Taking into account the E.U. legislation, mousses WPC, MF–WPC, and I–WPC would be allowed to receive the comparative “increased” claim for the protein content (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). Among the standards for absolute nutrient content and comparative claims for protein, therefore, those adopted in the E.U. were the less restrictive for the mousse formulations evaluated. The Brazilian standards for absolute and comparative claims for the protein Selleck Epigenetic inhibitor content are proposed to change in the following aspects: for the conditions of “source” and “high”, food products must contain at least 6 g and 12 g of this nutrient per serving portion, respectively, and their amount of indispensable amino acids must fulfil the

requirements established by the FAO/WHO/UNU (2007) for adults in terms of mg amino acid per g protein; Obeticholic Acid molecular weight for the condition of “increased”, the reference product must fulfil the updated conditions for the claim “source”, the modified food products must present an

increase of at least 30% in the protein content per serving portion, and the amount of indispensable amino acids provided by their added protein must fulfil the requirements established by the FAO/WHO/UNU (2007) for adults in terms of mg amino acid/g protein (ANVISA, 2011). According to these conditions and the amino acid composition of the cow’s milk protein reported by FAO/WHO (1991), mousses WPC, MF–WPC, I–WPC, and MF–I–WPC could receive the claim “source” and none of the products could be allowed to receive the claims “high” and “increased” (Table 7). In this case, the proposed changes for the Brazilian legislation did not affect the classification of the products studied, either for

absolute or for comparative nutrient claims. Regarding dietary fibre, the current Brazilian legislation states that the claims “source” and “high” might be used if the solid or semi-solid product the presents a minimum of 3 g and 6 g per 100g of this nutrient, respectively (Brasil, 1998). The E.U. also adopts these classifications for dietary fibre content (EC, 2007). In the U.S., the claims “good source” and “high” for dietary fibre content follows the same requisites described later for the protein content (US CFR, 2010c). The same occurs with the comparative claims “increased” and “enriched” in the E.U. and the U.S., respectively, for dietary fibre content that follow the same requisites for the protein content (EC, 2007 and US CFR, 2010c). For the purpose of labelling in the U.S., a value of 25 g of TDF shall be the DRVs for adults and 4 years-old children or older (US CFR, 2010c). The “Increased” claim is currently used in Brazil for dietary fibre when there is an increase of 25% and a difference of 3 g of dietary fibre/100 g between the modified solid or semi-solid product and the original one (Brasil, 1998). Regarding the changes proposed in the Brazilian legislation, they include values of at least 2.