Breaking News on Supplements, Health & Nutrition - Europe US edition | APAC edition

Report abuse about a comment

Its not EFSA's fault

EFSA had to follow the instructions given by the EC. Therefore, the type of assessment of 13.1 claims was not chosen by EFSA and they cannot be blamed for harsh evaluation criteria of 13.1 claims.

Secondly, the unfair part, in my view, was the "applying of two different kinds of measures" for 13.1 claims: the vitamins/minerals claims were accepted based on text book knowledge, whereas other nutrients were evaluated based on intervention studies, although text book knowledge exists for them.

Many vitamins and minerals would have not won claims based on gold standard clinical trial evidence. To a great extent, the evidence for vit/mins resulted from deficiency epidemics. Ethically, such conditions cannot be used in todays clinical trial settings.

Hence, many 13.1 claims were evaluated as described in Art 15-18 and others were not.

In conclusion, I do not think that the evaluation of the 13.1 claims was consistent.

Posted by Dr. Christiane Alexander
19 March 2012 | 11h43

Please fill in the box below to tell us why you feel the post breaks our rules. When you are finished, click on "Send" so that it can be reviewed by a moderator.

Your name *
Your email *

We will not publish your email on the site

Reason *

Back to: Irish MEP: “We have opened a can of worms that EFSA and the Commission would have much preferred remained closed”