Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to resistant starch and reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses (ID 681), "digestive health benefits" (ID 682) and "favours a normal colon metabolism" (ID 783) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA)

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to provide a scientific opinion on a list of health claims pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. This opinion addresses the scientific substantiation of health claims in relation to resistant starch and reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses, "digestive health benefits" and "favours a normal colon metabolism". The scientific substantiation is based on the information provided by the Member States in the consolidated list of Article 13 health claims and references that EFSA has received from Member States or directly from stakeholders. The food constituent that is the subject of the health claims is resistant starch-type 2 from high amylose maize. The Panel considers that resistant starch from high amylose maize (RS2) is sufficiently characterised. Reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses The claimed effect is "healthy blood glucose/sugar levels". The target population is assumed to be individuals wishing to reduce their post-prandial glycaemic responses. In the context of the proposed wordings, the Panel assumes that the claimed effect refers to the reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses. The Panel considers that the reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses (as long as post-prandial insulinaemic responses are not disproportionally increased) may be a beneficial physiological effect. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that most of the studies provided reported a significant decrease in post-prandial glycaemic responses, without significantly increasing insulinaemic responses, following consumption of RS2 as a partial replacement of digestible starch in baked goods, and that the effect is generally not observed when the amount of available carbohydrates is maintained constant in the test and control products. This suggests that the replacement of digestible starch in carbohydrate-containing foods by RS2 from high amylose maize would decrease post-prandial glycaemic and insulinaemic responses due to the replacement of digestible carbohydrates by indigestible carbohydrates, so that the amount of available glucose contributing to glycaemia is reduced, whereas the addition of RS2 to carbohydrate-containing foods does not appear to modify the post-prandial glucose responses to digestible starch (i.e. when the amount of glycaemic carbohydrates is kept constant). The Panel notes that the effect of replacing digestible starch in foods with resistant starch on post-prandial glycaemic responses could be expected from all types of resistant starch, and that this effect is not specific to RS2 from high amylose maize. On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the consumption of resistant starch from all sources, when replacing digestible starch in baked foods, and a reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses. The Panel considers that in order to bear the claim, high carbohydrate baked foods should contain at least 14 % of total starch as resistant starch in replacement to digestible starch. The target population is individuals wishing to reduce their post-prandial glycaemic responses. "Digestive health benefits" The claimed effect is "digestive health benefits". The target population is assumed to be the general population. The claimed effect is not sufficiently defined, and no further details were provided in the proposed wordings. The Panel considers that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not refer to any specific health claim as required by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. "Favours a normal colon metabolism" The claimed effect is "favours a normal colon metabolism". The target population is assumed to be the general population. The claimed effect is not sufficiently defined, and no further details were provided in the proposed wordings. The Panel considers that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not refer to any specific health claim as required by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.