Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to Preservation® and “rapid recovery of cellular activity post stress” pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Tabs

Article
Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies
Acknowledgements

The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Claims: Carlo Agostoni, Jean-Louis Bresson, Susan Fairweather-Tait, Marina Heinonen, Ambroise Martin, Hildegard Przyrembel, Yolanda Sanz, Alfonso Siani, Anders Sjödin, Sean (J.J.) Strain, Inge Tetens, Hendrik Van Loveren, Hans Verhagen and Peter Willatts for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion.

EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal 2013;11(7):3330 [8 pp.].
doi
10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3330
Panel members at the time of adoption
Carlo Agostoni, Roberto Berni Canani, Susan Fairweather-Tait, Marina Heinonen, Hannu Korhonen, Sébastien La Vieille, Rosangela Marchelli, Ambroise Martin, Androniki Naska, Monika Neuhäuser-Berthold, Grażyna Nowicka, Yolanda Sanz, Alfonso Siani, Anders Sjödin, Martin Stern, Sean (J.J.) Strain, Inge Tetens, Daniel Tomé, Dominique Turck and Hans Verhagen
Contact
Type
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
On request from
Competent Authority of Malta following an application by ICP Ltd
Question Number
EFSA-Q-2013-00021
Adopted
10 July 2013
Published
26 July 2013
Affiliation
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
Note
Abstract

Following an application from ICP Ltd, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Malta, the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to Preservationc and “rapid recovery of cellular activity post stress”. The Panel considers that Preservation®, which contains an extract of prickly pear cactus Opuntia ficus-indica, is sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect is “rapid recovery of cellular activity post stress”. The claimed effect is general and non-specific, and the references provided did not provide information which could be used to define a specific beneficial physiological effect. The Panel considers that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not comply with the criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

Keywords
Preservation®, Prickly pear cactus, Opuntia ficus-indica, stress, heat shock proteins, health claims
Print on demand
Number of Pages
8