Scientific substantiation of health claims in the EU.

School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland.
Proceedings of The Nutrition Society (Impact Factor: 4.94). 09/2011; 71(1):120-6. DOI: 10.1017/S0029665111003168
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT EU legislation on nutrition and health claims made on foods (Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006) specifies that health claims should be only authorised for use in the Community after a scientific assessment of the highest possible standard is carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). This paper focuses on the scientific substantiation of health claims within the context of the EU Regulation. The evaluation of the substantiation of health claims is carried out by the EFSA Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). The EFSA has published extensive guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for authorisations of health claims. This guidance summarises the general principles applied by the NDA Panel in the evaluation of health claims, including the scientific criteria for substantiation, as well as the scientific requirements for the substantiation of specific health claims. To date, the EFSA NDA Panel has concluded that a wide range of health claims has been substantiated. These include claims for many well-established functions of nutrients, as well as beneficial effects of foods and food constituents on a range of body functions. In addition, claims have been substantiated on the role of nutrients in growth and development of children and on the effects of nutrients and food constituents on reduction of risk factors for disease. EFSA evaluations and guidance have made an important contribution to the understanding of the scientific substantiation of health claims which will help to set new directions for research and will guide future innovation.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article analyses the consequences of the implementation of the nutrition and health claim regulation in the field of food products containing antioxidants or food products claiming antioxidant activity. To this end, it first examines the origin and creation of the regulation and the involvement of EFSA in assessing scientific substantiation of health claims. Three criteria are regarded as critical in EFSA’s opinions on the scientific substantiation of a health claim: the claimed effect i) is well defined; ii) is a clear beneficial physiological effect; and iii) shows a cause effect relationship with the consumption of the food or functional ingredient. These criteria have implications for the research requested to substantiate health claims, although these implications do not all seem to fit nutrition research as it is currently executed. Looking at antioxidants, the complexity of the mechanisms and actions of antioxidants is not recognised by the criteria used to evaluate proposed health claims, nor by the methodologies used to assess the effects of antioxidants. These criteria should be adjusted with novel scientific insights after consulting stakeholders.
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 04/2014; 68(3). DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.01.014 · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Criteria for assessing the purported protection by flavanol-rich foods against vascular dysfunction and oxidative damage to biomolecules was the subject of the 27th Hohenheim Consensus Conference held on July 11, 2011. State-of-the-art evidence was put into perspective, focusing on several questions that were followed by a consensus answer. Among the topics addressed were the major sources of flavanols in the human diet, the bioavailability of flavanols, biomarkers for "health benefit," and the biological function of flavanols. Consensus was reached on these topics. No conclusion was reached on the design of randomized, controlled trials for substantiation of health claims for flavanol-rich foods as to the necessity of a study arm with an isolated pharmacologically active compound, e.g., (-)-epicatechin.
    Advances in Nutrition 03/2012; 3(2):217-21. DOI:10.3945/an.111.001578 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Nutritional supplements are inadequately regulated in South Africa. These types of products are increasingly advertised and the advertisements frequently contain health claims. Because advertisements play a considerable role in informing potential consumers, it is crucial that information about supplements in advertisements is accurate. A survey was carried out to determine the extent to which health claims are made in nutritional supplement advertisements and to describe the appropriateness of the research cited within the advertisements in support of the health claims. Design: The design was a descriptive survey. Method: The five women’s magazines with the highest circulation figures in South Africa in July 2010 were identified by the Audit Bureau of Circulations of South Africa as Cosmopolitan, Finesse, Move!, Rooi Rose and Sarie. Issues of these magazines were obtained during the period from September 2010 to August 2011. Pre-specified eligibility criteria were used to identify suitable advertisements and to determine the percentage of nutritional supplements about which health claims were made. The percentage of these supplements for which research was cited in support of the claims was also determined, and the level and appropriateness of the cited research, described. Results: In total, 486 eligible advertisements were identified which referred to 158 nutritional supplements. Of these, 137 (86.7%) made health claims and 9 of the 137 (6.6%) cited research to support their claims. The cited research was judged to be largely inappropriate based on study design and/or the characteristics of the study. Conclusion: South Africans should be wary of advertisements that make claims about the health benefits and safety of nutritional supplements. Regulation of the advertising of nutritional supplements is urgently needed.
    South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition 01/2013; 26(2):12-18.