ID 759 - Guma arabska

PL: Guma arabska
EN: Acacia gum (gum arabic)
Pdf: acacia gum

Oświadczenie (2)

1. Charakterystyka żywności / składnika

The food constituent that is the subject of the health claim is acacia gum (gum Arabic).
Acacia gum is a water-soluble type of fibre made of hardened sap taken from two species of the acacia tree: Acacia senegal (L.) Willd. and Acacia seyal Delile. Acacia gum is a complex mixture of polysaccharides and glycoproteins, namely branched galactan composed of a backbone of D-galactose units and side chains of D-glucuronic acid with terminal L-rhamnose or L-arabinose units. Acacia gum is non-digestible in the human small intestine. The molecular weight of acacia gum is between 200 and 600 kDa. Acacia gum does not occur naturally in foods, and is used primarily in the food industry as a stabiliser (E414).
The Panel considers that the food constituent, acacia gum, which is the subject of the health claims, is sufficiently characterised.

2.2. Zmienia produkcję krótkołańcuchowych kwasów tłuszczowych (SCFA) i odczyn pH w przewodzie pokarmowym (ID 759)

The claimed effect is “improved intestinal conditions (pH, SCFA production) and intestinal functions”. The Panel assumes that the target population is the general population.
The Panel notes that the claimed effect refers to changes in short chain fatty acid (SCFA) production and pH in the gastro-intestinal tract.
The Panel considers that changes in SCFA production and pH in the gastro-intestinal tract are not beneficial physiological effects per se, but need to be linked to a beneficial physiological or clinical outcome. No evidence has been provided to indicate the context in which the claimed effect could be considered as a beneficial physiological effect.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of acacia gum and a beneficial physiological effect related to changes in SCFA production and pH in the gastro-intestinal tract.

2.3. Zmiany w funkcjach jelita (ID 759)

The claimed effect is “improved intestinal conditions (pH, SCFA production) and intestinal functions”. The Panel assumes that the target population is the general population.
In the context of the proposed wording, the Panel assumes that the claimed effect refers to changes in bowel function.
The Panel considers that changes in bowel function, such as reduced transit time, more frequent bowel movements, increased faecal bulk or softer stools, may be a beneficial physiological effect, provided these changes do not result in diarrhoea.

2.4. Zmniejszenie dolegliwości ze strony przewodu pokarmowego (ID 759)

The claimed effect is “improved intestinal conditions (pH, SCFA production) and intestinal functions”. The Panel assumes that the target population is the general population.
In the context of the proposed wordings, the Panel assumes that the claimed effect refers to reducing gastro-intestinal discomfort.
The Panel considers that reduction of gastro-intestinal discomfort is a beneficial physiological effect.

3.2. Zmiany w funkcjach jelita (ID 759)

The references provided for the scientific substantiation of the claim included textbooks, publications by authoritative bodies and general reviews that did not provide any primary data which could be used for the scientific substantiation of the claimed effect. The majority of human, animal and in vitro studies were unrelated to the food constituent that is the subject of the health claim, and/or were unrelated to the claimed effect. The latter included references on the digestive tolerance of acacia gum, on digestive adaptation to acacia gum intake, and on the effect of acacia gum on abdominal comfort, human gastro-intestinal microbiota, water and nutrient absorption, and NF-kappaB p65 activity. The Panel considers that no conclusions can be drawn from these references for the scientific substantiation of the claimed effect.
The effect of acacia gum on bowel function was evaluated in three of the presented human intervention studies.
McLean Ross et al. (1983) used 25 g of acacia gum per day in a non-controlled study in five male volunteers for three weeks to assess the effect of acacia gum on transit time and faecal weight. The Panel considers that no conclusions can be drawn from this uncontrolled study for the scientific substantiation of the claimed effect.
In a randomised, single-blind, cross-over study Bliss et al. (1996) evaluated the effect of acacia gum (50 g/day) vs. pectin on faecal nitrogen excretion and serum urea nitrogen in 16 patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Assessment of faecal weight and stool frequency were secondary endpoints of the study. During consumption of acacia gum the mean wet and dry faecal weight was significantly higher compared to pectin (p<0.001). No effect of acacia gum on stool frequency was found. The Panel notes the small study size, that the assessment of faecal weight and stool frequency was a secondary endpoint, and that acacia gum was used in this study in a dose many times (8-10 times) higher than the one proposed in the conditions of use.
The same team administered in a randomised, single-blind, parallel study acacia gum (25 g/day, 31 days) vs. Psyllium and pectin to a group of patients (n=13 in each group) with faecal incontinence (Bliss et al., 2001). Changes in stool frequency, and in wet and dry faecal weight, were not statistically significant during the intervention. The Panel notes that this study did not show an effect of acacia gum on bowel function.
In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that one study did not show an effect of acacia gum on stool frequency, or on wet and dry faecal weight, and that the one study showing an effect of acacia gum on faecal weight, but not on stool frequency, was a small study in which the assessment of faecal weight and stool frequency was a secondary endpoint.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of acacia gum and changes in bowel function.

3.3. Zmniejszenie dolegliwości ze strony przewodu pokarmowego (ID 759)

The references provided for the scientific substantiation of the claim included textbooks, publications by authoritative bodies and general reviews that did not provide any primary data which could be used for the scientific substantiation of the claimed effect. One human intervention study investigated the effects of acacia gum in combination with another food constituent on abdominal comfort (Goetze et al., 2008). The Panel considers that no conclusions can be drawn from a study using a fixed combination for the scientific substantiation of a claim on acacia gum alone. The remaining human, animal and in vitro studies were unrelated to the food constituent that is the subject of the health claim, and/or were unrelated to the claimed effect. The latter included references on the digestive tolerance of acacia gum, on digestive adaptation to acacia gum intake, on the effect of acacia gum on human gastro-intestinal microbiota, on water and nutrient absorption, on faecal incontinence, on faecal nitrogen excretion, on serum urea nitrogen concentrations, and on NF-kappaB p65 activity. The Panel considers that no conclusions can be drawn from these references for the scientific substantiation of the claimed effect.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of acacia gum and reduction of gastrointestinal discomfort.

Warunki i możliwe ograniczenia stosowania oświadczenia

10g/day