26.2.2014 Official Journal of the European Union L 56/7 COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 175/2014 of 25 February 2014 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods ('), and in particular Article 18(5) thereof, Whereas: (1) Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on foods are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims. (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that appli- cations for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as the Authority, for a scientific assessment, as well as to the Commission and the Member States for information. (3)  The Authority is to deliver an opinion on the health claim concerned. (4 The Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority. (5)  Following an application from PiLeJe, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of a combination of B. longum LA 101, L. helveticus LA 102, L. lactis LA 103 and S. thermophilus LA 104 and intestinal discomfort (Question No EFSA-Q-2012-00588) (?). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: Improves intestinal comfort’. (6)  On 12 February 2013, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, (1) OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9. (%) The EFSA Journal 2013; 11(2):3085. which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship could not been established between the consumption of a combination of B. longum LA 101, L. helveticus LA 102, L. lactis LA 103 and S. thermophilus LA 104 and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be auth- orised. Following an application from PiLeJe, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of a combination of B. longum LA 101, L. helveticus LA 102, L. lactis LA 103 and S. thermophilus LA 104 and stool frequency (Question No EFSA-Q-2012-00589) (}). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: Regulates your (intestinal) transit’. On 12 February 2013, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship could not been established between the consumption of a combination of B. longum LA 101, L. helveticus LA 102, L. lactis LA 103 and S. thermophilus LA 104 and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be auth- orised. Following an application from Nutrilinks Sarl, submitted pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of QEFAX™ and reduction of menstrual discomfort (Question No EFSA-Q-2012-00591) (¥). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded, inter alia, as follows: ‘@EFAX™ contributes to maintain a normal menstruation cycle'. On 12 February 2013, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority, which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had not been established between the consumption of ®EFAX™ and the claimed effect. Accordingly, as the claim does not comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, it should not be authorised. (®) The EFSA Journal 2013; 11(2):3086. (*) The EFSA Journal 2013; 11(2):3081.