ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021
Perspective: A Legal and Nutritional Perspective on the Introduction of Quinoa-Based Infant and Follow-on Formula in the EU.
Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A review of the toxicological effects and allergenic potential of emerging alternative protein sources.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025Pooled it
- Dual-Protein Systems in Foods: Structure-Function Relationships, Nutritional Impacts, and Applications.Journal of food science · 2026Review
- Effect of Dry Roasting on the Physicochemical, Nutritional, and Techno-Functional Properties of Tri-Color Quinoa Flours.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Plant-based proteins for infant formula: findings and recommendations from the ILSI Europe workshop.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Can quinoa (Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- Modifying quinoa protein for enhanced functional properties and digestibility: A review.Current research in food science · 2023Review
- Low-Protein Infant Formula and Obesity Risk.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Alternatives to Cow's Milk-Based Infant Formulas in the Prevention and Management of Cow's Milk Allergy.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infants are vulnerable consumers and highly depend on dietary proteins for growth and development during their first months of life. Infant formula (IF) and follow-on formula (FOF) have been developed to meet these requirements, although few protein sources are currently allowed to be used. At the same time, allergies to these available protein sources are becoming more frequent. There is thus a need to explore alternative protein sources for infant nutrition. One alternative could be quinoa, which is a pseudocereal that is naturally free from gluten and has a high protein content and quality. This review assessed the composition, nutritional properties, and applicability of quinoa proteins for IF and FOF as well as the legal framework for their use in the European Union (EU). The protein quality of isolated quinoa proteins (IQPs) is relatively high compared with other plant-based proteins like rice. Besides, during the protein isolation process, unfavorable compounds are mostly removed, ensuring that the final product can comply with the maximum residue concentrations allowed. Overall, IF and FOF are strictly regulated under the Foods for Specific Groups (FSG) Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 and more research is needed before the introduction of IQP in such products is considered, but this review shows it has several promising features that warrant further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.