Functional foods at a crossroads

Related tags Functional foods Nutrition

Functional foods at a crossroads
Do functional foods work?

Watching recent actions by scientific agencies, regulators and industry players themselves of late, one might be forgiven for thinking that the functional foods dream is falling a little short of the reality.

We’re talking about the biggest food companies in the world being told the claims that help sell some of their foods are deceptive and misleading. Nestlé. Mars-owned Wrigley. The Kellogg company. Danone. General Mills. And them agreeing to change or withdraw the claims.

Nestlé and Kellogg’s of late have had their wrists slapped by the increasingly active US Federal Trade Commission over immunity claims aimed at kids. Both issued statements saying in essence, ‘We did nothing wrong, stand by the claims, but will change the claims as the FTC wishes.’

Er sorry… but why go along with it if you stand by the science? Are the claims false or not? Is the science there or not? Do these products (a probiotic drink and an antioxidant-boosted cereal) work or not?

If Dannon’s probiotic yogurts boost gut health and immunity why settle a class action by agreeing to change the claims and set up a $35m fund for unhappy consumers to drain? Ditto for Wrigley’s bad breath-beating gum ($7m fund and withdrawn claims).

It is well known that fighting class actions can be more detrimental than trying to win them and a settlement is not necessarily an admission of guilt, but it doesn’t look good does it from a PR point of view however you dress it up?

Same with last week’s FTC- Nestlé settlement which was a big story in the mainstream press including the New York Times.

Claims scrutiny

Remember, we’re not talking about rogue players operating from an oil rig somewhere in the deep Atlantic making spurious internet claims about a thermogenic nutrient extracted from the bowels of an unpronounceable Icelandic volcano that can cure cancer, enhance sexual performance, increase lifespan by 47 per cent and facilitate levitation.

These companies have spent many millions on the science and the marketing of that science.

The problem for this business model is that around the world product claim-making is coming under ever-closer scrutiny, with a new and highly strict health claims regime in the European Union highlighting the new status quo. Functional food and ingredient development has almost ground to a halt as a result. If you can’t market a food on its supposed added health benefit why bother developing the ingredients at all?

But critics of Europe’s new system insist the claims are failing because the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is interpreting the science in a medicinal way that is inappropriate to nutrients designed to promote health and wellness, not prevent disease.

In the US, the recent FTC actions coupled with those of the US Food and Drug Administration which in February issued warning letters to 17 food companies including pomegranate leader, POM Wonderful, over various health claims, signals a tighter claims environment in the US.

How much science is enough?

So what’s it to be then? Do these foods (and supplements) have health benefits or not?

Does the problem lie with the nutrition science itself (not enough clinically backed, human intervention trial-demonstrated, positive associations), or the way the science is being interpreted by regulators and companies that wish to express some of that science in their marketing materials?

As is the case with most scientific conclusions, they are rarely 100 per cent conclusive, so you then reach a point where difficult questions arise: ‘How much science is enough?’ and ‘What kind of science is appropriate to prove a nutrient-health relation?’

In its settlement with Nestlé last week the FTC entered into the, ‘what is significant scientific agreement?’ debate by insisting that for future claims-making Nestlé must possess, “at least two adequate and well-controlled human clinical studies of the product”.​ Any claims must also be pre-approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the first time.

These requirements relate only to Nestlé but are expected to be cited by the FTC in future cases. It will be interesting to see the application of that.

In the meantime, given the substantial body of nutrition science that does exist, the reasons for, and consequences of, any breakdown in healthy food messaging should be examined and soon.

Because while the cynical will argue the kind of messaging the FTC, FDA and EFSA have cracked down on is exploitative and purely profit driven, there is much evidence backing the contribution functional foods and supplements can make to public health.

But how can that science be understood in the law and the market place?

Shane Starling is the editor of NutraIngredients and writes for He has written extensively about health claims around the world.

Related news

Related products

show more

Premixes for purpose-led nutritional care

Premixes for purpose-led nutritional care

Content provided by dsm-firmenich | 30-Aug-2023 | Product Brochure

Creating advanced nutritional care products that meet the unique needs of patients of all ages and the elderly takes more than ingredients.

Related suppliers


What to do?

Posted by Michael Le Brocq,

Maybe there is another interpretation here, rather than stifling innovation perhaps a little light regulation will protect the consumer from future spurious claims?

Most of the major functional foods manufacturers have large budgets to research their products, in some cases all that is required to satisfy EFSA is a tweak to the design of new studies. In the case of probiotics the issues seem to be more around the characterisation of the microorganisms involved than the efficacy data itself; a problem driven by how the bugs are sourced rather than a fundamental flaw in the technology. Any way you cut it, if a functional food does something useful it is almost certainly possible to prove this in a study, and if it contains a microorganism it is possible to identify and register what this is.

Regulation is a challenge, but in this sector it is also light compared to the worst case scenario; the cost of jumping through the EFSA hoop is tiny compared to the billion dollar development costs of an average pharmaceutical product.

If anyone should be frustrated it is the small functional food businesses with very limited means, not the multinationals with the deep pockets.

Report abuse

Money for Nothing

Posted by Kevin,

35 million and 7 million for unhappy customers.....wonder who is behind this another shake down and more comming. Just another way to spread the wealth!

Report abuse

This reminds me eerily of Obamanomics

Posted by Michael Maire,

This reminds me eerily of Obamanomics as in forcing BP to put aside 20 billion (even though they had already agreed to just to show the world how much they loathed and distrusted all those "capitalistic companies").
After years of scientific study validating so many phytos, flavanols, etc. it difficult for a company to say that oatmeal MAY help lower cholesterol. Give my a break!
Every time government mandates diet and lifestyle i.e. low fat/high fructose diets- thousands die.
The only reason these companies are succumbing to mandates is because they know the outcome in taking on the heavy hand of the law.

Report abuse

Follow us


View more