After having provided guidance on dietary reference values (DRV) of fats, carbohydrates, fibre and water, EFSA published a scientific opinion on protein intake after extensive consultation with Member States, the scientific community and other. These DRV establish optimum intakes of nutrients in a balanced diet which when part of an overall healthy lifestyle, contribute to good health.

Indeed, EFSA has been asked by the European Commission to review and update the reference values for nutrient and energy intakes established in 1993 by the Scientific Committee on Food. In doing so EFSA is taking into account new scientific evidence and recent recommendations issued at national and at international level. This will permit to provide comprehensive nutrition guidelines, for example for food labelling and for setting public health targets in Europe.

Find these scientific opinions on the EFSA website. For more information contact our experts.

www.efsa.europa.eu

After two rejections pursuant to article 13(1) and 14, EFSA has recently provided a negative opinion on a health claim related to the reduction in LDL-cholesterol and the consumption of isolated soy protein. As it is often the case, this rejection is explained by an insufficient scientific substantiation. However, the applicant has provided a dossier supported by 23 randomized and controlled intervention trials. Moreover, these studies were associated to a meta-analysis prepared specifically for this application, and to several supportive studies (intervention studies, meta-analyses, reviews, mechanistic studies).

Nevertheless, the experts have considered that 4 of the 23 trials could not be considered as pertinent due to inadequate experimental methodologies (mainly low quality of statistical analysis). Among the 19 remaining studies, only four studies have shown a reduction in LDL-cholesterol, whereas all the other trials did not conclude to a significant effect of isolated soy protein. Surprisingly, the meta-analyses provided by the applicant have not been considered as pertinent by the NDA panel, and have been rejected for the substantiation of the intended claim due to low methodologies.

Thus, the soy proteins manufacturers cannot still communicate in Europe about the cholesterol-lowering effect of their product, despite that several countries (US, Japan, Brazil for instance) have accepted similar claims.

Following the positive vote by the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) on December 5, the draft Regulation of the European Commission establishing, under Article 13.3 of Regulation 1924/2006, list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health, and the annex listing the 13.2 allowed claims were transmitted in the European Parliament on January 27.
The European Parliament and the Council now have within three months (until April 27) to oppose the publication of this text as part of the Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Regulation should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in mid-May for entry into force 20 days later.
The claims which have not been submitted to Member States for evaluation by EFSA as part of the procedure 13.2 will be forbidden to the publication of the Regulations. The period of compliance of their communications will be 6 months. The claims will be used in accordance with these Regulation in late November. The permitted claims will be those listed on annex published in conjunction with the Regulation. Those, under evaluation by EFSA, and those, which the transition will run, still will be used.

Nutraveris, the European-leading scientific & regulatory consultancy in nutrition & health, is going global in February with a new US office in Morristown, NJ, aiming to help US companies seize the huge potential of the European market.

“All is about focusing on solutions rather than on problems when developing business in Europe”. says Cédric Bourges, CEO of Nutraveris. “When asked about their international development projects, more and more US companies brush aside the European market, saying that complex, demanding and unclear rules make it too complicated. However, companies that take the plunge quickly realize that these hurdles are easily overcome”.

To make business easier for US companies, Nutraveris developed a database, Nutraveris On Line, which gives a quick access to regulatory status of more than 2,100 ingredients on 132 health applications. In addition, Nutraveris experts provide support on product authorization processes, EFSA health claims and novel foods dossiers. “These issues have been scaring off some companies from the EU, but for an expert company installed in this market since 2005 as Nutraveris, they can be managed very quickly”, said Mr Bourges. “We look forward to helping US dietary supplement companies & ingredient suppliers develop their business in Europe”.

Follow Nutraveris on Nutraingredients-USA.com:
http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Industry/Nutraveris-establishes-NJ-office-to-bridge-US-EU-divide

The English authorities has analyzed whether the claim “Powerade ION4 hydrates better than water” in ad was misleading and could be substantiated.
Beverage Services Ltd, trading as Coca-Cola Great Britain (CCGB) believed they could fully substantiate the claim “hydrates better than water”. They explained that Powerade ION4 was an isotonic sports drink aimed at individuals taking part in intense physical exercise.
They provided some excerpts from 13 studies and reviews published between 1973 and 2010 which, they believed, demonstrated the effects of sodium, carbohydrates and taste on hydration, and therefore supported their claim that the product “hydrates better than water”.
They also provided letters from two experts in the field, together with the scientific dossier

The authorities considered the excerpts of the 13 studies provided by CCGB. All of these studies had been published in recognized journals and supported the arguments made by CCGB. Also, they considered the letters from the experts.
They considered that ad made it clear that the context in which Powerade ION4 hydrated better than water was during very energetic and sustained exertion.
Finally, the authorities considered that the claim “Powerade ION4 hydrates better than water” had been substantiated and concluded that the ads were not misleading.