The Parma-based agency is no doubt slapping itself on the back for completing an exhaustive and gargantuan task, but industry and academia would prefer slapping the face of EFSA’s health claim panelists who have for the best part of three years relentlessly rejected so much nutrition science.
As the negative opinions piled up, along with the more specific claims in article 13.5 (emerging and proprietary science) and article 14 (children’s development and disease risk factor reduction) these same academics, NGOs and industry stakeholders politely disagreed with EFSA’s conclusions among each other, at conferences, in the press and via official channels established by the nutrition and health claims regulation (NHCR).
When these disagreements gained no traction with EFSA’s Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA), the tone became more antagonistic, letters were fired off to MEPs and European Commission figures, the annoyance and frustration palpable when the NDA hosted rare public meetings.
Academics formed groups like the one born late last year when gut health scientists banded together (www.gut-health.eu) to protest the treatment of pre- and probiotic submissions, and whose members are learning that lobbying is not something scientists can afford to ignore in the new European nutrition science environment.
A first class organisation (not)
But in the face of a scientific agency that has made it made blatantly clear that its pharma-style approach to nutrition science is not going to change one iota, battered academics and business folk are throwing their hands in the air and the gallows-humour is emerging.
Take this highly ironic missive from prominent probiotic researcher, Glenn Gibson, PhD, from Reading University in the UK.
“I am sure that EFSA are a first class organisation who know exactly what they are doing by putting the science first. I have to admire their stance in protecting consumers by trying to ensure that all valid pro- and prebiotic products will disappear from Europe within a few years.”
Or this from Gregor Reid, PhD, the Canada-based researcher who has spent more than 20 years researching the ability of probiotics to benefit vaginal health, and who was stunned last week when EFSA concluded vaginal health via nutritional supplements not ingested orally, was not a matter for the regulation.
“I have sent the EFSA committee a picture of the female anatomy. It seems they are unaware of the vagina's location. Next, they will receive a large sack of mail, actually close to one billion letters. They will believe it's fan mail and get excited for the first time in five years, but it will be from women who suffer from vaginal and bladder infections, letting them appreciate the failings of drugs, diagnostics and management practices approved by EFSA's drug colleagues.”
Professor Reid, like a lot of researchers in the area has reached the end of his tether, and no amount of consoling from the NDA about how the experts on the panel are bound by the regulation, and that research is one thing but panel opinions are another, is going to change that.
In the meantime, as the conspiracy theories grow about hidden agendas fueled by the absence of a single minority opinion among all those 1000s of opinions, the NHCR’s effect on Europe's healthy foods, ingredients and supplements purveyors comes into view.
“We’re off to Asia,” the owner of a promising French fruit extract firm told NutraIngredients at a recent conference, as he left the hall where an NDA panellist was telling attendees about its approach to guarantee only strong claims made it to market.
“We give up on Europe.”
Shane Starling is the editor of NutraIngredients.com. He dreams in health claims. If you would like to comment on this article email shane.starling'at'wrbm.com.