4.6 Review

How the US Food and Drug Administration evaluates the scientific evidence for health claims

Journal

NUTRITION REVIEWS
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages 114-121

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00267.x

Keywords

evidence-based review; health claim; intervention study; observational study; significant scientific agreement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Health claims describe the relationship between a substance (food or component of food) and a disease or health-related condition. They were first authorized through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. The standard set by the US Congress for the scientific evidence required to authorize a claim was the significant scientific agreement standard. This strong standard was challenged by several manufacturers of dietary supplements. Several court decisions directed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide for dietary supplement claims not meeting the significant scientific agreement standard by adding a disclaimer to the claim that would eliminate the claim's potential to be misleading. In December 2002, the FDA announced a major new initiative, The Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition Initiative, which, among other things, provided for the use of qualified health claims for both conventional foods and dietary supplements. The process for reviewing the scientific evidence for a claim reaching significant scientific agreement and for those that require qualifying language is the same. In January 2009, the FDA issued a guidance document entitled Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims. The process used by the FDA to review the scientific evidence for health claims and qualified health claims are described in this article. No claim to U.S. Government works. Journal compilation (C) 2010 International Life Sciences Institute

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available