International Women’s Day

Oggi celebriamo la Festa delle Donne. A Hylobates, crediamo che le donne che lavorano sono essenziali per il nostro progresso. Antonella, Francesca, Lucilla e Sonia sono membri fondamentali del nostro team – nel lavoro scientifico, nel project management, nelle scienze cosmetiche, e nell’amministrazione. Senza di loro, Hylobates sarebbe un’azienda molto peggiore, ammesso che potesse esistere.

Sappiamo anche che le donne, comprese le madri tra loro, sono risorse straordinarie per le aziende, e creare le condizioni in cui possano lavorare bene – orari flessibili, telelavoro – non è un gesto per aiutare le donne, ma serve al successo della nostra azienda. Dobbiamo continuare a pensare a modi migliori e più efficaci perché possano lavorare con noi.

Tanti auguri a tutte!

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/annual/international_womens_day/en/index.html

 

Today we celebrate Women’s Day. At Hylo, we believe that working women are essential to our progress. Antonella, Francesca, Lucilla and Sonia are key members of our team – in science, project management, cosmetic sciences and administration. Hylobates would be a much worse company, if it existed at all, without them.

We are also aware that women, including mothers, are extraordinary resources for businesses, and that creating the conditions for them to work well – flexible schedules, tele-working – is not helping them, it’s helping our company. We need to keep thinking of new and better ways.

Best wishes to you all!

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/annual/international_womens_day/en/index.html

– Hylo’s Team –

Twitter-based food risk communication still evolving

Here at Hylo we are following with attention the development of social media-based food risk communication. For example we participate to the EC project FoodRisc. We have also made a preliminary analysis of factors that may affect food recall communication on Twitter. For example we have looked at factors potentially influencing official retweets of the UK FSA’s risk-related messages. We have also produced a simple diagram of two different communication styles, those of the UK FSA and of the USDA: USDA uses hashtags, while the UK FSA seems better at increasing the targeting of message to affected groups.

Luca Bucchini – Managing director

Communicating food recalls to consumers is becoming more common in Italy. Leaf Italia, owner of the Sperlari brand, has gone public with a foreign body-caused recall of pralines.

 This breaks with Italy’s reluctance to go public with recalls, even if – interestingly – the company has prohibited the copying or distributing or discussing the press release issued on their website (for that reason we do not link to it; this discussion is based on what is reported on another source, see below).

“Companies in Italy have in their procedures to go public in these cases”, says Hylo’s Luca Bucchini, “Nevertheless, companies and national authorities have hesitated on the ground that ‘nobody ever goes public with a recall’. This is clearly changing. For example, last year, Carrefour went public. In this case, one should also note that foreign bodies in Italy have always been a low priority for regulators, in contrast with the UK or the US. As in other EU countries, regulators focus on microbial or chemical risk. This is therefore a significant departure from tradition, and we expect to see more of this since regional authorities are eager on this, and several companies were just waiting for someone to break the ice”.

At Hylo we believe that ordinary recalls, even if publicized, when no serious illnesses are involved, are not detrimental to a brand – Ikea is perhaps the best example – and are in line with EU law.

This news piece is not based on the Sperlari website. It is based on the information below:

http://www.ilfattoalimentare.it/sicurezza-alimentare-allerta-dalla-valle-daosta.html

Hylo Team

European Commission and Member States on food supplement classification, labeling of wine and health claims

‘On 1 February 2012 the EC Standing Commettee on the food chain and animal health met in order to discuss many topics related to the general food law. Below a feedback of main discussions, with Hylo’s point of view.

Status of the products placed on the market as food supplement/dietetic food for special medical purposes

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 –

Hylobates presents the PlantLIBRA Project in the journal Food & Function

Authors from Hylobates and the University of Milan explain the goals of the EC-funded project PlantLIBRA in the recently published online paper of the journal Food & Function: “The PlantLIBRA Project: how we intend to innovate the science of botanicals” by Luca Bucchini, Alejandro Rodarte and Patrizia Restani

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  –

No more botulin in olives, please

Preserved olives (“Organic Olives Stuffed with Almonds”) made in Italy have apparently caused a tragic death in Finland, because of botulism. They are being recalled across Europe (in the UK, in Ireland).

At the time of writing, I firmly hope that there is no further exposure to the product, no further illness, and that a totally preventable death does at least help stave off pain from other lives and families.

The tragic event relates to some lines of reflection relevant to our current research and consulting work.

First, one will note that the recall (which concerns currently all batches of the product) is now clearly mentioned on the firm`s website. Starting on October 28, the news had some traction in Italy too. Informing the public of own recalls through their own websites is considered best practice, though only a minority of companies appear to do so on either side of the Atlantic; apparently, on that day the company sent a Press Release to Italy’s leading news agency, ANSA.

Italian authorities, who are certainly taking action in the field, have also been silent about the issue, including whether the same product is distributed locally (it turns out it is), till today, October 31 (the Ministry of Health seems to confirm that the olives were on sale in Italy too, and that the plant has been shut down). Normally Italian authorities go public when botulism is suspected, unlike when other foodborne disease is (Listeriosis, Salmonellosis, etc), or when there is no illness. Italian authorities generally believe that they are capable of controlling risks, and that information to consumers would not reduce the risk to consumers but would result in undue alarmism, with unwarranted losses to the relevant food sector. This is in line with the attitude in Germany and other EU countries, and contrasts sharply with the US/UK approach, though in principle the UK has the same regulatory system (a lay-man reading of the EU General Food Safety Law would support UK`s practice). However, botulism is an exception, and in this case there was lots of media pressure, and a tragic death to confirm the need to go public.

Generally, however, even beyond botulism, we expect more food recalls to be publicized in Italy and other previously shy EU countries, because of several reasons.

Consumers are becoming used to nonfood recalls (for example, those of IKEA are common place), even if they see very few food-related ones. Moreover, when a food recall has in fact been made public and there were no illnesses, the media impact has been nihil or benign. Therefore, the brand damage of issuing a press release in case of a recall can now be estimated with some confidence. The cost of not going public early, on the other hand, is also becoming clearer: consumers are coming to expect public recalls as part of a company`s social responsibility. In this case, the delay has further tarnished, or probably killed, the brand reputation – when the issue was clearly too large to remain silent.

There also seems to be more willingness of international companies to apply best practice across the EU, even against national norms. Carrefour went recently public with a recall.

Also, some online media blogs and magazines are increasing their attention to this topic, and put pressure on firms (and authorities).

Leaving communication aside, organic, or home-made style, preserved olives have caused recurring botulism problems in Italy and elsewhere. This is striking. We have understood botulism for almost two centuries, and there is is strong food technology to keep the toxins out of our food. Preserving food requires knowledge, process and controls: food safety is not a malicious invention of multinational funded, greedy, positivist tradition haters. Most organic or home-made style food businesses may accept the anti-science rhetoric, but refrain from practicing it. Nevertheless, a few, smaller ones may not realize the need for skilled staff; more do not realize that validation of processes is not auditors`latest oddity. How much this applies to the present case it is early to say, though we know for sure that botulin should not have been there, and that the technology to prevent it is available.

In this respect, the organic food industry should be bold, and use its means, without excuses, to rid us of the hazards, least this tarnishes the organic brand (through certification they have strong tools). There is certainly a place for auditors, and official control staff to just say no when preserving can`t be done properly.

In summary, we advise to review recall plans under the communication header and make sure not to make, or stop making, preserved foods (my steadfast advice to all agriturismi is not to do it) or, if you do, that you can make it properly (for every recipe).

And let`s hope nobody hears, or dies, of botulism and olives again.

Luca Bucchini, Managing Director

Update:  on Nov 1st, the FDA made the recall (which is of a voluntary nature) public.

Hylo and PlantLIBRA partners present proposal of risk-benefit approach for plant in food supplements

Hylobates scientist Dr. Antonella Guzzon presented the proposal of risk-benefit approach for plant in food supplements during PlantLIBRA’s first Policy Advisory Board (PAB) meeting in Brussels from the 27th to the 28th of September.  In this event, project partners discussed with policy regulators on the approaches to facilitate science-based decision-making in this area. Dr. Guzzon presented the approach in progress which, based on existing approaches for risk- benefit assessment, proposes to develop a framework for assessing the strength, consistency and biological plausibility of the evidence of the benefits and risks plant food supplements. Within this framework, to each kind of evidence (in vivo evidence, tradition of use, animal and human evidence) related to a specific claimed effect for a certain plant food supplement a category (from convincing evidence to insufficient) would be as attributed.  This should enable the risk assessor to make a statement on the result of the risk-benefit assessment, i.e. whether risks or benefits are dominating, explained Dr. Guzzon. Additionally, the model considers prior beliefs on the existing scientific knowledge on the botanical and how new studies and data can change those prior beliefs. Finally, in order to make the process transparent, all these steps will clearly described, In this sense an open web source accessible to everybody and therefore exposed to open criticism, will be used to develop the model for risk-benefit assessment of plant food supplements.

  The PlantLIBRA Management Team

%d bloggers like this: