Modelos de avaliação das alegações de propriedades saudáveis nos alimentos e seu impacto na compreensão e apropriação públicas da ciência
Palavras-chave:
alegações de saúde, avaliação de benefícios, comunicação científica, compreensão pública da ciência, participação socialResumo
A autorização do uso de alegações de saúde (health claims) — ou seja, a afirmação de que um alimento contribui para a melhoria da saúde humana — requer, na maioria dos países, a aprovação em processo de avaliação, tanto da propriedade benéfica quanto de sua apresentação na rotulagem futura. Esses processos procuram garantir a veracidade da alegação, bem como a correta compreensão pelo consumidor. Este artigo apresenta os resultados de uma análise comparativa da regulamentação de ambas as questões nos Estados Unidos e na União Europeia, a partir de diferentes categorias decorrentes dos estudos sociais da ciência (os estudos CTS). Analisa como diferentes estratégias avaliativas para justificar alegações de saúde levam a diferentes formas de comunicar a ciência envolvida nesta questão de saúde pública. Observamse também os dados disponíveis sobre o efetivo cumprimento dos objetivos políticos associados a esta regulamentação. Esta análise mostra as limitações para a apropriação de informação científica pelo consumidor, justamente no caso de a priori ser considerada menos tecnocrática e mais participativa na perspectiva CTS.Downloads
Referências
Asp, N. y Bryngelsson, S. (2008). Health Claims in Europe. Journal of Nutrition, 138, 1210S-1215S.
Bauer, M. W., Allum, N. y Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95.
Berhaupt-Glickstein, A. y Hallman, W. K. (2017). Communicating scientific evidence in qualified health claims. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57(13), 2811-2824.
Bilman, E. M., Van Kleef, E., Mela, D. J., Hulshof, T. y Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2012). Consumer understanding, interpretation and perceived levels of personal responsibility in relation to satiety-related claims. Appetite, 59, 912–920.
Boobis, A., Chiodini, A., Hoekstra, J., Lagiou, P., Przyrembel, H., Schlatter, J., Schütte, K., Verhagen, H. y Watzl, B. (2013). Critical appraisal of the assessment of benefits and risks for foods—BRAFO Consensus Working Group. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 55, 659–675.
Buchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: theories of public communication of science. En M. Bucchi y B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (57-76). Nueva York: Routledge.
Comisión Europea (2011). Second Collective answer (to comments on EFSA's opinions and stakeholder concerns). Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (20 de mayo).
EFSA NDA (2011). General guidance for stakeholders on the evaluation of Article 13.1, 13.5 and 14 health claims. EFSA Journal, 9(4), 2135.
European Parliament and Council (2006). European Parliament and Council Regulation No. 1924/of the European Parliament and of the Council on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods, OJ L 404 (30.12.2006), 12.
Gilsenan, M. (2011). Nutrition & health claims in the EU. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22, 536-542.
González García, M. I., López Cerezo, J. A. y Luján, J. L. (1996). Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad. Una introducción al estudio social de la ciencia y la tecnología. Madrid: Tecnos.
Government Accountability Office (2011). Food Labellig. FDA Needs to Reassess Its Approach to protecting Consumers from False or Misleading Claims. Recuperado de: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-102.
Gutteling, J. y Wiegman, O. (1996). Exploring Risk communication. Dordrecht: Springer.
Harris, J. L., Thompson, J. M., Schwartz, M. B. y Brownell, K. D. (2011). Nutrition-related claims on children’s cereals: what do they mean to parents and do they influence willingness to buy? Public Health Nutrition, 1, 2207–2212.
Hieke, S. y Grunert, K. G. (2018). Consumers and health claims. En M. J. Sadler (Ed.), Foods, Nutrients and Food Ingredients with Authorised EU Health Claims, 3 (19-32). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
Jukola, S. (2019). On the evidentiary standards for nutrition advice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biol & Biomed Sci., 73, 1–9.
Kamiok, H., Tsutani, K., Origasa, H., Yoshizaki, T., Kitayuguchi, J., Shimada, M., Wada, Y. y Takano-Ohmuro, H. (2019). Quality of systematic reviews of the Foods with Function Claims registered at the Consumer Affairs Agency web site in Japan: a prospective systematic review. Nutrients, 11(7), 1583.
Kapsak, W. R., Schmidt, D., Childs, N. M., Meunier, J. y White, C. (2008). Consumer perceptions of graded, graphic and text label presentations for qualified health claims. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 48, 248–256.
Krimsky, Sh. (1984). Beyond Technocracy: New Routes for Citizen Involvement in Social Risk Assessment. En J. Petersen (Ed.), Citizen Participation in Science Policy (43-61). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Lähteenmäki, L. (2013). Claiming health in food products. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 196–201.
Lalor, F. y Wall, P. G. (2011). Health claims regulations. Comparison between USA, Japan and European Union. British Food Journal 113(2), 298-313.
López Cerezo, J. A. (2018). La confianza en la sociedad del riesgo. Madrid: Sello.
Luján, J. L. y Todt, O. (2018a). The dilemmas of science for policy. EMBO Reports, 19(2), 194-196.
Luján, J. L. y Todt, O. (2018b). Regulatory Science: between Technology and Society. En B. Laspra y J. A. López Cerezo (Eds.), Spanish Philosophy of Technology, 24 (59-72). Cham: Springer.
Luján, J. L. y Todt, O. (2020a). Standards of evidence and causality in regulatory science: Risk and benefit assessment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 80, 82-89.
Luján, J. L. y Todt, O. (2020b). Evidence, What Evidence. Issues in Science and Technology, 10 Junio de 2020. Recuperado de: https://issues.org/problem-with-evidence-based-policy/?fbclid=IwAR07QJNFy1z5_ISGRo0_Oj9gkY9JeoturgfGS5UCaLElg88Dxshwc3hKEf0.
Nocella, G. y Kennedy, O. (2012). Food health claims – What consumers understand. Food Policy, 37, 571-580.
Parker, B. (2003). Food for health. The Use of Nutrient Content, Health, and Structure/Function Claims in Food Advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 32, 47-55.
Renn, O., Webler, T. y Wiedemann, P (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance: Coping with uncertainty in a Complex World. Londres: Erthscan.
Rip, A. y Belt, H. V. D. (1988). Constructive Technology assessment: towards a Theory. Amsterdam: Twente University.
Rip, A. y Robinson, D. K. R. (2013). Constructive Technology Assessment and the Methodology of Insertion. En N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. Van de Poel y M. Gorman (Eds), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 16. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rip. A., Misa, T. y Schot, J. (1995). Managing Technology in Society. Nueva York: Pinter.
Rowe, G. y Frewer, L. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251-290.
Sanz Merino, N. y López Cerezo, J. A. (2012). Cultura científica para la educación del s. XXI. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 58, 35-59.
Schot, J. W. (1992). Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1), 36–56.
Tijhuis, M. J., Pohjola, M., Gunnlaugsdóttir, H., Kalogeras, N. et al. (2012). Looking beyond borders: Integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of Food and Nutrition. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 77-93.
Todt, O. y Luján, J. L. (2017). Health Claims and Methodological Controversy in Nutrition Science. Risk Analysis, 37(5), 958-968.
Todt, O. y Luján, J. L. (1997). Labelling of Novel Food, and Public Debate. Science and Public Policy, 24(5), 319-326.
Turck, D. et al. (2017). Scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and presentation of an application for authorization of a Health Claim (2º revision). EFSA Journal, 15(1), 4680.
US DC Circuit (1999). Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, American Preventive Medical Association and Citizens for Health, Appellants, vs. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Appellees. No. 98-5043, 98-5084. Decided: January 15. Recuperado de: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/172/72/599421/.
US FDA (1990). Nutrition Labelling and Education Act. Public Law 101-553, 104 Stat. 2353 codified at 21 USC 343 (1993). Recuperado de: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg2353.pdf.
US FDA (1997). FDA Modernization Act. U.S. Public Law 105-115, 111 stat. 2296 codified at 21 USC. 301 (21 nov., 1997). Recuperado de: www.cfsan.fda.gov/,dms/labfdama.html.
US FDA (2003). Consumer health information for better nutrition initiative: Task Force Final Report. Recuperado de: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/consumer-health-information-better-nutrition-initiative-task-force-final-report.
US FDA (2009). Guidance for Industry: Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims. Recuperado de: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-evidence-based-review-system-scientific-evaluation-health-claims.
Wynne, B. (1995). Technology Assessment and Reflexive Social Learning: Observations from the Risk Field, in Managing Technology. En A. Rip, T. J. Misa y J. W. Schot (Eds.), Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (19-36). Londres: Pinter Publishers.
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Todas os números de CTS e seus artigos individuais estão sob uma licença CC-BY.
Desde 2007, a CTS proporciona acesso livre, aberto e gratuito a todos seus conteúdos, incluídos o arquivo completo da edição quadrimestral e os diversos produtos apresentados na plataforma eletrônica. Esta decisão é baseada no entendimento de que fornecer acesso livre aos materiais publicados ajuda a ter uma maior e melhor troca de conhecimentos.
Por sua vez, em se tratando da edição quadrimestral, a revista permite aos repositórios institucionais e temáticos, bem como aos sites pessoais, o autoarquivo dos artigos na versão post-print ou versão editorial, logo após da publicação da versão definitiva de cada número e sob a condição de incorporar ao autoarquivo um link direcionado à fonte original.
