scholarly journals Anthraquinone Content in Noni (Morinda citrifoliaL.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rainer W. Bussmann ◽  
Lothar Hennig ◽  
Athanassios Giannis ◽  
Jutta Ortwein ◽  
Toni M. Kutchan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
Traditional Medicine ◽  
Production Process ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
Consumer Products ◽  
European Food Safety Authority ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Leaf Material ◽  
Fruit Purée

Noni has been used in traditional medicine and as food for thousands of years. While the fruits serve as food and internal medicine, leaves were traditionally used only topically. In recent years, concern regarding the possible content of anthraquinones in noni has led to scrutiny by the European Food Safety Authority. Little research existed on the content of anthraquinones in different noni preparations, with no information about the potential effect of harvest and preparation methods. Our research focused on lucidin, alizarin, and rubiadin, the most important anthraquinones from a health perspective. We found that the production process (fermentation/juice production versus drying/lyophilization) has no effect on the anthraquinone content. The source product, however, does have implications: noni fruit puree from which seeds had been removed as well as consumer products produced from such puree had no detectable amounts of any anthraquinones. Products that did contain seed or leaf material in all cases did contain partly significant amounts of anthraquinones. To alleviate safety concerns, we suggest that noni products, whether fermented or unfermented juice or powder, should be derived only from fully ripe noni fruits, and that any seed material needs to be removed during the production process.

scholarly journals Caffeine Health Claims on Sports Supplement Labeling. Analytical Assessment According to EFSA Scientific Opinion and International Evidence and Criteria

Molecules ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 2095
Author(s):  
Pedro Estevan Navarro ◽  
Isabel Sospedra ◽  
Alejandro Perales ◽  
Cristina González-Díaz ◽  
Rubén Jiménez-Alfageme ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Endurance Performance ◽  
Food Supplement ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
European Food Safety Authority ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Strength Performance ◽  
Scientific Opinion ◽  
Term Performance

Caffeine is a food supplement widely consumed by athletes, but it has not been established. So far, the veracity of their labeling in terms of the dosage and cause/effect relationship aimed at the consumer. The aim is to analyze the health claims and the dosage presented on the labeling of caffeine supplements and to evaluate if they follow the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and international criteria. A descriptive cross-sectional study of a sample of caffeine supplements was carried out. The search was done through the Amazon and Google Shopping web portals. In order to assess the adequacy of the health claims, the guidelines of reference established by European Food Safety Authority were compared to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, International Olympic Committee, and Australian Institute of Sport guidelines; in addition, recent systematic reviews were addressed. A review of labels of 42 caffeine supplements showed that, in less than 3% of the products were the health claims supported by the recommendations and by the labeled quantity of caffeine. The claims that fully complied the recommendations were, “improves or increases endurance performance”, “improves strength performance”, or “improves short-term performance”. In most cases, the recommended dosage was 200 mg/day for these products, which is the minimum for the caffeine effects to be declared. The rest of the health claims were not adequate or need to be modified. Most of the health claims identified indicated an unproven cause and effect, which constitutes consumer fraud, and so must be modified or eliminated.

Microbiological Safety of Commercial Prime Rib Preparation Methods: Thermal Inactivation of Salmonella in Mechanically Tenderized Rib Eye†

2015 ◽  
Vol 78 (12) ◽  
pp. 2126-2135 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEXANDRA CALLE ◽  
ANNA C. S. PORTO-FETT ◽  
BRADLEY A. SHOYER ◽  
JOHN B. LUCHANSKY ◽  
HARSHAVARDHAN THIPPAREDDI
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Low Temperatures ◽  
Thermal Inactivation ◽  
Medium Size ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Safety Risk ◽  
Microbiological Safety ◽  
Pathogen Populations ◽  
Food Safety Risk ◽  
Midwestern City

Boneless beef rib eye roasts were surface inoculated on the fat side with ca. 5.7 log CFU/g of a five-strain cocktail of Salmonella for subsequent searing, cooking, and warm holding using preparation methods practiced by restaurants surveyed in a medium-size Midwestern city. A portion of the inoculated roasts was then passed once through a mechanical blade tenderizer. For both intact and nonintact roasts, searing for 15 min at 260°C resulted in reductions in Salmonella populations of ca. 0.3 to 1.3 log CFU/g. For intact (nontenderized) rib eye roasts, cooking to internal temperatures of 37.8 or 48.9°C resulted in additional reductions of ca. 3.4 log CFU/g. For tenderized (nonintact) rib eye roasts, cooking to internal temperatures of 37.8 or 48.9°C resulted in additional reductions of ca. 3.1 or 3.4 log CFU/g, respectively. Pathogen populations remained relatively unchanged for intact roasts cooked to 37.8 or 48.9°C and for nonintact roasts cooked to 48.9°C when held at 60.0°C for up to 8 h. In contrast, pathogen populations increased ca. 2.0 log CFU/g in nonintact rib eye cooked to 37.8°C when held at 60.0°C for 8 h. Thus, cooking at low temperatures and extended holding at relatively low temperatures as evaluated herein may pose a food safety risk to consumers in terms of inadequate lethality and/or subsequent outgrowth of Salmonella, especially if nonintact rib eye is used in the preparation of prime rib, if on occasion appreciable populations of Salmonella are present in or on the meat, and/or if the meat is not cooked adequately throughout.

scholarly journals Food safety risk analysis from the producers' perspective: prioritisation of production process stages by HACCP and TOPSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Certa ◽  
Mario Enea ◽  
Giacomo Maria Galante ◽  
Joaquín Izquierdo ◽  
Concetta Manuela La Fata
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Production Process ◽  
Safety Risk ◽  
Food Safety Risk

scholarly journals What counts as expertise? The case of glyphosate and Jasanoff’s ‘three-body problem’

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-182
Author(s):  
Caer Smyth
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Body Problem ◽  
World Health Organisation ◽  
European Food Safety Authority ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Agency ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Three Body Problem ◽  
Expert Advisory ◽  
Three Body

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organisation published a monograph stating that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, Monsanto’s leading herbicide, was ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. Shortly after this, the European Food Safety Authority re-assessed glyphosate’s licence for use in the European Union, and deemed it to be safe for human use. Both of these expert advisory bodies faced condemnation and accusations of political bias as a result of these assessments. Employing Jasanoff’s ‘three-body problem’, this article examines the conflicting conclusions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the European Food Safety Authority, exploring what the contested assessments of glyphosate reveal about the entangled relationship between scientific expertise and law-making.

scholarly journals Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (8) ◽  
pp. 741-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J Portier ◽  
Bruce K Armstrong ◽  
Bruce C Baguley ◽  
Xaver Baur ◽  
Igor Belyaev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
European Food Safety Authority ◽  
International Agency

Why the European Food Safety Authority was right to reject health claims for probiotics

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.B. Katan
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
European Food Safety Authority ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Medical Claims ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Legal Fiction ◽  
Health And Well Being

Probiotics are microbes that are claimed to promote health and well-being when added to foods. However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has so far advised negatively about health claims for probiotics. Companies and scientists have protested against these rejections, sometimes in vigorous language. I argue that EFSA could not have acted differently, given EU regulations and the lack of convincing evidence for some of the claimed effects of probiotics on human health and well-being. One EU regulation that makes it hard to demonstrate the benefits of probiotics is the prohibition of medical claims, i.e. claims that a food prevents or cures a disease. If this prohibition did not exist, manufacturers of nutritional treatments might circumvent the costly procedures required for drugs, and market their products to ill people without thorough proof that they are effective and safe. However, the prohibition is also a legal fiction, because promotion of health and prevention of disease is largely the same thing. EFSA has recently indicated that it will allow health claims based on the ability of probiotics to reduce infections. To a certain extent, this abolishes the distinction between health claims and medical claims. It remains to be seen if probiotics producers can convince EFSA that their products prevent or cure infections and other diseases in humans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document