Member States and EC have recently debated whether the same product can be classified and sold as a food supplement and as food for special medical purposes simultaneously by two entities. EC said yes in theory, no in practice, and pointed out that art. 14 of Dir. 2009/39 cannot apply to food supplements (and quite confusingly mutual recognition would not apply).

In Hylo’s view, the borders between the two pieces of legislation are so blurred, especially with the vast discretion Member States exercise in this area, and the national pieces of legislation that they have put together (including Spain), that this will continue to be uncertain. Some Member States have a strong preference for dietetic foods, some others prefer food supplements; and several Member States have consistently refused to accept the interpretation of other Member States (it is unclear if the EC was supporting this attitude with the remark on mutual recognition).

This is unlikely to change as long as dietetic foods exist, or a single process is established. Confusion will continue to persist.

Spermidine and related health claim

The spermidine and prolongation of the growing phase (anagen) of the hair cycle health claim proposed by the Italian pharma company Giuliani Spa (also known for the GABA novel food application) continues to be mired in controversy. EFSA had opined in December 2011 that since the population studied for the claim (and likely beneficiaries) has a pathological condition. So the claim would be medicinal, and not allowed within Reg. 1924/2006.

The EC has commented, and we @Hylo will follow with interest to see how it goes (not well but it’s still uncertain). Whether EFSA is coherent on this matter, given hypercholestoremia is also a disease, it’s another matter that deserves in-depth analysis.

Sugar beet fibre and related health claim

Member States and the EC seem to have agreed to soften EFSA’s wording on sugar beet fibre and increasing faecal bulk. EFSA proposed “Sugar beet fibre increases faecal bulk”, EC and MS decided to say “sugar beet fibre contributes to an increase in faecal bulk”.

We Hylobates observe that it is not unexpected that the direct, simpler style of health claims in the English-speaking world would be rejected at the EU-level where broadly fuzzier claims are favored by regulators. Moreover, this decision signals the intention of regulators to intervene in the wording of claims much more aggresively than could be anticipated. It is not entirely clear that consumers would perceive the two wordings in different ways.

Status of allergens in wine

After the rejection  of scientific studies on allergens in wine presented in order to avoid the application of allergen labeling requirements, there has been much speculation on what would happen. Member States and the EC could not agree on a solution that would make everyone happy. However, the EC indicated that a decision should come soon – and that it should be pragmatic.

Selling of foods beyond maximum durability

Last but not least, Member States discussed the selling of foods beyond maximum durability at the 1st February meeting. Most said it’s possible but it’s also a complex issue. Our view: each Member State will go its own way.

- Sport Nutrition Team -

Sport Nutrition Team

First of all EFSA states (in accordance with Reg. 1924/2006) that the 2 main requirements to substantiate a claim are that the claimed effects have to be considered as a beneficial physiological effects and that it must be supported by adequate studies in humans.

In the first part of the document the status of ‘antioxidant’ is discussed: the concept of “antioxidant” as a benefit is rejected, but this aspect will be discussed more specifically in another post.

Regarding protection from oxidative damage, which can be claimed and is intended as proven protection of body cells and molecules (i.e. DNA, proteins and lipids) from oxidative damage, EFSA established some general requirements to substantiate these claim with reference to all the cellular structures:

-          An appropriate method of assessment should be able to determine accurately and specifically the oxidative modification of the target molecule in vivo (at least an appropriate market of oxidative modification needed).

-          A marker (method) cannot be accepted for substantiation when (technical) limitations are considered to be severe.  

 Then, as reported above, the food/constituent has to show a real beneficial effect on target molecules and it has to be demonstrated by  setting up adequate scientific studies, involving humans. Below the methods accepted to validate the beneficial physiological effect, specific for every different cellular body:

-          Proteins: the only validated method to detect oxidative damage is HPLC-MS. Proteins by products analysis (ELISA or other colorimetric methods) shows some limitation, then they cannot be considered valid alone, but just in combination with other direct methods.

-          Lipids: F2-isoprostanes in 24-h urine samples is the recommended method. LDL oxidised particles (using specific antibodies) and phosphatidylcholine hydroperoxides (using HPLC) are validated methods as well. Not allowed markers: reactive substances (TBARS), malondialdehyde (MDA), lipid peroxides, HDL-associated paraoxonases, conjugated dienes, breath hydrocarbons, auto-antibodies against LDL particles, and ex vivo LDL resistance to oxidation).

-          DNA: recommended method is the modified comet assay which allow the detection of oxidised DNA bases (e.g. use of endonuclease III to detect oxidised pyrimidines). Conventional comet assay and other methods are not suitable.

Other methods still widely used to measure antioxidant properties are to be considered worthless in the perspective of health claims. This applies to the evaluation of past studies, and future studies of benefits of food.

Armando – Sport Nutrition team

For example, in theory, maximum levels of vitamins have nothing to do with health claims, and are notoriously one of the least harmonizable bits of food supplement law.

EFSA gave a favourable opinion on the effects of vitamin D and the reduction of the risk of falling, which is a risk factor in the development of bone fractures. EFSA also set conditions of use of 20μg of daily intake of vitamin D. This of course was not well taken by those EU Member States who have a deep dislike for high vitamin levels. The European Commission (EC) decided to go back and ask EFSA if those levels are safe. Assuming EFSA will say that they are, it will be interesting to watch how the vote on the health claim authorization goes, and how the regulation on this claim will be enforceable in some MS.

The other interesting bit would seem deeply confusing to most people. If there is a EU law stating that you can say that food A provides a certain benefit B to humans, then most people would assume that  food A can be legally sold across the Union.

However, this is totally wrong, as several Member States remarked at the December 5 meeting. Member States have the right to say that food A is a medicine in their country, so it cannot be sold there as a food, and you cannot claim that benefit B. While this seems very complex, the European Court of Justice has said that it is ok, so the EC will have to play along and add a recital clarifying this.

In any case, it is clear that winning EFSA’s approval is not the end of the story.

- Sports Nutrition Team -

PS: the implementing rules for art. 8 of Reg. 1925/2006 (ie, possibility to restrict use of other subtances, such as aminoacids, botanicals, etc)  moved forward. We expect some trouble from this. Germany’s request to list substances that cannot be used in food has for the moment been sidelined.

The first issue on the agenda was a health claim related to slowly digestible starch and its role in on reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses compared to rapidly digestible starch. The claim received a favourable opinion from EFSA under the new science mechanism (art. 13.5 of Reg. 1924/2006).

The applicant used the Englyst method to characterize the food, and EFSA agreed. Nevertheless, the Commission had doubts on whether Member States (MS) were able to use the method for enforcement. Also, EC officers wondered whether ‘slowly digestible starch’ is understood by consumers across the EU.

In fact, most MS said the method could not be mentiond in the final regulation, since itis not internationally recognized, and that the wording of the health claim should be improved.

In summary, getting EFSA to say yes bring you only half-way, and there is a risk that enforcement of the regulation will be even messier than the EFSA process.

- Sports Nutrition Team -

The exceptions include “claims requiring further consideration by the risk managers before a decision on them can be taken; claims requiring a further assessment by EFSA; and claims on “botanical” substances; that have not received an assessment by EFSA following a request by the Commission”. Such claims will be listed on the EC website (botanicals, probiotics, caffeine, some odd claims on arginine, one claim on fructose and one claim on glycaemic carbohydrates, etc). Hopefully the text will be clear enough to avoid unwarranted enforcement (and the situation with caffeine is rapidly resolved).

The Committee also accepted that the claims of beta-glucans cannot be extended beyond EFSA opinion (to all beta-glucans); clarified the conditions for use on water-related health claims and on glucomannan; extended health claims valid for some weight loss products to all products complying with Directive 96/8/EC; and said no to a claim on fat and to one on sodium (as they are not beneficial).

On a related matter, providing a spark of hope, the Committee approved a new Regulation refusing market authorisation to some claims. This smaller Regulation will grant  more generous terms extending “the period granted to operators and national controlling authorities to adapt to the new requirements of the draft Regulation to all claims used in commercial communications and not only to those used on the label of products”. There is widespread concern that enacting terms have been too stringent for stakeholders so far, especially when the health claim had legally been on the market for some time. Hopefully, this reasoning will be applied more broadly in the future.

- Sports Nutrition Team -

The main changes compared to the previous values concern vitamin C and some B vitamins.

In particular, the maximum level for vitamin C has been raised to 500 mg (625 % RDA), compared to the previous level of 240 mg (300 % RDA).

Regarding B vitamins the greatest change involves vitamin B12, which goes from a maximum level of 3.75 mcg (150% RDA) to 18 mcg (720% RDA).

Other important changes are related to B1, B2 and B6 vitamins: maximum levels have been doubled to 4.2 mg (382 % RDA), 4.8 (343 % RDA) and 6 mg (428 % RDA), respectively. Niacin’s previous maximum level of 27 mg (169 % RDA) has been increased to 36 mg (225 % RDA).

This update signals Italy’s willingness to abandon a xRDA approach and adopt a risk-based approach to setting maximum levels, in line with Directive 2002/46 and Court of Justice case-law. Only few EU member states, such as Belgium, still adopt a xRDA approach.

The guidelines are effective immediately, and likely to be used as guidelines for enforcement.

- Sports Nutrition Team -

The paper presents the consortium’s plan for improving the science of botanicals and risk and benefit assessment methodologies for plant food supplements (PFS). In this 4 year project, partners are working to expand and generate knowledge on PFS through systematic reviews, intake surveys, new studies on benefits, risks and new analytical findings to ultimately ensure a safer use of PFS by consumers. By doing so, they plan to address data, methodology and consensus gaps in cooperation with different stakeholders and decision makers in the PFS sector.

- Alejandro Rodarte  -