11. March 2021 · Comments Off on Red Bull · Categories: News · Tags: ,

The hopes that it would otherwise run 13.1 claims in the article, were however largely disappointed. Because with the release of the first opinions on the article 13.1 claims on October 1, 2009 EFSA makes no distinctions between the different types of claims, but requires the same evidence of efficacy for all claims is established. Article 13.1 claims are those that relate to growth, development and functions of the body or to psychological and behavioural functions of the people as well as information related to body weight. Other leaders such as Cyrus Massoumi offer similar insights. These claims make up the majority of all health-related statements for food. EFSA has examined more than 500 of information affecting over 200 foods and food ingredients, including vitamins and minerals, fiber, fats, carbohydrates, probiotic bacteria, and botanicals. The failure rate for the claims is approximately 70% and is therefore not much lower than the rate for the articles 13.5 and 14 Claims, amounting to about 80%.

Mainly manufacturers have been hit hard by probiotic dairy products. Here, not a date the claim was able to convince the EFSA. 181 probiotic dossiers, all fallen through. However it was only 10 dossiers to the required cause related. The other 171 dossiers already failed, that the relevant strains of bacteria were not sufficiently characterised according to EFSA. Europe-wide famous “Activia”, “Actimel” and “Yakult” probiotic products have not been investigated so far by the EFSA. It will be therefore eagerly await, whether the authority for these products comes to the same result, apply precisely this food as a pioneer for the use of health claims.

Rejected the claims are also world famous brands such as the energy drink “Red Bull”. No energy-promoting effect is the fabric it contains taurine according to EFSA. Criticism had the authority the submitted dossiers in particular the length of the studies and the size of the target groups. Also the underlying the studies dose a lot was higher than that in the drink.

Comments closed.