An NRV is like a recommended intake. If adopted, an NRV for EPA+DHA will provide the basis for nutrition labelling and relevant claims in many countries that rely on Codex for guidance, not to mention facilitate global trade.
There are two types of NRVs: NRV-Requirements (R) and NRV-Non-Communicable Disease (NCD). NRV-Rs “refer to NRVs that are based on levels of nutrients associated with nutrient requirements” and NRVs-NCDs “refer to NRVs that are based on levels of nutrients associated with the reduction in the risk of diet-related non-communicable diseases not including nutrient deficiency diseases or disorders.” The approved proposal for new work is related to an NRV-NCD, which is where GOED believes the benefits of EPA and DHA consumption are well established for conditions such as coronary heart disease.
What happens now is that the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses' approval will be forwarded to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), the highest decision making body in Codex, for its consideration at the thirty-eighth session of the CAC scheduled for this July in Geneva, Switzerland. Provided the CAC endorses the proposal, and there’s no reason to believe that it won’t, an electronic working group (eWG), co-chaired by Chile and Russia, will be established and work will be initiated.
The eWG will be tasked with assessing the most current scientific evidence using systematic reviews and making recommendations to set an NRV for EPA+DHA according to the 'General Principles for Establishing Nutrient Reference Values for the General Population (>36 months old)' found as an annex in the 'Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CAC/GL 2-1985).'
According to the Report of the Thirty-Sixth Session of the CCNFSDU, 'The eWG recommendations would then be presented for discussion at the CCNFSDU37, with the possibility to have the NRV-NCD for omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA adopted at Step 5/8 by the CAC39 in 2016.'
Although the reality of an NRV is well within reach, there remains at least one outstanding issue of contention for some countries. Specifically, is it appropriate to consider chronic disease endpoints to set a recommended intake? It couldn’t be more fortuitous then that the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) Committees of the Canadian and US Governments announced in December that they had scheduled a workshop (10–11 March 2015) to 'critically evaluate key scientific issues involved in using chronic disease endpoints for setting DRIs and, in this context, to provide information for future decisions regarding whether and/or how chronic disease endpoints can be incorporated into the setting of DRI values.' Visit www.health.gov/dri/Default.asp for more information.
This workshop has been determined to be critical by Canada and the US before another DRI review can be undertaken. It was originally announced in August 2014, along with the countries’ list of top priority nutrients 'based on public health and/or policy importance,' for DRI review. Among the nutrients included were EPA and DHA, along with three other nutrients. Prioritization was based on a review of the nutrients nominated for DRI review in 2013. It should come as no surprise that GOED nominated EPA and DHA.