EU trying to manage nutraceuticals

jfh · � #1 � 10-05-2009, 08:50 AM

I hope this problem stays away from the USA; but there are signs that it will be here anyway. The statement regarding probiotics seems ridiculous to me. How are they testing these claims? This is a no confidence vote from me.

Quote:

Thursday saw the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) hand in opinions on a swathe of nutrient dossiers � more than 500 � and about two thirds of them were rejected.

That means about 350 dossiers submitted by companies and associations failed to convince EFSA scientists that consuming certain nutrients could confer certain health benefits.

Given all the money and effort spent putting these dossiers together, this seems a bizarre situation. But it is the European Union health claims system we are talking about here.

Out of 100s of probiotic strains, not a single one was shown to have gut health, immunity or any other benefits. Most herbals were found wanting for a host of benefits from eye health to mood enhancement.

Even well-documented cardiovascular-related omega-3 benefits that already have approval in some member states, as well as other parts of the world, did not gain full support of EFSA�s assessment process.

Energy drink staple, taurine, was found not to boost energy levels. Dress it up however you like, but such an opinion can only take wind out of the booming energy drinks sector, especially when consumers hear of it and begin to doubt all the energy-boosting going on previously. Errrm...must have been the caffeine content all along.

All up EFSA said 70 per cent of the dossiers were inconclusive. Of the vindicated 30 per cent, letter vitamins performed the best, mostly for well-established relations like vitamin D and bone health.

Positives

EFSA said all along it would apply the same human, clinical-trial weighted process to all of the 4000+ health claims it has to process and that is what it has done. So there is clarity in that sense.

It has solidified its scientific method in these opinions and in guidance it has just issued to go with the publication of these opinions.

Perhaps if such guidance had been issued earlier there would be less dossiers of the likes of the glucosamine and chondroitin joint health effort that failed to impress EFSA. There is no ambiguity as to why. The study population was not the same as the target population. For EFSA � end of story.

If there was doubt before about such things there is none now, so in future submissions there should be less of these kind of method errors.

https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/...-claims-office

jaygray · � #2 � 10-05-2009, 12:32 PM

We have been fighting in the UK and submitting petitions with 100,000s of signatures on and yet the wheels still keep turning towards "banning" some of the best vitamins and herbs out there.

They don't care about the evidence.

jfh · � #3 � 10-05-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaygray

They don't care about the evidence.

They don't care.
They don't care.
etc...

Absolutely right. We have the same situation, in the US, from our Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They have been trying to control colloidal silver for over a year. It's been used for more than 100 years in folk medicine. They had to grandfather it in on their OK substances. I think some major pharmaceutical wants to make a product with it as the major ingredient. FDA is on the side of big business; or whomever will give them "bribes". So now the FDA is harassing (threatening) small businesses to close down production. Doesn't matter too much; as people can make it at home. It's just that the businesses can make a better quality silver with much smaller particles.

That's just one example.

saved1986 · � #4 � 10-05-2009, 03:56 PM

The evidence for natural remedies and alternative therapies is out there, but the drug companies hate it.

��Useful Links

Site Navigation