Efficacy of novel food should balance risks

Currently, the remit of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) is solely to look at potential health risks when considering applications for novel foods approval. But at an open workshop of the ACNFP last month, a number of industry representatives called for risk-benefit analyses to replace the present procedures.

The UK submits one-third of all EU applications for novel food approval, according to ACNFP chairman professor Peter Gregory. However, in the 12 years since EU legislation has been in place, only about 40 novel foods have received approval and are on sale, noted ACNFP member professor Clare Mills.

ACNFP member, professor John Warner said: "The key role [of the ACNFP] was to carry out safety assessments of novel foods for the Food Standards Agency." These could be full assessments, a review of an assessment carried out by another EU Member State, or to provide a response to a request for an opinion on the 'substantial equivalence' (involving a simplified procedure) of a particular novel food. But Warner stressed: "Our remit is not to consider health claims."

However, even ACNFP ethics spokesman professor Christopher Ritson recognised that in the minds of the public: "Once a consumer benefit is identified, products become more acceptable and paradoxically safer." He added: "We concentrate on protecting the consumer and not taking a view on the efficacy of the food although we do sometimes comment upon it."