Taking a word and trying to make it mean something else, such as "sugar is an inedible product", never sits really well with the recipients of the message—in particular when it is then circularly then used "well you can't eat sugar, it's inedible", which no doubt is the point here.
Meanings of words should be used to increase understanding between parties, not decrease understanding between them or push agendas, however well-meaning those agendas might be.
You can in fact eat quite a menu of inedible things but this will probably harm you sooner or later. Edible or inedible is not a meaning, it's a convention. There even are some things which are considered inedible despite being harmless and possibly tasty, especially if you know how to cook them right and don't eat too much of them.
Did you know radium used to be a popular "edible" ingredient one day? They said it was good for your health. Then one day people realized it's poison. Sugar used to be promoted as having ealth benefits as well (as did cigarettes). And it has to be declared inedible to stop destroying health of billions of people.
The headline says "non-food products", so no, that would be stupid. If it is indeed dangerous then it should be regulated as dangerous foods which is something EFSA handles.
People mistakenly consider that food and some corporations support this misconception to exploit it for profit. Some people mistakenly consider silicagel food as well (there would be no need to write "do not eat" on it if nobody did) but this doesn't mean it actually is food. Some even say cocaine is a vitamin. There are many substances which occur in our bodies naturally and play important roles in its functioning but are not foods. For example thyroxine is not a food as well, although our bodies produce and use it in some amounts for vital purposes. Same way sugar.
