Self-reported dietary intake is assessed by methods of real-time recording (food diaries and the duplicate portion method) and methods of recall (dietary histories, food frequency questionnaires, and 24-hour dietary recalls). Being less labor intensive, recall methods are more frequently employed in nutritional epidemiological investigations. However, sources of error, which include the participants’ inability to fully and accurately recall their intakes as well as limitations inherent in the food composition databases applied to convert the reported food consumption to energy and nutrient intakes, may limit the validity of the generated information. The use of dietary biomarkers is often recommended to overcome such errors and better capture intra-individual variability in intake; nevertheless, it has its own challenges. To address measurement error associated with dietary questionnaires, large epidemiological investigations often integrate sub-studies for the validation and calibration of the questionnaires and/or administer a combination of different assessment methods (e.g. administration of different questionnaires and assessment of biomarker levels). Recent advances in the omics field could enrich the list of reliable nutrition biomarkers, whereas new approaches employing web-based and smart phone applications could reduce respondent burden and, possibly, reporting bias. Novel technologies are increasingly integrated with traditional methods, but some sources of error still remain. In the analyses, food and nutrient intakes always need to be adjusted for total daily energy intake to account for errors related to reporting.

Background: The relationship between dietary sodium intake and blood pressure (BP) has been tested in clinical trials and nonexperimental human studies, indicating a direct association. The exact shape of the dose–response relationship has been difficult to assess in clinical trials because of the lack of random-effects dose–response statistical models that can include 2-arm comparisons. Methods: After performing a comprehensive literature search for experimental studies that investigated the BP effects of changes in dietary sodium intake, we conducted a dose–response meta-analysis using the new 1-stage cubic spline mixed-effects model. We included trials with at least 4 weeks of follow-up; 24-hour urinary sodium excretion measurements; sodium manipulation through dietary change or supplementation, or both; and measurements of systolic and diastolic BP at the beginning and end of treatment. Results: We identified 85 eligible trials with sodium intake ranging from 0.4 to 7.6 g/d and follow-up from 4 weeks to 36 months. The trials were conducted in participants with hypertension (n=65), without hypertension (n=11), or a combination (n=9). Overall, the pooled data were compatible with an approximately linear relationship between achieved sodium intake and mean systolic as well as diastolic BP, with no indication of a flattening of the curve at either the lowest or highest levels of sodium exposure. Results were similar for participants with or without hypertension, but the former group showed a steeper decrease in BP after sodium reduction. Intervention duration (≥12 weeks versus 4 to 11 weeks), type of study design (parallel or crossover), use of antihypertensive medication, and participants’ sex had little influence on the BP effects of sodium reduction. Additional analyses based on the BP effect of difference in sodium exposure between study arms at the end of the trial confirmed the results on the basis of achieved sodium intake. Conclusions: In this dose–response analysis of sodium reduction in clinical trials, we identified an approximately linear relationship between sodium intake and reduction in both systolic and diastolic BP across the entire range of dietary sodium exposure. Although this occurred independently of baseline BP, the effect of sodium reduction on level of BP was more pronounced in participants with a higher BP level.

The European Commission requested EFSA to update the scientific guidance for the preparation of applications for authorisation of novel foods, previously developed following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods. This guidance document provides advice on the scientific information needed to be submitted by the applicant towards demonstrating the safety of the novel food. Requirements pertain to the description of the novel food, production process, compositional data, specifications, proposed uses and use levels and anticipated intake of the novel food. Furthermore, information needed in sections on the history of use of the novel food and/or its source, absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, toxicological information, nutritional information and allergenicity is also described. The applicant should integrate and interpret the data presented in the different sections to provide their overall considerations on how the information supports the safety of the novel food under the proposed conditions of use. Where potential health hazards have been identified, they are to be discussed in relation to the anticipated intake of the novel food and the proposed target populations. On the basis of the information provided, EFSA will assess the safety of the novel food under the proposed conditions of use.

Context: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing supplementation with eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic (DHA) fatty acids have failed to provide evidence supporting a suggested inverse association between fish intake and dementia risk. Objective: Dose–response analyses were conducted to evaluate associations between fish intake, all-cause dementia or Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), and the effect of EPA/DHA supplementation on cognitive performance. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for original research evaluating either associations between fish intake and dementia or AD, or the impact of EPA and/or DHA supplementation on the risk of cognitive decline. Data Extraction: Data were collected on study characteristics and methods; number of cases/deaths (for observational studies); categories of exposure; model covariates; risk estimates from the most-adjusted model; type and dosage of supplementation (from RCTs); fatty acid levels in blood; and differences in cognition test results before and after supplementation. Risk of bias was assessed through the ROBINS-E and RoB2.0 tools for observational and experimental studies, respectively. Data Analysis: Weighted mixed-effects models were applied, allowing for the inclusion of studies with 2 levels of exposure. Based on findings with low/moderate risk of bias, fish intake of up to 2 portions (250 g) per week was associated with a 10% reduction (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79, 1.02, Ν = 5) in all-cause dementia and a 30% reduction (95% CI: 0.54, 0.89, Ν = 3) in AD risk. Changes in EPA and DHA body status had a positive impact on participants’ executive functions, but not on their overall cognitive performance. Conclusion: The protection offered by fish intake against cognitive decline levels off at intakes higher than 2 portions/week and likely relates to the impact of EPA and DHA on the individual’s executive functions, although there remain questions about the mechanisms linking the short- and long-term effects. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019139528.

Νon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of end-stage liver disease in developed countries. Oxidative stress plays a key role during the course of the disease and vitamin E supplementation has shown to be beneficial due to its antioxidative properties. We aim to investigate the effect of vitamin E supplementation on serum aminotransferase levels in patients with NAFLD. Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase) were reviewed for randomized trials that tested vitamin E supplementation versus placebo or no intervention in patients with NAFLD, published until April 2023. A total of 794 patients from 12 randomized trials were included in this meta-analysis. Notwithstanding the studies’ heterogeneity and moderate internal validity in certain cases, among studies testing vitamin E supplementation at 400 IU/day and above, the values of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were reduced compared with placebo or no intervention [ALT Mean Difference (MD) = −6.99 IU/L, 95% CI (−9.63, −4.35), for studies conducted in Asian countries and MD = −9.57 IU/L, 95% CI (−12.20, −6.95) in non-Asian countries]. Regarding aspartate aminotransferase (AST), patients in the experimental group experienced a reduction in serum levels, though smaller in absolute values [AST MD = −4.65 IU/L, 95% CI (−7.44, −1.86) in studies conducted in Asian populations] and of lower precision in non-Asian studies [MD = −5.60 IU/L, 95% CI (−11.48, 0.28)].