
Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to a combination of bifidobacteria ( Bifidobacterium bifidum , Bifidobacterium breve , Bifidobacterium infantis , Bifidobacterium longum ) and decreasing potentially pathogenic intestinal microorganisms pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006
Author(s) -
Efsa Panel on Dietetic Products
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
efsa journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.076
H-Index - 97
ISSN - 1831-4732
DOI - 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1420
Subject(s) - bifidobacterium longum , bifidobacterium bifidum , bifidobacterium , bifidobacterium breve , microbiology and biotechnology , actinomycetaceae , probiotic , biology , bacteria , food science , lactobacillus , fermentation , genetics
Following an application from Töpfer GmbH submitted pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Germany, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to a combination of bifidobacteria ( Bifidobacterium bifidum , Bifidobacterium breve , Bifidobacterium infantis , Bifidobacterium longum ) and decreasing potentially pathogenic intestinal microorganisms. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to children's development and health. The food constituent that is the subject of the proposed claim, a combination of Bifidobacterium bifidum , Bifidobacterium breve , Bifidobacterium infantis , Bifidobacterium longum , has not been sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect is “establishment of a natural, beneficial bifidobacterial dominance in the large intestine, which can lead to a suppression of harmful bacteria and thereby to a better health status”. The target population is infants and children aged between 0 to 36 months. The Panel considers that decreasing potentially pathogenic intestinal microorganisms might be beneficial to human health. The applicant identified a total of 34 publications considered as being pertinent to the health claim. In weighing the evidence, the Panel notes that the strains that are the subject of the health claim have not been sufficiently characterised and that from the evidence provided it cannot be established that the strains used in the studies are the same strains that are the subject of the claim.