**6. Summary and conclusions**

served as the basis for the definition in a number of other markets [65]. Establishing regulations and composition standards has served as the basis for sanctioning weight loss benefit claims for MR and has facilitated harmonization in multi‐country regions (e.g., EU). Together with the plethora of data supporting the safety and efficacy of MR, these standards have also led to increased use, research and acceptance of MR by the healthcare professional community [66].

**Energy** 200–400 kcal ≥200 kcal ≥200–400

total energy; ≤125 g/day

≥3% of total energy of linoleic acid (glycderide form)

**Protein** 25–50% of

**Fat** ≤30% of total energy

**Fat from linoleic acid**

**Linoleic acid & linolenic acid ratio**

**Vitamin** 33–25% of specified amount in Codex 181‐1991 (depend on # of servings/ day)

**Mineral** 33–25% of specified amount in Codex 181‐1991 (depend on # of servings/ day)

**Essential amino acids**

kcal

264 Superfood and Functional Food - An Overview of Their Processing and Utilization

energy of product and <125 g

energy of product

Specific minimum indicated

Specific minimum indicated

None None None None None Yes—

≥12 g 25–50%

None ≤30%

Specific minimum indicated

Specific minimum indicated

None ≥3% energy of product

**Codex Australia Brazil Canada Chile EU Indonesia Korea US &** 

25–50% energy of product and <125 g

≤30% energy of product

None None None 4:1–10:1 None None None None None

Specific minimum indicated

Specific minimum indicated

≥30% NRV w/ specific limit on Na & K No min limit: F, Cr, Cl, Mo

profile WHO 1985

≥3% energy of product

200–250 kcal

25–50% energy of product

≤30% energy of product

≥225 kcal ≥200–400 kcal

20–40% energy of product

≤35% energy of product

≥3% energy of product

Specific minimum indicated

Specific minimum indicated

**China**

None

≥200 kcal ≥200–400 kcal

≥12 g ≥10% NRV None

≤13 g None None

≥1 g None None None

≥30% NRV ≥25% RDA ≥25% NRV None

≥25% RDA ≥25% NRV None

None None None

However, in other markets with high obesity prevalence, including the United States, Mexico, China and Russia, no such standards have been established. The reasons for the lack of MR

**Table 3.** Comparison of standards and regulations for meal replacements in various markets around the world.

Rates of obesity and comorbidities continue to rise worldwide. MR are among the safest most effective tools available demonstrating significant and long‐term weight loss. MR use provides benefits well beyond weight loss, including body composition and metabolic benefits from its low glycemic index. As a nutrient‐dense food, MR are also effective at achieving and maintaining nutrient adequacy without delivering excess calories. Although well defined in some markets, MR still lack a formal definition and regulation in several key markets around the world. The absence of this formal recognition and composition standards has left the category vulnerable to onerous public policy while being excluded from potentially beneficial policy. Efforts to establish formal regulations in these key markets should be considered in order for the category to provide its full impact on obesity and public health.
