EFSA has reached a milestone in its work on health claims, and published its final assessment of general health, article 13 claims. Since 2008 EFSA has assessed 2,758 food-related general function health claims to determine whether they were supported by sound scientific evidence, issuing positive opinions on about 20% (550) of them.
“Our experts have assessed the claims consistently and fairly to the highest possible scientific standards,” said Professor Albert Flynn, chair of EFSA’s panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies.
The final batch of 35 opinions included a rejection of soy isoflavones ability to affect the menopause, lower cholesterol levels or deliver antioxidant benefits. However the panel found that the sports nutrient Creatine did “provide an increase in physical performance during short, high-intensity exercise bouts”.
On average, one in five claims were successful, and EFSA hopes that these approved claims will enable European consumers to make informed choices about their diet.
Successful claims related mainly to:
- vitamins and minerals
- specific dietary fibres related to blood glucose control, blood cholesterol, or weight management
- live yoghurt cultures and lactose digestion
- antioxidant effects of polyphenols in olive oil
- walnuts and improved function of blood vessels
- meal replacement and weight control
- fatty acids and function of the heart
- the role of a range of sugar replacers (such as xylitol and sorbitol) in maintaining tooth mineralisation or lowering the increase of blood glucose levels after meals
- carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks/creatine and sports performance
Experts issued negative opinions where a causal relationship between the food and the claimed effect could not be established. Reasons included:
- lack of information to identify the substance on which the claim is based (for example, claims on “probiotics”, or on “dietary fibre” without specifying the particular fibre);
- lack of evidence that the claimed effect is indeed beneficial to the maintenance or improvement of the functions of the body (for example, food with “antioxidant properties” and claims on renal “water elimination”);
- lack of precision regarding the health claim being made (for example, claims referring to terms such as “energy” and “vitality”, or claims on women’s health or mental energy);
- lack of human studies with reliable measures of the claimed health benefit;
- claims referring to food categories which were considered to be too broad, such as “fruits and vegetables” and “dairy products” to be linked to specific effects.
The NDA Panel will continue to assess health claims, such as those submitted by individual applicants concerning claims based on children’s development or health.
