
FUNCTIONAL FOODS, FADS OR PHARMACY BY ANOTHER NAME
So-called functional foods are those which claim to provide health benefits as well as plain old nutrition. They are also big business, showing startling increases in sales in Europe, the USA and Japan.
They sit in a grey zone between nutrition and pharmacy. The 3 groups usually discussed are foods with additives; products for specific medical conditions and so-called “pro-biotics” (where live bacteria are added to products and said to improve health).
The big news about “diet” (particularly Western diet) has been bad for decades. It mainly concerns the dangers of saturated fatty acids for cardiovascular health. Over nutrition with foods high in sugar and salt has added to the problem (obesity, type II diabetes and hypertension etc).
No wonder then that some good news about a food product is a tempting marketing opportunity.
In several ways we in Western cultures have been primed for this process. Awareness of the notion of “prevention” in health is increasing (an argument countered by the high levels of obesity in Australia). An ageing population is a ripe market for health promotion products. We have accepted the addition of fluoride to water and folic acid to bread (based on well researched benefits). Healthcare is expensive. The idea of “eating your way to health” has an appeal to many. These factors are particularly active in Japan (where their restrictive immigration policy magnifies the problems of having an ageing population).
However, in an atmosphere where advertising claims are up for scrutiny, some problems arise. This is especially the case where these claims concern health.
The pharmaceutical industry needs solid research backing for claims about the effectiveness of prescription medications, especially in countries where governments subsidise their use. The possibility of adverse side effects also necessitates that they inform users of these issues. This applies to over the counter pharmaceuticals as well as prescribed ones.
This same magnifying glass will inevitably be applied to so-called functional foods. Nestle (the largest food company in the world) is well aware of this, and spends huge amounts on research and development of its functional food lines (The Economist P16 31st October 2009). It seems they are anticipating increased government regulation in this area.
The European Food Safety Authority recently (October 2009) assessed the nutritional and health claims on some 4,000 food products. Most were required to provide “more information” before their claims could be assessed. Of the 500 or so claims that were assessed, about two thirds were rejected eg. dried cocoa extract does not help maintain normal body weight, so-called pro-biotic products were generally rejected.
One major controversy surrounds omega 3 fatty acids. Long chain omega 3’s are the ones derived from fish oil and which have proven benefits for depression and cardiovascular disease. Short chain omega 3’s (derived usually from plants) are cheaper to produce, but are less beneficial. Some manufacturers use short chain versions and simply advertise them as “omega 3’s”.
It gets more complicated. Omega 6 oils are found in most seed oils in large quantities. They compete with omega 3’s and effectively block their action. With Western diets switching to vegetable oils from animal fats, our diets often contain “too much” omega 6 oil. This could have adverse long-term effects on large numbers of the population, who believe that they are eating more healthily than they are.
In this atmosphere of increased regulation it is likely that companies who are able to invest in research and development will likely gain a larger share of the functional foods market. It is also likely that the number of inaccurate health claims on food to decrease.
The disturbing trend is that people seem to view packaged foods with health benefits as a short cut to better health. For many this seems much simpler than a well balanced diet based on fresh food, combined with a more active lifestyle.