Europe’s anti-Obesity battle hit a major hurdle on Thursday when a European Parliament committee dumped a key element of controversial draft rules to ban misleading health and nutritional food labels.

As Europe’s waistlines expand - the number of overweight children is rising by 400,000 a year - healthy eating is seen as a key component in the battle of the bulge.

The 25-nation bloc has avoided United States-style obesity lawsuits against fast-food chains like McDonalds but is seeking to give consumers more information about what they eat.

Under an EU Executive Commission proposal, vague claims about foods aiding weight loss and eye-catching labels that gloss over a product’s fat content would be banned.

The European Parliament and EU governments must approve the draft bill before it can apply.

But EU lawmakers in the environment committee halted the “fight the flab” drive, voting by 30 to 15 with two abstentions to allow food with a high fat, sugar or salt content to carry a health or nutritional slogan.

BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organisation, criticised the outcome.

“When you consider a product, allow a claim or not, you have to consider the total composition of the product,” said BEUC head of communications Caroline Hayat.

“A product which is too salty, fatty or sugary shouldn’t be allowed (to carry a claim).”

Under the European Commission’s plan, industry would only be able to stick health and nutrition labels on packets if benefits were scientifically proven.

Food would also have to have a sound nutritional content with low salt, fat and sugar content before being able to carry a health tag - a measure now absent from the draft bill.

The obesity drive could be restored next month when the full 732-member EU assembly votes on the plan. EU governments also have to approve the bill.

But Italian far-right lawmaker Adriana Poli Bortone, a member of the environment committee, was disappointed.

“A part of the big (food) industry (succeeded) in influencing the vote,” she told Reuters.

“It’s really strange that this kind of vote took place in the environment committee which normally should try to protect consumers.”