France |
The 2004 document from the French Agency ANSES concluded that the level of evidence is insufficient to provide indications on GI based on health benefits for the general population and prohibited the use of GI labelling or any derived measures [60] |
Germany |
The German Nutrition Society 2012 carbohydrate guideline document reported that: “to date there is only possible evidence regarding a risk-increasing effect of high Glycaemic Index on some nutrition-related diseases. Therefore, no recommendations are made in that respect” [61]. |
Nordic Countries |
The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012 concluded that “There is not enough evidence that choosing foods with low Glycaemic Index will decrease the risk of chronic diseases in the population overall. However, there is suggestive evidence that ranking food based on their Glycaemic Index might be of use for overweight and obese individuals” [62]. |
Italy |
The 2014 DRVs from the Italian Society of Human Nutrition, included under “Suggested Dietary Targets” generic qualitative indications on preference for low-GI foods when intakes of carbohydrates approach the upper limit of intake, i.e., 60% energy. They also specified the need of preferentially selecting low GI foods provided the GI was not reduced by adding fructose and/or fat [63]. |
UK |
In 2015, The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition published a comprehensive opinion on carbohydrate and health [64]. Although it recognised that both lower GI and GL diets were associated with a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes, the Committee concluded that “it is not possible to assign cause-effect relationships for outcomes based on variation in diet Glycaemic Index or Load, as higher or lower GI and GL diets differ in many ways other than just the carbohydrate fraction”. |