Difference between revisions of "Talk:Benefit-risk assessment of food supplements"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Plantlibra WP5 meeting 3.6.2010)
 
(work delegated)
Line 40: Line 40:
 
*:  G: Does not work, because benefits are not safety issue.
 
*:  G: Does not work, because benefits are not safety issue.
  
'''Tasks to do:
+
{{todo|Skype meeting in July 2010.|Lbucchini|project=Plantlibra}}
* Skype meeting in July.
+
 
* Distribute the Bepraribean manuscripts if allowed.
+
{{todo| Distribute the Bepraribean manuscripts if allowed. DL 30 June 2010.|Jouni Tuomisto|project=Plantlibra}}
* Provide a plan for validation of RBA.
+
 
 +
{{todo| Provide a plan for validation of RBA. DL 31.7.2010|Jouni Tuomisto|project = Plantlibra}}

Revision as of 21:53, 3 June 2010

Plantlibra WP5 meeting 3.6.2010

WP5 discussion (Luca, Jouni, Trevor, Bernard, Gary, Corrado)

  • L: A new meeting soon for WP5.
  • B: EFSA will soon submit a proposal of BRA of health based on Brafo and Qalibra.
  • J: Bepraribean is working on BRA.
  • L: Ask Bepraribean whether we can look at the papers.
  • Article review (Feb 2011?)
  • Are we/should we look at plants/supplements/compounds?
  • L: Consumers ask: is the plant safe to use or not? Bernard: No, the question is about the product. Industry can get rid of adverse compounds in a plant product even if it is present in a plant. This is what should be characterised in the BRA.
  • J: Who is the user? Luca: We need to provide science-based tools to industry or administration. We will not make extra effort to make BRAs accessible to the consumers (even if they might use results of BRA).
  • Do you think benefit and efficacy is the same?
  • B: EFSA asks: is there scientific evidence that there is a positive health effect?
  • B: with benefits there is a problem because there is no common currency. How to measure "10% increase in physical performance?"
  • L: What is the question?
  • B: Risk manager is the user. Efficacy part is the thing. The safety of products is in the hands of manufacturers, but member states are not happy about this.
  • B: We need to move from poor efficacy to RBA, including safety.
  • C: We must separate R and B.
  • B: Many botanicals are actually overlapping medicine, but they are marketed as food=to everyone.
  • B: EFSA: if you target ill people, the product is seen as medicine.
  • B: What is the level of proven evidence (e.g. must be human evidence).
  • B: Method is about quality of data.
  • B: It's all about claims of health benefits.
  • J: Can we use scientific method?
    No support, example not understood
  • C: If there is risk, case is closed
  • L: Meeting in September?
  • J: We can have meeting but the discussion must be wider
  • C: Examine EFSA documents
  • B: There is approach for risk reduction (BRAFO, EFSA), but there is not one for benefits. That's where this project is needed.
  • C: Do something and test whether it works in reality.
  • T: What about risks of overconsumption?
  • L: Well start with the EFSA document, and have a meeting via skype in July
  • L: We need to get ideas about positive health effects. How much do people rate some benefits (in money?)
  • J: We need to think what we want to measure with benefits: before you get it or after you got used to it.
  • L: Provide a plan for validation. !
  • B: Factor 10 uncertainty for intraindividual variability for benefits as well?
    G: Does not work, because benefits are not safety issue.
TODO: {{#todo:Skype meeting in July 2010.|Lbucchini|Plantlibra}}


TODO: {{#todo: Distribute the Bepraribean manuscripts if allowed. DL 30 June 2010.|Jouni Tuomisto|Plantlibra}}


TODO: {{#todo: Provide a plan for validation of RBA. DL 31.7.2010|Jouni Tuomisto|Plantlibra}}