Article 13.1: winners and losers
The winners were letter vitamins and minerals with the bulk of the 30 per cent of claims that were approved coming from that sector.
Many dossiers, especially in regard to probiotics, were deemed inaccessible by EFSA because the nutrients in question (for probiotics, the particular strains) were not sufficiently characterised.
There is scope for these dossiers to resubmitted.
More significant are those opinions that found a lack of causality between nutrient and proposed health benefit.
Some opinions from EFSA’s Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA), such as the failure to support glucosamine and chondroitin’s ability to benefit joint health, are likely to send shockwaves through the industry.
Cédric Bourges, PhD, the general manager at French claims and research consultancy, NutraVeris, acknowledged as much when he said, “this is potentially devastating for the market”.
“But this opinion is not such a shock because the studies were not conducted on healthy populations and EFSA has made it clear this is required,” he said.
Partial or full negative opinions came in for astaxanthin which was found not to benefit eye health; folate not to benefit young mothers and several probiotic strains not to boost immunity or gut health.
The rejection of taurine as an energy booster will have a major effect on the energy drinks sector.
Positive opinions included calcium for bone health; vitamin B12 for energy and immunity and fluoride for tooth health.
NutraIngredients.com will provide more analysis, comment and feedback on the article 13.1 opinions in the coming days, but if you have something you want to say about the process, click the ‘have your say’ button below.
EFSA’s opinions can be found here.
A recently published guide to EFSA’s article 13.1 approach can be found here.
