Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39385787›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024

Risk-benefit assessment of foods and its role to inform policy decisions: outcome of an international workshop.

Constanza De Matteu Monteiro, Jeanne-Marie Membré, Morten Poulsen, Sofie Theresa Thomsen, Sara Monteiro Pires

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Constanza De Matteu MonteiroNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Jeanne-Marie MembréOniris VetAgroSup, INRAE, Secalim, Nantes, France.
Morten PoulsenNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Sofie Theresa ThomsenNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Sara Monteiro PiresNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy decisions in public health require consideration and evaluation of trade-offs for which transparency and science-based evidence is needed. Improvement of decision-support tools is essential to help guide food policy decisions that promote healthy diets and meet the challenges of food systems without compromising food security, food safety, and sovereignty. Risk-benefit assessment of foods (RBA) is an established methodological approach designed to inform policy decisions within the area of nutrition and food safety. Despite methodological developments, translation of RBA findings into policies is still limited. In this context, a stakeholder workshop held in May 2023 gathered RBA experts and food regulators from Europe to identify the challenges, obstacles and opportunities in using evidence generated through RBAs to inform food policy decisions. A structured process was implemented to collect their views through online surveys, breakout groups, and plenary discussions. As a secondary objective, food regulators' views on other approaches for holistic risk assessment fit for food systems analysis were also explored. This paper summarizes the main findings of the workshop and discusses policy implications and future perspectives to improve the area of RBA and its role in food policymaking.

Indexed as

decision-makingfood policyhealth impact assessmentholistic approachesrisk–benefit assessment

Identifiers

PMID39385787
PMCPMC11462872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.