Cited by 53Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingNutrition, Health, and Society StudiesNutrition and Health Studies

The Process for the Assessment of Scientific Support for Claims on Food

Aggett, Peter J.·2009·European Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

The concerted action "The process for the assessment of the scientific support for claims on foods", PASSCLAIM, proposed criteria that could provide an international yardstick for the harmonised transparent assessment of evidence submitted to support a claim for a food or food component. The evidence would be systematically appraised against specific criteria: namely, (1) a characterisation of the food or food component to which the claimed effect is attributed; (2) human data, primarily from intervention studies that represent the target populations for the claim; (3) a dose response relationship; (4) evidence allowing for confounders such as lifestyle, consumption patterns, background diet and food matrix etc.; (5) an appropriate duration for the study; (6) a measure of compliance; (7) adequate statistical power to test the hypothesis. Validated and quality assured markers of intermediate or final outcomes could be used when ideal endpoints are not easily accessible for measurement as long as their relationship to the development of the principal outcome relevant to the claim is well characterised and substantiated. The overall coherence and totality of published and unpublished evidence should be considered in the process. Assessments for substantiation claims need expert judgement, weighting of the strength of the claim, and intelligent use of the criteria applied on an individual basis with respect both to gaps in the knowledge and to any need for new knowledge and data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00394-009-0072-4

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The process of scientifically assessing health claims in the EU was particularly influenced by the results of the PASS-CLAIM project where a consensus on the criteria was first established.

    “The process of scientifically assessing health claims in the EU was particularly influenced by the results of the PASS-CLAIM project where a consensus on the criteria was first established (Aggett, 2009;Aggett et al., 2005).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aggett, P. J.
Affiliations
University of Lancashire (GB)
Corresponding author
Aggett, Peter J.
Venue
European Journal of Nutrition
Published
2009-11-25
Volume
48
Issue
S1
Pages
23-26
ISSN
  • 1436-6207 (ISSN-L)
  • 1436-6215
OpenAlex
W2090326426
Cited by
53
References
13
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Nutrition, Health, and Society Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutrition and Health Studies
Keywords
food claims, intervention research, dose-response relationship, confounding, study duration, adherence measurement, statistical power, expert opinion, food components
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Europe, Food Labeling, Humans, Legislation, Food, Life Style, Public Health, Biomarkers, Evidence-Based Medicine, Functional Food, Food, Organic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review