TABLETTING: BOOST INNOVATION and PRODUCTION
Roquette
Breaking News on Supplements & Nutrition - EuropeUS edition
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.
Spotlight
  Peruvian fishery ‘well placed’ for eco-certification, says MSC on world’s primary omega-3 sourceThe world’s biggest omega-3 source – Peru’s anchovy fishery – is moving toward Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)... |
  It pays to invest: Claim expert offers insights on the pitfalls of clinical trial designInvestment for the design and running of clinical trials is a major expense for the industry, but... |
 Slow progress: UN children’s agency calls for action to combat childhood undernutritionThe United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has reiterated calls for more to be done to improve nutrition... |
 Probiotics may boost mental performance for diabetics: Animal dataDaily consumption of probiotics may improve the mental performance of lab animals with diabetes, says a new... |
 Vitamin D slashes blood pressure and CVD risk, study confirmsThere is a direct and causal relationship between vitamin D status, high blood pressure and the risk... |
 RESEARCHER aims to replicate ATTENTION-GRABBING RESULTSEye-catching study suggests 5-Hour Energy boost barely beats caffeine aloneA preliminary study in the US assessing the efficacy of 5-Hour Energy found that the energy shot... |
Most Popular News
Live Supplier Webinars
On demand Supplier Webinars
Probiotics: The Path to Better Digestive Health through Quality Clinical Trials
DuPont Nutrition & Health
DuPont Nutrition & Health
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