How not to encourage girls to study science

What were they thinking? It really beggars belief that a whole host of people in the EU Commission got it so wrong.

Of course, I'm talking about THAT video. If you haven't seen it, check it out below.




As part of an entirely laudable campaign  (complete with #sciencegirlthing hashtag)to encourage girls to study science and think about careers in science, the European Commission released a launch video which was so far wide of the mark that they had to confirm that it wasn't some sort of joke. As one spokesperson for the Commission put it on twitter: "(the) Commission doesn't really do irony".

The video seems to have been removed from the campaign's Youtube account but not before some kind soul copied it and reposted the offending clip.

To be fair, I'm sure no harm was meant. The campaign website itself seems fine, but perhaps a little light on detail. The Commission moved to deflect some of the online criticism late on Friday evening by encouraging their Twitter followers to help them build a list of #realwomeninscience.

The swift and overwhelming online reaction seems to have ensured that the video will live long online as an example of how not to promote science (on anything for that matter).

At least they got one bit right. Male scientists are all tall, clean shaven and handsome in their glasses and white coat......ahem. ‪

BASF Moves Plant Biotech Jobs to America

The global biotech and chemical company BASF is to withdraw from Europe and concentrate its plant biotechnology business on North and South America. 140 jobs in Europe will go.

Just when science, technology and biotechnology, in particular, have the capacity to create jobs, build confidence in economies and promote an economic recovery, Europe now risks becoming known for an anti-science agenda.

The company said today that it will halt development and commercialisation of all products targeted solely at the European market because of "a lack of acceptance for this technology" from the majority of consumers, farmers and politicians.

BASF say they are "convinced that plant biotechnology is a key technology for the 21st century" but at this time the "conditions for cultivation of genetically modified crops in Europe are unfavourable".

The move will stop development on Europe-targeted crops such as Amflora, a genetically modified potato variety which provides easy to extract starch for industry. The company will also halt work on its Fortuna potato variety, bred to be resistant to late blight, Phytophthora infestans. BASF had applied for approval from the EU for commercial cultivation of Fortuna late last year. The variety had two resistance genes inserted from a wild relative found in South America.

Despite ceasing development of other such products, BASF have said they will continue with the regulatory approval process already in train.

Greenpeace have welcomed the move claiming that "Europeans don't want GM crops, and for good reason".

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's agriculture policy director said that it wasn't just health concerns that worried EU consumers; "GM crops go hand in glove with factory farming, pesticide use, pest resistance and disappointing long-term yields".

Today's development sees a company with European origins having to move much of its research and development to the Americas due to continuous delaying and buck-passing when it comes to GM regulations in Europe.

This has created an atmosphere where even the research and development of GM crops, for one company at least, has become impossible.

Irish Young Scientist Wins Top EU Prize

Alexander with his project in Helsinki

Alexander Amini, the winner of Ireland's BT Young Scientist Award for 2011 has scooped the top European Young Scientist Award in Finland today.

Alexander's work looked at collecting and analyzing huge quantities of sensor data taken from tennis courts and discovered a technique for automatically distinguishing between 13 different types of tennis stroke with a 96% accuracy. His findings are relevant to a variety of motion assessment scenarios in sports, physical therapy and emergency responses.

Although technology already exists to measure some of the tennis strokes, Alexander's system can measure much more. Speaking after winning the Irish award, the young scientists said: "I am very proud and happy.I could never have imagined this would happen. I spent about four months working on this project," he said.
"My father taught me tennis and was very into technique and this inspired me."

In total, 3 first place awards were made, with young scientists from Lithuania and Switzerland also taking the top prize. Winners were announced at a ceremony in Helsinki and on the competition's Twitter stream. Alexander is a student of Castleknock College in Dublin and will be awarded a €7,000 prize fund. That's on top of his cheque for €5,000 which he receives for winning the Irish Young Scientist Competition.

Assessing Risk: GM, Food Safety and Science in Europe

Recent revelations from WikiLeaks show that the US government was deeply concerned about opposition to GM crops in Europe back in 2007. However, a recent poll suggests that just 8% of European consumers believe it is the most important food safety concern.

When respondents to the Eurobarometer survey (pdf) were asked to explain, in their own words, what possible problems or risks they associate with food and eating, there was no single, widespread concern that was cited by a majority of respondents. 

The survey found that the presence of chemicals (such as pesticides, herbicides, etc.) in the food was the concern most cited (19% of respondents). Food poisoning was the second most frequently cited (12%), followed by diet-related diseases (10%), lack of freshness (9%), the presence of food additives (9%), with other issues such as the traceability of food and ‘BSE’ (‘mad cow disease’) also being mentioned.

Eight percent of the respondents throughout the 27 EU member states spontaneously (i.e. without prompting) cited GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) as a problem or risk associated with their food. A similar percentage of respondents “Didn’t know” of any potential risks and 9% said they could think of no problem associated with their food.

When specifically asked about  genetically modified organisms, the percentage of respondents worried about GMOs in their food ranges from under half of the sample in Ireland (46%), Sweden and UK (both 48%) up to 81% in both Greece and Lithuania. Overall 66% of the total EU respondents said they were “very worried” or “fairly worried” about GMOs in their food. This ranked in fifth place when compared to 16 other possible risks that respondents were specifically asked about.

In fact, GMOs in food and drink was a topic found to fit into the “Medium Levels of Worry” list in the survey, alongside such topics as the quality and freshness of food; the welfare of farmed animals; and the risk of food poisoning.

The survey also found that European consumers are almost evenly divided over whether they believe scientific advice on food related risks is independent of commercial or political interference.  The results pose interesting questions for scientists across Europe, particularly in light of the WikiLeak revelations.

Just 47% of respondents agreed that such scientific advice was “independent of commercial or political interests”. A significant minority of 41% of consumers disagreed on this point.

The survey found that consumers felt most confident about information regarding food safety that they obtained from health professionals (84% totally confident) and family and friends (82%). 73% of consumers were totally confident about such information being provided by scientists. In contrast, 19% of respondents were “not very confident” in information of this type from scientists and 4% were “not at all confident”.

The highest levels of total confidence in scientists were in the Czech Republic (87%) and Finland (86%) with the lowest levels of confidence in Germany and Slovenia (both 65%). The EU average was 73%.

While a high level of trust in scientists appears to exist across Europe on this issue of food safety, the results should be seen in light of findings published in June (pdf) of this year where 53% of Europeans felt that because of their knowledge, scientists “have a power that makes them dangerous”.

Consumers appear to be reluctant to rely on the media for information about food safety, with 48% of respondents citing mainstream media (TV, newspapers, etc.) as a source of information they would have confidence in, compared to “the internet” which was a trusted source of information on food safety for 41% of respondents. 

Interestingly, the report shows that when consumers hear news about unsafe or unhealthy food, 25% of them worry about the problem but ultimately don’t do anything about it, by changing diet, etc. Approximately another quarter ignore the news story and do nothing about it. 

The most common reaction (approx one third of respondents) was to avoid the food mentioned for a while, but then return to eating it. Just one in ten said that they permanently changed their eating habits in response to a news story.

The results of this survey indicate that, while GMOs are a concern for European consumers, they are by no means at the top of the list when it comes to concerns about food. Europeans appear to be much more worried about, what we might call ‘traditional’ food concerns like food poisoning and pesticide residues, than the presence or absence of genetically modified organisms in the food chain.

Despite some misgivings, scientists are seen by European consumers as being the third most trustworthy grouping from which to obtain food-safety information. This makes the need for scientists to communicate effectively about the issues involved in food safety all the more important.

Biotechs speak up on GM crops

Despite a largely negative response from EU agriculture ministers to proposals to allow individual countries make their own decisions on the cultivation of GM crops, it seems certain that the battle over GM will be won or lost in the hearts and minds of EU citizens.

Organisers of a new campaign to promote the positive aspects of GM say that they want to allow citizens have "an informed choice in the supermarket or when discussing GM at the dinner table".

Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, EuropaBio’s director of agricultural biotechnology stressed that they are pro-choice when it comes to GM. “Europeans should definitely have a choice, but by nationalising the decision-making process, is there really more choice? As it stands now, all the Member States already have a voice in the approval process,” he said.

Read the rest of this post here in the Euroscientist, the official publication of the Euroscience organisation. It publishes articles on a variety of topics based on science and science policy.

Europe divided on new GM crop rules

John Dalli: new regulations on GM crops criticised

Plans for new GM regulations in Europe are faltering amidst rejections from a number of large EU countries.


The proposed regulations would have allowed individual member states to decide for themselves whether genetically modified crops were grown in their territories. The regulations were floated in July by Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, John Dalli who said that member states would be allowed to ban GM crops on grounds other than those based on a scientific assessment of health and risks to the environment .

Having received mixed reviews from both pro- and anti-GM groups, it now seems that some of Europe's major agricultural nations have noted their opposition to the proposals.

On Monday, Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's agriculture policy director in Europe warned EU countries not to be "duped into accepting the proposal as it stands and taking the pressure off the Commission to improve crop safety and prevent GM contamination".

'EU ministers should demand a moratorium' - GreenpeaceContiero called for the EU to totally rethink its strategy on GM crops: "Until Europeans and farmers can be sure that the dangers of GM crops are thoroughly addressed, EU ministers should demand a moratorium on new authorisations".

At a meeting of EU agriculture ministers in Brussels on Monday, there was significant difference of opinions on the matter, with all sides agreeing to delay any decision on how to move forward until after the proposed regulations are reviewed by the EU's legal team and the World Trade Organisation. There are concerns that the regulations could have a significant impact on the internal market which operates within the union.

Apparently, France, Italy, Germany and Spain all came out against the proposals. France and Italy would traditionally have been seen as anti-GM, while Germany and Spain would be considered pro-GM in attitude.

Italian agriculture minister Giancarlo Galan said that Italy does not support the proposal as it stands and that "Each for himself undermines the foundations of the common agricultural policy (CAP)".

His French counterpart Bruno Lemaire was equally dismissive saying that national decision making would “give a wrong signal to European citizens and a wrong signal for the CAP".

'if it's the only way to move forward it may be the least worst option'- James PaiceBritish Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, James Paice also attended the meeting in Brussels and outlined his government's opposition to the fragmented approach, but seemed open to compromise: "The idea of effectively nationalising the policy is pretty counterproductive in terms of the single market, but if it's the only way to move forward it may be the least worst option".

Commissioner Dalli hit back at a press conference after the meeting saying that the proposal "does not undermine the internal market and it is not against WTO rules". Dalli also pointed out that the regulations will be discussed by a council of Environment ministers on the 14th of October and no doubt he will be hoping from a more positive outcome for his proposals.

'GMOs or non-GMOs don't excite me all that much'- John DalliIn a recent interview with Reuters, Dalli warned of rejecting GM out of hand: "GMOs or non-GMOs don't excite me all that much - it's a question of innovation. If Europe is going to say 'no' to anything that is new, then we are condemned to backwaters".

It can be all too rare to find someone involved in the GM debate who doesn’t get “excited” about the positives or negatives of GM crops. Unfortunately, the topic is one which seems to polarise opinion across Europe and this may be the crux of the problem from Dalli’s point of view. However, in trying to introduce an ‘a la carte’ solution which is likely to see the development of blocks of member states in the pro- and anti-GM camps, Dalli risks dividing opinion even further.

What the European Commission needs to do is act on a pan-EU basis and take the decisions which have been long-fingered by successive commissioners. A piecemeal approach will put up barriers to research and innovation which would not be permitted if we were dealing with almost any other scientific topic.

From the response of governments to his most recent attempts to remove the impasse on GM crops, it seems that Europe may be stuck in the backwaters for some time to come.

EC has "failed science and failed itself"

Canola in Alberta, Canada

The recent decision by the European Commission to give EU member states the ability to ban GM crops on a state-by-state and crop-by-crop basis means that the EC has failed science and failed itself.

The EC plan announced in July is to allow individual member states the freedom to "allow, restrict, or ban" the commercial cultivation of GM crops in their jurisdictions. The EU will still need to authorise the growth of such crops in the same way it always has, however now the individual member states can ban production of the crop even if the EU says it is perfectly safe to grow and consume.

In this respect, the European Commission is, on the one hand putting its faith in, what it calls, its own "science-based GM authorisation system" and on the other saying to member states that they can ignore the science and plough on regardless with anti-GM bans.

With one decision, the EC has cast doubt on its own GM authorisation system; has refused to back the overwhelming scientific evidence and has handed an own-goal to those who would ban GM crops without any research into their potential benefits, or indeed problems.

Undoubtedly, the GM authorisation system in painstakingly slow. Take for instance the eventual go-ahead received by German chemical company BASF for the production of its 'Amflora' potato variety. With altered starch-producing properties which makes it easier to extract the starch for industrial uses, the company spent 13 years guiding it through the European testing and authorisation procedures.

'there can be few who say that the process is not thorough enough'However, despite the system being slow, there can be little doubt that it is very thorough and very conservative in its decision making. GM opponents will, of course, question the final result in some cases, but there can be few amongst them who can say that the process is not thorough enough.

With the recent EC decision, this "science-based authorisation system" remains intact but it will now be just the first stage in the authorisation process. Once a thorough scientific investigation has been carried out at EU level, GM crop producers will need to face a new challenge: that of a heterogenous mix of member states with a range of views on GMO's.

The obstacles at member state level cannot be science-based: the science will have been tested at EU level and found to be sound (otherwise it will not reach the member states). The obstacles at member state level will be political, social and opinion-based.

In announcing the change of course, the Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, John Dalli confirmed that this decision has nothing to do with science: "Granting genuine freedom on grounds other than those based on a scientific assessment of health and environmental risks also necessitates a change to the current legislation. I stress that, the EU-wide authorisation system, based on solid science, remains fully in place."

In Ireland, for example, the Green Party are now minority partners in government and hold a considerable amount of sway in decision making. Some good news for the environment perhaps, but they have also managed to get a promise to declare Ireland a "GM-Free Zone" written into the current Programme for Government.

Trevor Sargent, the Irish Green Party's spokesperson on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that the proposals from Europe "facilitates" the delivery of the GM-Free Zone but he notes: "GM plants do not respect borders and countries like Ireland who are choosing to opt for a GM-free strategy must be facilitated to do so."

Quite how any country could be facilitated in this way is unclear. News from the US last week tells us that GM Canola is capable of spreading over large distances, so it begs the question what would happen if two EU member states sharing a land border were to take opposite views on a particular GM crop?

'The proposed amendments to GM policy will lead to a segregation policy'In addition to a failure to stand up for science, the EC decision appears to be at odds with one of the key goals of the European Union - that of being a free market without border controls between its member states. The proposed amendments to GM policy will lead to a segregation policy with pro-GM and anti-GM states taking sides.

As John Dalli said, the authorisation system based on solid science "remains fully in place". It's just a pity that the EC won't stand over the results of that system, preferring instead to pass the buck to national governments who will be permitted to ban GM crops with zero science to back up their decision.

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian.co.uk Science Blog. You can read it here.

European Red List Shows Biodiversity Still Threatened

An IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) assessment of around 6,000 European species suggests that the EU will not meet its target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 with around 14-23% of all European mammals, amphibians, reptiles, dragonflies and saproxylic beetles shown to be threatened within the EU.

The survey, underway since 2005, is looking at every species native to Europe (or naturalised before 1500 AD) and data on its geographic range, population, habitat preferences, major threats, conservation measures, etc. is collected across the continent. Depending on the results, the species are then placed in one of nine possible categories:

The results so far suggest that over half (59%) of Europe's amphibians and 42% of all reptiles have declining populations. A significant proportion (31%) of butterfly species in Europe are also in decline according to the survey.

On the other hand, dragonfly populations seem to be stabilising after declines in the 60's, 70's and 80's caused by large-scale land conversion, canalisation of rivers and water pollution. It is thought that improved water management and decreasing eutrophication of waterways has had a positive impact on dragonfly populations (at least outside the Mediterranean region). Over half of dragonflies are now thought to have stable populations.


Despite failing to meet the original target of halting biodiversity decline by 2010, the EU is in the process of preparing a new biodiversity strategy. This new target puts back by 10 years the original deadline, promising that by 2020, the EU governments will have halted the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of "ecosystem services".

In a long-term vision, the new strategy also proposes that by 2050, EU biodiversity will be "protected, valued and appropriately restored".

Lessons from the previous failure need to be learned. Patchy implementation of EU conservation legislation, insufficient funding to meet conservation goals, policy and knowledge gaps and a failure to ember biodiversity protection into other policies have all been blamed and will be taken on board when the new strategy is fomalised.

One of the major developments, is that this summer will see the European Environment Agency launch a new Eu biodiversity baseline. This will ensure that, for the first time, we will be able to accurately measure both the quality and quantity of progress towards these new targets.

Six European Red List reports are now available. The remaining three (on freshwater fish, molluscs and plants) will be available next year.

All aboard for Turin

In another example of novel science communication, six young Irish science ambassadors are travelling across Europe aboard the Science Communication Bus in order to promote Dublin City of Science 2012.

Having left Dublin on the 20th of June, they plan to reach Turin (City of Science 2010) on the 1st of July before heading on to Barcelona to end their tour. The stopover in Turin will coincide with that city's science celebrations which take place from 2nd-7th July.

The science ambassadors will be tweeting, blogging and youtubing along the way.

The science bus rolled into Brussels yesterday where they visited Ireland's European Commissioner for Research and Innovation, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn.

Ellen Byrne, one of the science ambassadors outlined the goals of the trip: "We are travelling from Dublin to Turin and all along the way, we are talking about Dublin, the city of science 2012".

Maire Geoghegan-Quinn welcomed the initiative: " I think it is a tremendous achievement because it is collaboration between different elements, Enterprise Ireland, which deals with industry in Ireland, the chief scientific officer and so on, and also the tourism bodies in the country."

"They have been talking to the ambassadors, and they keep telling me that every time, everywhere they go, there is a huge buzz and a huge excitement. And, as I've said from the beginning, I want young people back involved in the sciences and what better way to promote that than to see these young people travelling all the way to Turin."

And Ellen Byrne had some advise for those interested in science: "I would say roll up your sleeves and just totally get involved. There is something for everyone in science: science, technology, engineering and maths; and whether it's music, art or football, there is something for everyone to do within science."

You can find out more about the trip and about Dublin 2012 by visiting www.dublinscience2012.ie

55% of public say scientists must communicate more

According to a new Eurobarometer report published this week, nearly 80% of Europeans say they are interested in scientific discoveries and technological developments, compared to 65% interested in sport.

57% think scientists should put more effort into communicating about their work and 66% believe governments should do more to interest young people in scientific issues. Europeans overwhelmingly recognise the benefits and importance of science but many also express fears over risks from new technologies and the power that knowledge gives to scientists.

For example, a massive 58% of respondents at the EU level agreed with the statement that "we can no longer trust scientists to tell the truth about controversial scientific and technological issues because they depend more and more on money from industry". This figure falls to 36% when responses from Ireland only are considered. Given the Irish government's decision to reduce the amount of exchequer funding available to scientific research, in favour of more input from industry, it begs the question: will the Irish and European public be happy about this? Perhaps not, given the results of this survey, but they are hardly likely to demand higher taxes to pay for purely government sponsored science either.

53%: "scientists have a power that makes them dangerous"Worrying too is the agreement of 53% of the European respondents (46% of Irish respondents) with the statement that, because of their knowledge, scientists "have a power that makes them dangerous". Not potentially dangerous, mind you, but just dangerous, full stop!

Interestingly, when asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that we depend too much on science and not enough on faith, 29% of Irish respondents agreed. This was down significantly from 41% when this survey was last taken in 2005. Is this an indication of the increased secularisation of Irish society?

With regard to the communication of science, 57% of EU respondents (55% of Irish respondents) felt that scientists do not put enough effort into informing the public about new developments in science and technology. When the data is closely analysed, we see that those respondents who feel that they are not informed at all about scientists feel that scientists themselves are not making enough effort to communicate the message about science.

16%: "newspaper journalists best equipped to communicate science"The majority of EU citizens (63% of respondents) felt that scientists working at a university or government laboratories are best qualified to explain scientific and technological developments. Just 32% of respondents felt that scientists working in industry were best placed to explain these developments. 16% of respondents felt that newspaper journalists were best equipped to discuss such developments.

Research, Innovation and Science Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said: "The success of the Europe 2020 Strategy depends on cutting edge science to keep Europe competitive. In turn, that means ordinary Europeans need to back science and keep the pressure up on government and on industry to invest in it. These results show a very high awareness of the importance of science. But they also show that both politicians - like me - and scientists themselves need to explain better what we are doing and why."

Overall, the survey shows that European citizens are fairly optimistic about science and technology - 75% of respondents agree or tend to agree that thanks to science and technology there will be more opportunities for future generations. However, there is a shift towards scepticism compared to the 2005 survey. Judging by the results of this survey, this scepticism could be reduced by more scientists, in particular those in academia, making an even greater effort to communicate their work to the general public.

As Peter Fiske wrote in Nature earlier this year: "Scientists must communicate about their work — to other scientists, sponsors of their research and the general public...searching for opportunities to give talks and lectures — and seeking audiences that are outside one's immediate sphere of scientific influence at, for example, science museums or local civic organizations".

"scientists must communicate about their work" - Peter Fiske"Many scientists are incredulous at how little the general public knows about science and technology" says Fiske, "but scientists do little to address the gap in understanding. Most think that their successes in the lab are manifestly evident, making education about the value of their work unnecessary. Few ever communicate with their elected officials. With the public footing most of the bill, this misguided belief seems naive and undermines those who campaign for more funding.

"Excellent work is a prerequisite for career progress, but is not sufficient by itself. Broadcasting one's accomplishments and exercising the 'active voice' in all aspects of one's work is the best way to earn notice, gain recognition and make the public at large aware of the value of the scientific enterprise."

The full Eurobarometer report (pdf) can be viewed here.

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian.co.uk Science Blog.

We're all in this together

We're all in this together. That's the message from a new EU campaign to inform us about biodiversity and to get people actively engaged in preserving and restoring it.

The timing is critical as it coincides with the International Year of Biodiversity and according to the Stern Review on the Economic effects of climate change, 15-40% of species could disappear by the end of this century. Despite the pretty wide margin there, any loss of species is undoubtedly a bad thing and  needs to be guarded against.

The campaign will target all EU countries but with particular focus on Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Romania. Quite why these specific countries have been chosen, I'm not sure.

The campaign entitled "We are all in this together" (certainly NOT We're... or to be confused with the UK Conservative Party slogan used in the recent elections) was launched at the start of the year with a snazzy new logo. As a means of getting their point across quickly, it looks pretty succesful.

Recent research in the Netherlands show that only one third of Europeans feel they know what biodiversity means or how it benefits them, with many associating the term with "distant wildlife".

A key part of the campaign is to emphasis the effect biodiversity has on every citizen and how a loss of biodiversity has negative impacts on human society - from water purification to food supply, and from energy to pharmaceuticals.

A campaign spokesperson said, "Expect to see provocative images and messages designed to catch people's attention, channelled through word-of-mouth 'viral' marketing, such as graphic outlines of a dead sparrow or flower chalked on city streets and pavements. The initiative will also feature a widspread print campaign, social networks such as Facebook and a dedicated website on biodiversity in Europe".

You can biodiversify a photo of yourself here.

Our Woman in Brussels

When was the last time you heard some really good news coming form the EU?

 
It seems, despite the EU being very good at extolling its own virtues, some media outlets and indeed the man or woman on the street love to focus on the European Project's mistakes.
But I'm not here to convince you one way or another on Europe and thankfully all that Lisbon business is now behind us.

Probiotic Advert Banned

Following up on my earlier post regarding European Commission findings on probiotic yoghurts and drinks, the BBC report that the Advertising Standards Agency in Britain have banned a TV advert for Actimel - a well known brand of probiotic drinks.

Read the report here from the BBC.

Probiotic drinks under scrutiny

A panel of scientists at the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) has dismissed a range of health claims made by manufacturers of so-called "probiotic" yoghurts and drinks.
The opinion delivered by the EFSA was part of a wider study of over 4,000 'general function' claims submitted by EU member states. While only about 500 claims have been studied in this batch, the rest are still being evaluated.
A 'general function' claim is a claim made about a particular food product which suggests that it can aid growth, development or function of the body or make you less hungry so that you will eat less, etc. Basically, its the sort of claim made about products that says, 'Eat this and you'll get thin', or 'Eat this and you'll never get a cold or runny nose again'.
Of the 523 claims made about a variety of food components, including probiotic bacteria, one third were upheld as there was a sufficient amount and quality of scientific evidence to back up the claims.
Of the remaining two thirds which were not upheld, over 50% were rejected owing to a lack of information on the substance on which the claim was based.
180 claims made for probiotic cultures were assessed by the panel, with ten claims being rejected outright and the remainder falling into the category where not enough evidence had been provided to support the claims.
Prof. Albert Flynn of the EFSA commented:"EFSA’s independent scientific advice will help ensure that the health claims made on foods are accurate and helpful to consumers in making healthy diet choices. The scientific opinions will inform future decisions of the Commission and Member States concerning the authorisation of health claims”.
As these were "general function" claims, the next phase will be to assess specific claims made and submitted by manufacturers such as Yakult and Danone about specific strains of probiotic bacteria. A spokesperson for Yakult said: "Yakult has submitted claims for Lactobacillus casei Shirota, a well characterised probiotic strain unique to Yakult. Evidence for its health benefit is based on over 70 human studies and over 70 years of research."
Incidentally, and for a bit of fun, you can generate your own probiotic culture name by following the link below and inserting your last name. Enjoy!
http://nfitz.net/probioticgenerator.php