LETTER

Sir

It is with interest that I read your article 'Three into one won't go as suppliers argue over omega-3' (Food Manufacture November 2005, p4).

It is time that we saw some transparency from the Joint Health Claims Initiative (JHCI) as to how and for whom they accept health claims. I would be interested to know how the "approx £7,000" required if you submit evidence is spent.

They [JHCI} approved three generic claims about reducing the risk of certain cancers by increasing fruit and vegetable consumption soon after the Department of Health launched its five-a-day campaign. They were:

l Eating more fruit may help reduce the risk of lung cancer. This does not overcome the adverse effects of smoking on lung cancer;

l Eating more fruit and vegetables may help reduce the risk of stomach cancer;

l Eating more vegetables as part of a healthy lifestyle may help reduce the risk of bowel cancer.

The JHCI has assessed the above claims as being scientifically substantiated and capable of conveying to a prospective consumer useful information that would inform sensible dietary choice. Totality of the evidence, says the JHCI, substantiates the claim. Even though the JHCI's Code of Practice on Health Claims, in Annex 2, clearly states the source and nature of scientific evidence required, executive secretary Melanie Ruffell is reported as saying: "We did not analyse data or look at studies, but essentially looked for high-level government documentation to determine consistency."

It seems surprising that they have not followed their own advice, as there is insufficient evidence to substantiate, for example, that eating more fruit may help reduce the risk of lung cancer. Although fruit and vegetables have been associated with reduced risk, results from some prospective studies (Ronan et al, 2002) have shown no such association and the apparent relation in many studies might have resulted from residual confounding by smoking, since smokers generally eat less fruit and vegetables than non-smokers (Stram et al, 2002).

Furthermore, a review of the literature from 1999 to 2001 concluded that the greatest protection from lung cancer was associated with intakes of cruciferous vegetables (Hyson, 2002) which are not in the aforementioned claim.

Furthermore, Reading University research clearly shows that eating 3g per day of omega-3 fish oil can be detrimental to cardiac health for carriers of the APO E4 genotype.

When I asked if the JHCI consulted this research, I was told the evidence that was presented to the JHCI is posted on their website, and if we have significant concerns, we may submit evidence with the standard fee. Am I naïve to think that an expert committee should consult research other than what has been submitted?

Adri Bester

London Food Centre