May 17, 2020

Food with health benefits

Food with health benefits
3 min
Works with Water products
Written by Jules Birch We are all familiar with cereals that are fortified with added vitamins and minerals, dairy spreads and drinks with phytosterols...

Written by Jules Birch

We are all familiar with cereals that are fortified with added vitamins and minerals, dairy spreads and drinks with phytosterols and the ubiquitous vitamin waters. There is no doubt that as our lives become busier and more stressed, we are looking to gain greater nutritional benefits from the foods we eat, perhaps to counterbalance the ‘bad foods’ in our diet.

 But how far can we go with ‘adding benefit’ to food?  Surely there are some foods that just do not make sense fortifying when they are nutritionally suspect to begin with and should just be reserved as ‘naughty treats’ without a nutritional ‘halo’?

 The state of our health should be a key priority and, with the increase in obesity and diabetes twinned with the proposals for age-specific medications such as Statins for over 50’s, food definitely can combine taste and enjoyment with added and proven health benefits.

 Many people are now looking to maintain good health naturally and are seeking alternatives to prescription medication, which is frequently seen as a last resort by both patients and GP’s alike.

 When applied in dose-specific quantities per serving, natural food ingredients such as phytosterols, barley beta glucan and dairy peptides can be enormously effective in maintaining healthy cholesterol and blood pressure levels and are relatively easy to incorporate into everyday foods and beverages.

 However, as consumers become ever more enquiring and suspicious of ‘too good to be true’ claims, it is imperative that they are able to access the science behind the health claims. They must be able to have confidence in the evidence that the claims are approved and that the specific health benefits products purport to deliver are actually worth the purchase. 

 Due to the premium nature of these types of natural food ingredients, the finished food product is likely to be premium price.  For those of us determined to manage our health as naturally as possible for as long as possible, this investment in our diets is surely an investment in our future health.

Supplements, snake oil and scams

Back in the 1800’s, elixirs and potions of all kinds, even those that supposedly included the oils from snakes, were sold as a cure for any ailment.  Nowadays, we refer to a product that is proven not to live up to the vendor’s marketing claims as ‘snake oil’.

Obviously these practices no longer go on as regulations have tightened, consumers are much more educated and manufacturers and suppliers recognise the need to deliver quality products if they are to survive in a competitive marketplace.  Or am I being naïve?  Are there modern-day ‘snake oil salesman’ peddling their products, but with more sophisticated marketing tools at their disposal than their 19th century counterparts?

Many of us yearn to look younger and thinner and there are a plethora of products on the market claiming to help us turn back the clock. Whilst many of the ingredients in these tablets, capsules or drinks may have some anecdotal evidence of health benefits, are they being incorporated in the correct dosages to enable the product to deliver tangible results?  And is it sufficient for the claims to be accepted at face value?

Jules Birch is the founder and CEO of health food supplements brand ‘Works with Water Nutraceuticals’. Her company  is the first to pioneer a range of 100 percent natural, soluble food supplements containing ingredients that are scientifically proven to help maintain healthy cholesterol and blood pressure levels and have a positive impact on skin.

Share article

Jun 20, 2021

Medical device companies: how to prepare for Brexit

Ed Ball
6 min
Ed Ball, Senior Associate at RQM+ , explains how medical device companies can prepare for post-Brexit compliance

Over the last decade, medical device businesses have been no strangers to regulatory changes and new compliance requirements. Companies with devices in the EU market have been working hard to achieve conformity with the requirements of the EU Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR), but the UK’s exit from the EU, effective as of 1st January 2021, demands yet another change: to comply with the new UK regulatory regime.

The Medicines and Medical Devices Act passed into law on 11 February 2021 does just that; it enables the UK to build its own regulatory system, although when this new framework will be fully in place is not yet known.

The transition to the UK’s new regulatory regime officially began on the 1st of January 2021, and with it a series of deadlines and phases that medical device manufacturers exporting to GB and Northern Ireland would do well to take close notice of. During the transition period, the UK Medical Devices Regulations (UK MDR) 2002, not to be confused with the EU MDR, will continue to apply in England, Scotland and Wales, whilst CE marked medical devices will still be accepted up to 30th June 2023.

The conformity assessment processes defined in the UK MDR 2002 (as amended) will require that medical devices carry the UKCA mark for entry in the GB market or the UKNI mark for entry in Northern Ireland (where the devices are not CE marked for the EU). In Northern Ireland, where the rules for placing a device on the market differ, the EU MDR and IVDR will apply in 2021 and 2022 respectively, in line with the EU’s implementation timeline. 

This easing-in period of transition is valuable time that should be used productively by manufacturers to ensure that they get up to speed, keep up with relevant updates and prepare strategies and product portfolio for the next phase. To do this, businesses should make sure they consider the following areas as they assess their strategy for UK market access:

Potential Overlap with EU MDR and IVDR
Medical device manufacturers have been working to implement measures to ensure they comply with EU MDR and IVDR for quite some time. The experience, processes and objective evidence that they have gathered in these efforts are certain to be of use when applying for UKCA marking. 

Rigorous Planning
Product portfolios and new product pipelines should be evaluated against both overall compliance risk and commercial and strategic value. By identifying the regulatory compliance status for each product for the UK market and the efforts required to maintain that compliance, manufacturers can plan to use the grace period up to June 2023 to complete their activities. These plans should also be evaluated in consideration of the commercial importance of the individual products to help prioritise the workload. This may well result in the decision to discontinue certain products in the UK or to introduce new products on the UK market ahead of other markets.

Engage with Approved Bodies
This activity cannot take place too soon; as of the 1st of January 2021, UK organisations that were acting as EU Notified Bodies have become Approved Bodies in the UK, while EU Notified Bodies are no longer able to provide conformity assessments under the UK regulations. As there are currently only three UK Approved Bodies offering this service, there is a very real risk that latecomers will struggle to find a UK Approved Body to carry out the conformity assessment required to attain their UKCA mark in time.

Authorised Representatives
Just as EU Notified Bodies are no longer relevant to pursuing UK certifications, UK-based Authorised Representatives are no longer valid when CE marking against the MDR or IVDR. Manufacturers using UK-based EU Authorised Representatives must switch to an EU-based Authorised Representative.

For the UK market, the role of the EU Authorised Representative is also no longer applicable. Non-UK manufacturers must have a UK-based Responsible Person (UKRP), which is equivalent to the EU Authorised Representative in terms of roles and responsibilities. Only one UKRP may be appointed, unlike EU Authorised Representatives, and they must have a registered place of business in the UK in order to register with the MHRA. Approved Bodies may be able to provide details of organisations acting as UKRPs and once this role has been assigned it will be critical for manufacturers to determine exact procedures for managing documentation and that clear communication channels are established. 

Labelling and Import/Export
New UK regulations require that medical devices bear a UKCA mark in addition to the name and address of the UKRP for non-UK based manufacturers. Manufacturers who use the same products/packs for the EU and UK markets will need to consider the impact of adding more content to their labels in terms of usability for the supply chain and end-users. 

While CE marking and certificates will continue to be recognised by the UK until June 2023, import/export administration is likely to change and become more burdensome. Manufacturers using separate products for GB (UKCA) and the EU and Northern Ireland (CE marked) will need to plan for how to ensure that the CE marked product is not shipped to GB post June 2023. Ensuring that processes and resources are in place to deal with developing situations will help manufacturers hit the ground running.

Clinical Investigations
Many businesses will find that clinical investigations are carried out across multiple sites, some of which are outside the UK. In these instances, manufacturers will do well to have a plan for implementation and management of investigations, in compliance with local requirements. It is likely that the MHRA will also continue to update their requirements for clinical trials in the UK.

Data Protection and Standards
New tensions are emerging between the EU and the UK concerning UK data protection rules and the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), suggesting that maintaining ‘equivalency’ may involve a number of different phases.

Compliance with applicable standards also requires close attention; the list of designated standards for medical devices issued by the UK’s Department for Health and Social Care is based on the list of harmonised standards published in the Official Journal of the EU, which in turn are harmonised to the MDD, AIMDD and IVDD. More recently published standards, however, have not been harmonised to the latter European directives and are thus not in the UK’s designated list, despite being considered state of the art. It would be prudent for manufacturers to monitor the state-of-the-art standards and apply where applicable, rather than rely on superseded and outdated standards.

As the UK moves into a new regulatory regime, medical device manufacturers who have already invested time and resources to comply with EU MDR and IVDR can use this to attain their UKCA mark. However, a dynamic compliance environment combined with the new onus relating to export policies means that close attention needs to be paid on numerous fronts. Keeping pace with this changing environment will ensure that manufacturers face the future with confidence and do not lose important space on their markets.

Share article