Benefit-risk assessment of plant-based food supplements: Difference between revisions
(first draft based on DoW and own thinking) |
|||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
{{attack|2|We should look at specific chemical compounds.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)}} | {{attack|2|We should look at specific chemical compounds.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)}} | ||
{{comment|# |The assessment should be at plant level as well as product level. Plants and products are the regulatory units. Compounds as such are not regulated, unless they are used as pure extracts. They may be part of the assessment, but compounds cannot be the focus of the assessment. As for products, they are less important than plants in terms of regulation.|--[[User:Lbucchini|Lbucchini]] 10:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
'''Other boundaries: | '''Other boundaries: | ||
Line 92: | Line 94: | ||
* Products: All products marketed as food supplements and containing compounds from the list above. | * Products: All products marketed as food supplements and containing compounds from the list above. | ||
* Endpoints: All relevant health endpoints. | * Endpoints: All relevant health endpoints. | ||
===Intended use and users=== | ===Intended use and users=== |
Revision as of 10:30, 7 June 2010
Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
|
Upload data
|
This page is a Plantlibra deliverable. <section begin=plantlibra />
- Name: DWP5-8 Report on (health) burden of PFS and full risk-benefit assessments and results of validation.
- Deadline: April 2014
- Responsible partner: Hylo
- Status: Drafting of the scope started.
<section end=plantlibra />
Benefit-risk assessment of plant-based food supplements looks at the acceptability of several plant-based food supplements (PFS).
Task 5.7 (May 2011 - November 2012): Burden estimates Using information on risks from WP3 (chronic), WP4 (acute) and on intake, PFS-attributable fraction estimates of incident cases of acute or chronic adverse effects will be used to estimate the burden of disease, or of the selected common currency, for the 5-10 leading plants used in food supplements (based on findings of WP1), and compared with other foodborne hazards. The estimates will be produced in the context of the case-studies of task 5.7. Additional estimates will be produced for contaminated PFS, based on data from WP6 (DWP5-8).
Task leader: Hylo PM: Hylo 4, THL 2
Task 5.8 (July 2011 - March 2014): Application and validation of risk benefit assessment methodology
Further case-studies will be explored to evaluate the large-scale applicability of the
methodology, with data from the project databases to evaluate its ability to provide the
necessary information. At least three risk-benefit assessments, where advanced quantitative
modelling is necessary, will be selected based on consumption, public health significance and
evidence of overlapping risks and benefits (MWP5-4), and fully developed by THL and Hylo
using an Analytica simulation model and an Opasnet risk assessment environment. Task
partners will contribute to the open risk assessment process by editing variabiles online.
Validation will be conducted on a sample of case-studies according to the methodology of task
5.3, discussed at the last project meeting (MWP5-2) and reported (DWP5-8).
Task leader: Hylo PM: Hylo 7, UMIL 0.5, THL 3, WUR 1
Scope
Purpose
- What administrative actions are warranted related to the PFSs, given the information in the assessment?
- Are the benefits of each PFS so large compared with possible risks that they can be kept in the market?
- Is there a need for restrictions or guidance?
- Which health claims of each PFS are scientifically supported?
Boundaries
Plants considered (based on Plantlibra Description of work, Annex 2, and Ginkgo biloba from Annex 1):
Latin name | Common name | Active compounds | Main reported risks |
---|---|---|---|
Artemisia dracunculus/sativa | Tarragon | Alkylbenzenes | Genotoxicity |
Borago officinalis | Borage | Pyrrolizidine alkaloids | Hepatotoxicity (misidentification) |
Camelia sinensis | Green tea | Cathechins/epatotoxicity | Hepatotoxicity |
Cinnamomun zeylanicum | Cinnamon | Coumarin | Genotoxicity |
Echinacea purpurea | Purple coneflower | Several compounds | Teratogenesis |
Foeniculum vulgare | Fennel | Alkylbenzenes | Genotoxicity |
Heliotropium spp | Heliotropes | Pyrrolizidine alkaloids | Hepatotoxicity (misidentification) |
Ocimun basilicum | Sweet Basil | Alkylbenzenes | Genotoxicity |
Pimpinella anisum | Anise | Alkylbenzenes | Genotoxicity |
Ginkgo biloba L. | Maidenhair tree | Ginkgolides |
⇤--1: . We should look at specific products instead of specific plants. --Jouni 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
⇤--2: . We should look at specific chemical compounds. --Jouni 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
----#: . The assessment should be at plant level as well as product level. Plants and products are the regulatory units. Compounds as such are not regulated, unless they are used as pure extracts. They may be part of the assessment, but compounds cannot be the focus of the assessment. As for products, they are less important than plants in terms of regulation. --Lbucchini 10:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Other boundaries:
- Time: Current situation
- Spatial: European Union
- Target population: People who use these products.
- Products: All products marketed as food supplements and containing compounds from the list above.
- Endpoints: All relevant health endpoints.
Intended use and users
The assessment aims to produce relevant information for national and European administrators (especially EFSA) as a basis for regulatory decisions about the products considered.
Participants
This is an open assessment. Anyone can participate. (If you want to edit the content, you must get a user account in Opasnet. Commenting is possible without registering.)
Scenarios
- BAU: Current use.
- Reference: Situation after relevant administrative actions (to be defined below in section Definition).
Definition
Indicators (outcome variables)
- Health benefits of plant-based food supplements
- Health risks of plant-based food supplements
- Willingness to use plant-based food supplements
Decision variables
Other variables
- Consumption of plant-based food supplements in Europe
- Moral norms for decisions about different consumer products
- Utilitarian approach: Decisions should be made based on the overall average net (i.e., benefit+risk) impact, not on impacts on individual people.
- Risk-based approach: If there is a risk, the product is not acceptable.
- Mixed approach: Risks are more important than benefits, but they should be measured with a single currency.
- Egalitarian approach: Impacts on the most vulnerable or most affected should be used as the basis for decisions.
- ERF of plant-based food supplements on health
- Inertia as a means to reduce adverse impacts of changes
Result
Results
Conclusions
See also
References
Related files
<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>