欧盟拒绝DHA有助于提高记忆功能等声称

(1)

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods, as defined in that Regulation, are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’, for a scientific assessment, as well as to the Commission and the Member States for information.

(3)

The Authority is to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned.

(4)

The Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.

(5)

Following an application from Ecopharma BVBA, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to Fabenol® Max, a standardised aqueous extract from Phaseolus vulgaris L., and the reduction of the absorption of carbohydrates (Question No EFSA-Q-2015-00123 (2)). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Fabenol® Max reduces the absorption of carbohydrates’.

(6)

On 23 February 2016, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which noted that the claimed effect was not sufficiently defined and that the applicant did not provide any further information as requested by the Authority. Therefore, on the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded that a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of Fabenol® Max and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.

(7)

Following an application from DSM Nutritional Products, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and improvement of memory function (Question No EFSA-Q-2015-00456 (3)). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘DHA contributes to improved memory function’.

(8)

On 2 May 2016, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that, on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of DHA and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.

(9)

Following an application from Tate & Lyle PLC, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to polydextrose and normal defecation (Question No EFSA-Q-2015-00550 (4)). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Polydextrose contributes to an improved bowel function by increasing stool bulk’.

(10)

On 25 May 2016, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that, on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of polydextrose and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,