ID 779 -
Fruktooligosacharydy z sacharozy
PL: Fruktooligosacharydy z sacharozy
EN: Fructoligosaccharides from sucrose
Pdf: fructooligosaccharides
Oświadczenie (2)
- korzystny wpływ na mikroflorę jelitową, integralność jelit, trawienie
- dobre, zrównoważone, zdrowe, korzystne lub
- jelit zdrowie
- prebiotyczne
- jelit bifidobakterii
- prebiotyk
- korzystny wpływ na mikroflorę jelitową
- zawiera prebiotyk / ma działanie prebiotyczne
1.1. Zwiększenie ilości mikroorganizmów w przewodzie pokarmowym (ID 760, 761, 779, 780, 799, 1905)
The claimed effects are “contains prebiotic/has prebiotic effect”, “beneficial effect on intestinal microflora, gut integrity, digestion”, “intestinal bifidobacteria”, “prebiotic effect”, “prebiotic” and “intestinal health”. The Panel assumes that the target population is the general population.
In the context of the proposed wordings, the Panel assumes that the claimed effects refer to increasing numbers of bacteria that are considered to be beneficial.
The numbers/proportions of bacterial groups that would constitute a “good, balanced, healthy, or beneficial” colon/intestine/gut/gastro-intestinal flora have not been established. Increasing the number of any group of microorganisms, including lactobacilli and/or bifidobacteria, is not in itself considered to be a beneficial physiological effect.
The Panel considers that the evidence provided does not establish that increasing numbers of gastro- intestinal microorganisms is a beneficial physiological effect.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of the food(s)/food constituent(s) which are the subject of the health claim and a beneficial physiological effect related to increasing numbers of gastro-intestinal microorganisms.
1.2. Zmniejszenie ilości potencjalnie patogennych mikroorganizmów przewodu pokarmowego (ID 760, 761, 779, 780, 799, 1905)
The claimed effects are “contains prebiotic/has prebiotic effect”, “beneficial effect on intestinal microflora, gut integrity, digestion”, “intestinal bifidobacteria”, “prebiotic effect”, “prebiotic” and “intestinal health”. The Panel assumes that the target population is the general population.
The Panel assumes that aspects of the claimed effect “beneficial effect on intestinal microflora” could be interpreted as decreasing potentially pathogenic gastro-intestinal microorganisms.
The Panel considers that decreasing potentially pathogenic gastro-intestinal microorganisms might be a beneficial physiological effect.
2.1. Zmniejszenie ilości potencjalnie patogennych mikroorganizmów przewodu pokarmowego (ID 760, 761, 779, 780, 799, 1905)
Most of the references provided addressed potential effects of food(s)/food constituent(s) in general, or of food(s)/food constituent(s) other than those for which the specific claims are proposed, and/or outcomes/claimed effects other than decreasing potentially pathogenic gastro-intestinal microorganisms. These include: review articles, general reports, guidelines/authoritative reports, internal reports, technical documents, conference abstracts, references that addressed detection and analytic aspects of the food constituents or their quality or technological analysis, and references related to combination products. The Panel considers that no conclusions can be drawn from these references for the scientific substantiation of the claimed effect.
The effects of food constituents on intestinal microbiota were investigated in several human intervention studies. The outcomes measured in these studies included several bacterial genera or strains, such as: bifidobacteria (Bouhnik et al., 1996, 1999, 2006; Mitsuoka et al., 1987; Tokunaga et al., 1993; Kohmoto et al., 1988, 1991); bifidobacteria, enterobacteria, total aerobes and anaerobes (Buddington et al., 1996); lactobacilli (Venema et al., 2005). The Panel considers that the evidence provided from these studies did not establish that the observed changes, such as the increase in the numbers of bifidobacteria or lactobacilli constitute a beneficial physiological effect. Furthermore, the Panel notes that enterobacteria, aerobes, and anaerobes are part of the normal gastro-intestinal microbiota.
Several animal studies were cited. In some studies, the outcomes measured included clinical responses: protection against diarrhoea caused by E.coli K:88 in piglets (Bunce et al., 1995) and reduction of artificially induced colitis in rats (Cherbut et al., 2003). A number of animal studies were focused on changes in intestinal microbiota caused by the ingestion of food constituents. The effects on the numbers of bifidobacteria (Howard et al., 1995; Hsu et al., 2004), lactobacilli (Le Blay et al., 1999; Swanson et al., 2002b), bifidobacteria and Clostridium perfringens (Swanson et al., 2002a), lactobacilli and Bacteroides spp. (Sparkes et al., 1998), lactobacilli, bifidobacteria and E. coli (Xu et al., 2003) were investigated. Three in vitro studies were provided and these studies investigated the fermentation of fructooligosaccharides in different environments (Bertelsen et al., 2001; Perrin et al., 2001; Rycroft et al., 2001). The Panel considers that evidence provided in animal studies is not sufficient to predict the occurrence of an effect of consumption of the food(s)/food constituent(s) on decreasing potentially pathogenic gastro-intestinal microorganisms.
In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that in the human intervention studies provided the bacterial groups have not been sufficiently characterised as being potentially pathogenic, and that evidence from animal studies is not sufficient to predict the occurrence of an effect of consumption of the food(s)/food constituent(s) in humans.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of the food(s)/constituent(s) which are the subject of the health claims and decreasing potentially pathogenic gastro-intestinal microorganisms.
Warunki i możliwe ograniczenia stosowania oświadczenia
Min. 2.5g per day