides (E 960) were present as a sweetener but had not been declared in the ingredient list. The appellant contested this finding, arguing that Steviol Glycosides (E 960) were part of the aroma extract J., which was added not for sweetening but to mask undesirable flavors. The appellant claimed that, as an aroma, Steviol Glycosides (E 960) should not be included in the ingredient list under the relevant food labeling regulations. However, the LSVW issued a ruling requiring the company to correct the labeling of the beverages.

The court assessed whether the LSVW’s determination that Steviol Glycosides (E 960) must be listed as an ingredient was legally justified. The court emphasized that under the Foodstuffs Act (FSA) all ingredients, including sweeteners, must be disclosed in the ingredient list if they have a technological function in the final product. The court concluded that Steviol Glycosides (E 960), despite being part of the aroma extract J., exert a sweetening effect and therefore qualify as a food additive, that must be declared in the ingredient list.

The court also considered the appellant’s argument that the aroma extract J., containing 2.8% Steviol equivalents (E 960), was a natural flavoring agent used primarily to enhance the taste of the beverages rather than to sweeten them. However, the court found that the documents submitted by the company, including a sensory analysis, did not conclusively support this claim. The court noted that, according to European Union guidelines, the use of such extracts must be evaluated based on their sensory impact and that the appellant had not provided adequate expert analysis to demonstrate that the Steviol Glycosides (E 960) were intended for flavoring rather than sweetening.

Ultimately, the court further upheld the LSVW’s position that public health considerations outweigh economic concerns. The appellant’s argument that Steviol Glycosides (E 960) should be exempted from labeling due to their minimal sweetening effect and the exception for non-technological ingredients was rejected. The court emphasized that sweeteners, regardless of their quantity, always have a technological effect and must therefore be disclosed.

For more information, see here.