Metchnikoff who worked with Louis Pasteur in Paris was fascinated by the idea of prolonging life, publishing a book on the subject titled ‘The Prolongation of Life: Optimistic Studies’. He was convinced that what caused ‘ageing’ was ‘toxic’ bacteria in the gut; his answer to this dyspeptic problem was to drink sour milk containing lactic acid producing bacteria every day. His work and book would go on to inspire Dr Minoru Shirota, the Japanese scientist who, and through his development of a new Lactobacillus Casei strain of bacteria developed Yakult and gave rise to ‘Probiotics’ (incidentally dying in 1984 aged 82); which have been long marketed to a public keen to boost immune function by fighting those ‘bad bacteria’ ever since.
However, unconvinced by the arguments of Metchnikoff, Shirota, or indeed any of the subsequent scientists who have made such claims this week the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) concluded that the evidence the industry had submitted to support its claims that probiotics could strengthen the body’s defences, improve immune function and reduce gut problems were either so general as to be inadmissible, or could not be shown to have the claimed effect.
The findings are disappointing to the food industry not least because global probiotic sales are estimated to be of the order of $20bn. Yakult in particular, who had claimed that Dr Shorota’s original claim gives immunity to the common cold have vowed to return with further studies to prove their case and re-establish their case, while Danone supplier of major brand Activia withdrew their claims earlier in the year and have since played down their communications regarding immunity in the European market but are likely to return at some point. Both continue to make significant research efforts in the area through the Global Probiotics Council.
In an age where fairness has become the watchword, food companies have some justification for feeling that the process is a little ‘unfair’. The NDA committee through its advice to the Commission is continuing its tightening of what can and cannot be said about products. Of course it’s good to “protect the consumer” but in doing so we are risking portraying food companies as conspiring to mislead the customer. My experience is that this is not even slightly the case. Food companies have invested millions of dollars with top scientific establishments based on the work and ideas of two eminent and respected scientists. Contrast this with the huge number of blogs and oddball websites with dubious scientific credentials suggesting that foods as diverse as Oregano to Yams, and Broccoli to Blueberry’s all contain amazing properties and compounds guaranteed to provide health results.
Nutrition science is a relatively young science with much yet to be understood and perhaps, for a change, ‘big business’ food companies should be applauded for the substantial work which is done improve our understanding.
© FoodBev Media Ltd 2024