• Open Access

Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to isoleucyl-prolyl-proline (IPP) and valyl-prolyl-proline (VPP) and maintenance of normal blood pressure pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Authors

  • EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA)


  • Panel members: Carlo Agostoni, Jean-Louis Bresson, Susan Fairweather-Tait, Albert Flynn, Ines Golly, Hannu Korhonen, Pagona Lagiou, Martinus Løvik, Rosangela Marchelli, Ambroise Martin, Bevan Moseley, Monika Neuhäuser-Berthold, Hildegard Przyrembel, Seppo Salminen, Yolanda Sanz, Sean (J.J.) Strain, Stephan Strobel, Inge Tetens, Daniel Tomé, Hendrik van Loveren and Hans Verhagen
  • Correspondence: nda@efsa.europa.eu
  • Acknowledgement: The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Claims: Carlo Agostoni, Jean-Louis Bresson, Susan Fairweather-Tait, Albert Flynn, Ines Golly, Marina Heinonen, Hannu Korhonen, Martinus Løvik, Ambroise Martin, Hildegard Przyrembel, Seppo Salminen, Yolanda Sanz, Sean (J.J.) Strain, Inge Tetens, Hendrik van Loveren and Hans Verhagen for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion.
  • Adoption date: 14 September 2011
  • Published date: 30 September 2011
  • Question number: EFSA-Q-2011-00121
  • On request from: Competent Authority of Finland

Abstract

Following an application from Valio Ltd submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Finland, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to isoleucyl-prolyl-proline (IPP) and valyl-prolyl-proline (VPP) and maintenance of normal blood pressure (BP). The tripeptides IPP and VPP are sufficiently characterised. Maintenance of normal blood pressure is a beneficial physiological effect. The applicant identified a total of 20 published intervention studies (in 19 papers; five papers were translated by the applicant into English from the Japanese original) and one unpublished study, as well as two published and one unpublished meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as being pertinent to the claim. Thirteen of the RCTs provided, four of which were adequately powered to detect small between-group differences in systolic BP (SBP), did not observe an effect of IPP and VPP on SBP or diastolic BP. The interpretation of the results from seven out of the eight studies which reported an effect of IPP and VPP on office SBP was hampered by major methodological limitations. The animal studies did not provide additional information on the effect of IPP and VPP on BP in humans, and no convincing evidence for a mechanism by which IPP and VPP could exert the claimed effect at the proposed dose has been provided. The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of IPP and VPP and maintenance of normal blood pressure.

Ancillary