Diuretic science not up to scratch, says consultancy

03-Nov-2010 - Last updated on 03-Nov-2010 at 16:47 GMT

Related tags Kidney

Mostly herbal based diuretic health claims submissions had little chance of winning positive opinions from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), especially given a paucity of clinical studies in the submitted dossiers.

Cedric Bourges from the French consultancy, Nutravetris, said even if more clinical evidence was in evidence in the dossiers, there was little hope of progress as EFSA’s health claims panel had dismissed diuretic effects as being beneficial for health.

“The lack of relationship between diuretic effect and health evaluated by EFSA definitely kills all the diuretic products on the nutrition and health market,” he said. “Thus, the question for professionals is the following one: how can these products be saved?”

Too few clinical studies

Of the science submitted, most failed to impress EFSA’s Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA).

“The scientific evidence is not sufficient,” Bourges observed. “Too few clinical studies justify the claimed effects: The evidence is based solely on traditional uses, in vitro and animal studies. Certain ingredients are promising but despite strong results in animal studies, the results in humans are non-existent and therefore do not meet the requirements of the EFSA.”

But the mismatch between the state of science for most botanicals and the requirements of EFSA was acknowledged by the European Commission last month, as it decided to remove them from the process for further consideration at an unspecified future date.

Of diuretics, the latest NDA opinion collated more than 100 herbal submissions relating to diuretic effects and found that, “the evidence provided does not establish that an increase in renal water elimination potentially leading to a negative fluid balance is a beneficial physiological effect for the general healthy population.”

“The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of the food(s)/food constituent(s) which are the subject of this opinion and a beneficial physiological effect related to an increase in renal water elimination.”

Claimed effects included: “kidneys health”, “urinary health”, “bladder health”, “health of lower urinary tract”, “blood health”, “elimination”, “urinary system benefits”.

That opinion can be found here.

These matters and more will be discussed at the second NutraIngredients Health Claims 2010 conference to be held in Brussels on December 1. The conference will deconstruct the latest article 13.1 claim opinions, hear first-hand experience from players like Kellogg’s, outline regulation-coping marketing strategies, and feature comparison with the US claims system from a key figure there.

For more details click here.