4.5 Article

Assessment of health claims in the field of bone: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES)

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 193-199

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-011-1561-x

Keywords

Bone; Health claim; Nutrition; Surrogate

Funding

  1. GlaxoSmithKline
  2. IBSA
  3. MSD
  4. Novartis
  5. Rottapharm
  6. Servier
  7. Theramex
  8. Wyeth
  9. Danone
  10. Greentech
  11. Lesieur
  12. Rousselot
  13. Negma
  14. Amgen
  15. Roche
  16. Nycomed
  17. UCB
  18. Expanscience
  19. Lundbeck
  20. Janssen Cilag
  21. Horus
  22. Eli Lilly
  23. Merck Sharpe Dohme
  24. Novo Nordisk
  25. Procter Gamble
  26. Sanofi-Aventis
  27. Flemish Fund for Scientific Research
  28. Lilly
  29. Merckle
  30. NPS
  31. Genevrier
  32. Teijin
  33. Teva
  34. Ebewee Pharma
  35. Zodiac
  36. Analis
  37. Bristol Myers Squibb

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Health claims for food products in Europe are permitted if the nutrient has been shown to have a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect. This paper defines health claims related to bone health and provides guidelines for the design and the methodology of clinical studies to support claims. Introduction Regulation (EC) no. 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims targeting food products was introduced in Europe stating that health claims shall only be permitted if the substance in respect of which the claim is made has been shown to have a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect. The objective of this paper is to define health claims related to bone health and to provide guidelines for the design and the methodology of clinical studies which need to be adopted to assert such health claims. Methods Literature review followed by a consensus discussion during two 1-day meetings organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES). Results The GREES identified six acceptable health claims related to bone health based on the potential of food products to show an effect on either the bioavailability of calcium or osteoclast regulatory proteins or bone turnover markers or bone mineral density or bone structure or fracture incidence. The GREES considers that well-designed human randomized controlled trial on a relevant outcome is the best design to assess health claims. The substantiation of health claim could also be supported by animal studies showing either an improvement in bone strength with the food product or showing the relationship between changes induced by the food product on a surrogate marker and changes in bone strength. Conclusion The consensus reached is that the level of health claim may differ according to the surrogate endpoint used and on additional animal studies provided to support the claim.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available