ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2026
Eliminate the In Vivo Digestibility Requirement for Protein Content Claims in North America to Align Consumer Purchasing Behavior with Dietary Guidelines.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A roundtable discussion, held on 10 December, 2024, addressed requirements for protein quality assessment in United States and Canadian food labeling regulations, focusing on concerns with the protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS), which includes an in vivo rat assay to determine true fecal protein digestibility. Because animal proteins tend to score higher, the PDCAAS disadvantages nonanimal foods in substantiating protein content claims despite dietary guidelines recommending increased intake of plant proteins. In addition, the use of animal testing raises ethical concerns for some consumers. Roundtable participants weighed the benefits and costs of requiring the PDCAAS and discussed alternative regulatory approaches to better promote human health, prevent chronic disease, replace animal testing, and support sustainable food production. Options included relying solely on the amount of protein per serving, correcting only for the amino acid score, using fixed coefficients of digestibility or in vitro assays to determine digestibility, and incorporating measures that reflect human health outcomes and environmental impact. Several in vitro methods, such as the pH-drop and pH-stat methods, were identified as promising candidates for regulatory acceptance. The consensus was that for foods that do not address special needs, relying solely on the amount of protein to substantiate content claims is appropriate for populations who already consume protein in excess of reference values from varied sources. This approach, already used in other high-income jurisdictions, allows more plant-based foods to qualify for protein claims while avoiding animal testing. Moving away from the in vivo derived PDCAAS would reduce existing regulatory barriers, better align with current dietary guidelines, and promote increased intake of plant-based foods, thereby improving public health and sustainability.
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.