Choline and contribution to normal liver function of the foetus and exclusively breastfed infants: evaluation of a health claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Following an application from Procter & Gamble BV pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Belgium, the Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to choline and contribution to normal liver function of the foetus and exclusively breastfed infant. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to children's development and health. The Panel considers that choline is sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect proposed by the applicant is contribution ‘to normal foetal and infant development, especially liver’. The proposed target population is ‘unborn fetuses and breastfed infants’. Choline is involved in the structure of cell membranes, cell signalling, metabolism and transport of lipids and cholesterol and neurotransmitter synthesis. Although choline can be synthesised de novo by the human body, depletion-repletion studies in humans show that low choline intake leads to liver dysfunction and muscle damage, which are reverted by the administration of dietary choline. For these functions, de novo synthesis of choline by the human body is insufficient and choline must be obtained from dietary sources. No human studies have addressed the effect of low maternal dietary choline intake on liver function in the fetus or exclusively breastfed infants. However, the Panel considers that the biological role of choline in normal liver function and dietary choline being essential for the function applies to all ages, including fetus and infants. The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the intake of choline by pregnant and lactating women and contribution to normal liver function of the fetus and exclusively breastfed infants

Isomaltulose and normal energy-yielding metabolism: evaluation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Following an application from BENEO GmbH submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Germany, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to isomaltulose and normal energy-yielding metabolism. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim based on newly developed scientific evidence. The food proposed by the applicant as the subject of the health claim is isomaltulose. The Panel considers that isomaltulose is sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect proposed by the applicant is ‘normal energy-yielding metabolism’. The Panel considers that contribution to normal energy-yielding metabolism is a beneficial physiological effect. A number of human studies applying indirect calorimetry measurements or stable isotope methodologies have shown the postprandial metabolic utilisation of isomaltulose as energy source. However, all energy-containing macronutrients (i.e. carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) supply the body with energy and this property is not specific to isomaltulose. The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the intake of isomaltulose and contribution to energy-yielding metabolism. The following wording reflects the scientific evidence: ‘isomaltulose contributes to normal energy-yielding metabolism’. Since the contribution to energy-yielding metabolism is not specific to isomaltulose but applies to all energy containing macronutrients (i.e. carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) that supply the body with metabolisable energy and any amount would contribute to the claimed effect, the Panel cannot set conditions of use for this claim. The applicant proposes that isomaltulose should replace other sugars in foods and/or beverages. The target population is the general population

Appethyl® and reduction of body weight: evaluation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Following an application from Greenleaf Medical AB, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Sweden, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to Appethyl® and reduction of body weight. Appethyl® is an aqueous extract from spinach leaves standardised by the manufacturing process and its lipase/colipase inhibition capacity in vitro. The Panel considers that the food is sufficiently characterised. A reduction in body weight is a beneficial physiological effect for overweight/obese individuals. The applicant identified a total of three human intervention studies that investigated the effects of Appethyl® on body weight as being pertinent to the claim. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that Appethyl® (5 g/day for 12 weeks) had no effect on body weight as compared to placebo under minimal dietary counselling and moderate physical activity, and that no beneficial physiological effects are to be expected for the target population of overweight/obese individuals from the weight loss that could be attributed to the intervention with Appethyl® under predefined energy restriction and moderate physical activity. The Panel also considered that the effect of Appethyl® (5 g/day for 24 weeks) on body weight maintenance after initial weight loss shown in one study has not been replicated in different settings, which questions the external validity of the results, and that no evidence was provided for a plausible mechanism by which daily consumption of Appethyl® could exert a sustained effect on body weight in humans. The Panel concludes that a cause-and-effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of Appethyl® and a reduction of body weight under the conditions of use proposed by the applicant

Organic foods and contribution to the protection of body cells and molecules (lipids and DNA) from oxidative damage: evaluation of a health claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Following an application from Cyprus International Institute for Environmental and Public Health, Cyprus University of Technology, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Cyprus, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to organic foods and contribution to the protection of body cells and molecules (lipids and DNA) from oxidative damage. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to children's development and health. The food proposed by the applicant as the subject of the health claim is ‘organic foods’. The applicant claimed that organic foods are characterised by their lower level of pesticides residues compared with foods not labelled as organic. The Panel notes, however, that in the application and the human studies submitted the nutritional composition and the pesticide concentration in ‘organic food’ are not reported. The Panel considers that organic foods which are the subject of the health claim, and the foods that they are intended to replace are not sufficiently characterised. Therefore, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship cannot be established between the consumption of organic foods and contribution to the protection of body cells and molecules (lipids and DNA) from oxidative damage

Scientific advice related to nutrient profiling for the development of harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling and the setting of nutrient profiles for restricting nutrition and health claims on foods

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver scientific advice related to nutrient profiling for the development of harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling and the setting of nutrient profiles for restricting nutrition and health claims on foods. This Opinion is based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of human studies on nutritionally adequate diets, data from the Global Burden of Disease framework, clinical practice guidelines, previous EFSA opinions and the priorities set by EU Member States in the context of their Food-Based Dietary Guidelines and associated nutrient/food intake recommendations. Relevant publications were retrieved through comprehensive searches in PubMed. The nutrients included in the assessment are those likely to be consumed in excess or in inadequate amounts in a majority of European countries. Food groups with important roles in European diets have been considered. The Panel concludes that dietary intakes of saturated fatty acids (SFA), sodium and added/free sugars are above, and intakes of dietary fibre and potassium below, current dietary recommendations in a majority of European populations. As excess intakes of SFAs, sodium and added/free sugars and inadequate intakes of dietary fibre and potassium are associated with adverse health effects, they could be included in nutrient profiling models. Energy could be included because a reduction in energy intake is of public health importance for European populations. In food group/category-based nutrient profiling models, total fat could replace energy in most food groups owing to its high-energy density, while the energy density of food groups with low or no fat content may be well accounted for by the inclusion of (added/free) sugars. Some nutrients may be included in nutrient profiling models for reasons other than their public health importance, e.g. as a proxy for other nutrients of public health importance, or to allow for a better discrimination of foods within the same food category

Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Bi-07 contributes to increasing lactose digestion: evaluation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Following an application from DuPont Nutrition Biosciences ApS submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Ireland, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Bi-07 (Bi-07) and contribution to increasing lactose digestion. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim based on newly developed scientific evidence. The food proposed by the applicant as the subject of the health claim is Bi-07. The Panel considers that Bi-07 is sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect proposed by the applicant is \u2018improvement of lactose digestion\u2019. The Panel considers that increasing lactose digestion is a beneficial physiological effect for individuals with lactose maldigestion provided that the symptoms of lactose maldigestion are improved. Two human intervention studies which investigated a single dose effect of Bi-07 on lactose digestion using the hydrogen breath test, as well as on gastrointestinal symptoms were submitted. These studies show that consumption of Bi-07 (1012 CFU) increases lactose digestion in individuals with lactose maldigestion and that Bi-07 exhibits lactase activity in vitro. However, these studies provide no evidence that increasing lactose digestion through the consumption of Bi-07 (1012 CFU) improves gastrointestinal symptoms of lactose maldigestion, which is considered a beneficial physiological effect. The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis Bi-07 and a beneficial physiological effect (i.e. the improvement of symptoms of lactose maldigestion) in individuals with lactose maldigestion

Re-evaluation of behenic acid from mustard seeds to be used in the manufacturing of certain emulsifiers pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 – for permanent exemption from labelling

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to review a scientific assessment related to a notification from DuPont Nutrition Biosciences Aps on behenic acid from mustard seeds to be used in the manufacturing of certain emulsifiers pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 – for permanent exemption from labelling. The EC requested EFSA to consider comments raised by the German authorities in relation to: (a) the maximum amount of mustard protein that could be consumed from the emulsifiers manufactured from behenic acid (E470a, E471 and E477) on a single occasion and (b) the minimal observed eliciting dose (MOED) triggering allergic reactions in mustard-allergic individuals. The maximum amount of mustard protein content in behenic acid was re-assessed in view of new analytical data provided by the applicant. Intake estimates by the EFSA ANS Panel for E471 (adults) were used as a proxy for the combined intake (E470a, E471 and E477). Food challenge data and systematic reviews thereof deriving population minimal observed eliciting dose distributions for mustard protein were used to calculate the MOED and estimate the risk. The margin of exposure between the MOED (0.26 mg mustard protein) and the maximum amount of mustard protein that could be consumed from the emulsifiers on a single occasion (0.00895475 mg) is 29. It is predicted that between 0.1% and 1% of the mustard allergic population would react with mild objective symptoms to that dose. Overall, the assessment is conservative, particularly in relation to the exposure. Based on the information and data available, the NDA Panel concludes that it is extremely unlikely (≤ 1% probability) that oral consumption of emulsifiers to be manufactured using behenic acid from mustard seeds (i.e. E470a, E471 and E477) will trigger an allergic reaction in mustard-allergic individuals under the proposed conditions of use

Scientific Opinion related to a notification from Lyckeby Starch AB on barley starch to be used in the manufacturing of several foods as ingredient, of the food additive modified starch and of glucose syrups pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 – for permanent exemption from labelling

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on barley starch to be used in the manufacturing of several foods as ingredient, of the food additive modified starch and of glucose syrups pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, as notified by Lyckeby Starch AB. The applicant provided information on the manufacturing process and data on the content of total protein, gluten and allergenic proteins in barley starch. The applicant also performed IgE-binding in vitro tests, which were considered inconclusive by the Panel. No human intervention studies with barley starch or food products thereof were provided by the applicant, except for a DBPCFC with barley starch hydrolysate in cereal allergic individuals. The Panel notes that glucose syrups based on barley have been already exempted from allergen labelling as per Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and that the current application is for the exemption from labelling of all foods manufactured from barley starch. In all the scenarios considered for the anticipated intake, the calculated total protein intake from barley starch was above the MED/MOED for wheat (expressed in mg of wheat protein) in adults (10 mg) and children (2 mg). The Panel concludes that the data available are insufficient to conclude on the likelihood of adverse allergic reactions in cereal-allergic individuals upon consumption of barley starch under the conditions of use proposed by the applicant, and that the consumption of foodstuffs produced from barley starch as starting (raw) material or foodstuffs containing barley starch as an ingredient is unlikely to cause an adverse reaction in individuals with coeliac disease who are not allergic to cereals, provided that the value of gluten for ‘gluten-free’ foods (20 mg/kg) is not exceeded

Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin B6

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin B6. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted by a contractor. The relationship between excess vitamin B6 intakes and the development of peripheral neuropathy is well established and is the critical effect on which the UL is based. A lowest-observed-effect-level (LOAEL) could not be established based on human data. A reference point (RP) of 50 mg/day is identified by the Panel from a case–control study, supported by data from case reports and vigilance data. An uncertainty factor (UF) of 4 is applied to the RP to account for the inverse relationship between dose and time to onset of symptoms and the limited data available. The latter covers uncertainties as to the level of intake that would represent a LOAEL. This leads to a UL of 12.5 mg/day. From a subchronic study in Beagle dogs, a LOAEL of 50 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day can be identified. Using an UF of 300, and a default bw of 70 kg, a UL of 11.7 mg/day can be calculated. From the midpoint of the range of these two ULs and rounding down, a UL of 12 mg/day is established by the Panel for vitamin B6 for adults (including pregnant and lactating women). ULs for infants and children are derived from the UL for adults using allometric scaling: 2.2–2.5 mg/day (4–11 months), 3.2–4.5 mg/day (1–6 years), 6.1–10.7 mg/day (7–17 years). Based on available intake data, EU populations are unlikely to exceed ULs, except for regular users of food supplements containing high doses of vitamin B6