No abstract

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has recently emerged as a new framework for science and technology governance. The concept articulates the need for mutual exchange by which societal actors become responsive to each other early on in the process of innovation, with a view to facilitate ethically acceptable and sustainable innovation. There is relatively limited evidence to explore the extent to which the process of research and innovation under the terms of RRI is realised in practice, particularly in the context of food and health research. Although research to date has been examining innovation from the point of view of inputs and outputs—R&D funding and patents—we propose to examine the cognitive framing of innovation that shapes decisions of those who constitute a part of the innovation chain.\ud This paper explores how the concept of innovation is understood and used in policy implementation, with a particular focus upon ‘food and health’ science and research policy and funding. Our analysis is based on 55 interviews of various actors engaged in research funding decision-making across eight European countries. Three themes emerged from the analysis: concept of innovation; conditions for innovation; and drivers of innovation; through these themes, the cognitive framing was drawn out. The cognitive framing suggests that innovation in the food and health domain is perceived to be focused on biosciences and marketable applications to the neglect of social sciences and broader public interest; that the ‘‘innovation network” is primarily viewed as centred around scientific/technical and industrial actors; and that the demand-pull dynamic is relevant to innovation in the area of food and health, despite having been relegated in contemporary thinking and policies around innovation. These findings point to the inadequate consideration of the normative issues — how problems are to be defined and addressed — among national research funders in the food and health domain, and indicate a gap between the ideas of innovation under the terms of RRI and innovation as conceptualised by those involved in its\ud governance

This article analyses the consequences of the implementation of the nutrition and health claim regulation in the field of food products containing antioxidants or food products claiming antioxidant activity. To this end, it first examines the origin and creation of the regulation and the involvement of EFSA in assessing scientific substantiation of health claims. Three criteria are regarded as critical in EFSA's opinions on the scientific substantiation of a health claim: the claimed effect (i) is well defined; (ii) is a clear beneficial physiological effect; and (iii) shows a cause effect relationship with the consumption of the food or functional ingredient. These criteria have implications for the research requested to substantiate health claims, although these implications do not all seem to fit nutrition research as it is currently executed. Looking at antioxidants, the complexity of the mechanisms and actions of antioxidants is not recognised by the criteria used to evaluate proposed health claims, nor by the methodologies used to assess the effects of antioxidants. These criteria should be adjusted with novel scientific insights after consulting stakeholders.

Food supplements and herbal products are increasingly popular amongst consumers. This leads to increased risks of interactions between prescribed drugs and these products containing bioactive ingredients. From 1991 up to 2014, 55 cases of suspected adverse drug reactions due to concomitant intake of health-enhancing products and drugs were reported to Lareb, the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre. An overview of these suspected interactions is presented and their potential mechanisms of action are described. Mainly during the metabolism of xenobiotics and due to the pharmacodynamics effects interactions seem to occur, which may result in adverse drug reactions. Where legislation is seen to distinct food and medicine, legislation concerning these different bioactive products is less clear-cut. This can only be resolved by increasing the molecular knowledge on bioactive substances and their potential interactions. Thereby potential interactions can be better understood and prevented on an individual level. By considering the dietary pattern and use of bioactive substances with prescribed medication, both health professionals and consumers will be increasingly aware of interactions and these interactive adverse effects can be prevented.

Suggestions that a food contains healthy ingredients or that it can provide beneficial effects upon consumption have been regulated in the EU since 2006. This paper describes the analysis of how this nutrition and health claim regulation has resulted in over 300 authorised claims and how the authorisation requirements and processes have affected the use of claims on foods. Five challenges are identified that negatively affect the current legislation dealing with nutrition and health claims: non-reviewed botanical claims (as well as on hold claims for infants and young children), the lack of nutrient profiles and the focus of claims on single ingredients, consumer understanding, research into health effects of nutrition and finally, enforcement. These challenges are shown to influence the goals of the regulation: protecting consumers from false and misleading claims and stimulating the development of a level playing field in the EU, to foster innovation. Tackling these political and scientific substantiation questions for health claims, together with continuously analysing the understanding and usage of claims by consumers and operators will ensure that the NHCR will stay effective, today and in the future.

Food businesses in the European Union are preparing for a carbon-neutral future by gradually transitioning to a circular way of operating. Building upon results from the EU REFRESH project, we consider the most valuable food processing by-streams in Europe and discuss potential food safety risks that must be considered while valorizing them for human consumption. These risks are weighed against the nutritional benefits offered by these products and their potential applications in food supply chains. Broadly, we examine whether it is possible for spent grains, cheese whey, fruit and vegetable scraps, meat processing waste, and oilseed cakes and meals to be safe, sustainable, and nutritionally valuable at the same time. The discussion highlights that valorizing by-products obtained from food processing operations is feasible on a large scale only if consumers deem it to be a safe and acceptable practice. Extracting valuable compounds from by-products and using them in the preparation of functional foods could be a way to gain consumer acceptance. Furthermore, we find that current EU food safety legislation does not sufficiently accommodate food processing by-products. A way to bridge this regulatory gap could be through the adoption of private food safety standards that have shown proclivity for sustainability-related issues in food supply chains. Finally, by proposing a decision tree, we show that it is indeed feasible for some food processing by-products to be valorized while ensuring sustainability, food safety, and nutritional relevance.

a b s t r a c tThe increasing public interest in dietary health benefits led to the development of different legislative texts on nutrition and health claims worldwide. Following a review of legislation of 28 jurisdictions, three prominent differences were discerned, concerning (i) the labelling of different types of nutrition and health claims and their permission; (ii) variations arising in the (pre-marketing) authorisation procedures; and (iii) the use of the scientific minority opinion in substantiating claims. By discussing these legal differences with findings from literature concerning consumer and industry effects, this review puts these pieces of legislation into a broader perspective. The studied pieces of legislation show critical differences and although various approaches have positive points, no optimal approach to regulate nutrition and health claims has been implemented yet. It would be preferable to permit similar types of claims throughout jurisdictions, permit claims that have a lower probability of misleading consumers e.g. nutrition claims to use emerging evidence and to require pre-marketing approval of claims with higher impact. International harmonisation in these aspects should globally lead to improved pieces of legislation, stimulate industrial efforts in functional foods and enhance consumers' opportunity to use health-enhancing products.

No abstract