The nutritional supplements industry is rife with competing – and often unsubstantiated – bio-availability claims. It’s confusing for consumers and discredits our industry, writes Andrew Thomas.
At the recent Natural and Organic Products Europe show I was asked to be part of an expert panel discussing bio-availability. I have to say that my fellow experts were far better qualified to talk on the subject than me, but it is an area in which I have not a little professional experience and a great deal of personal interest. What becomes clear when discussing the subject is the fact that our industry is rife with bio-availability claims. Some are well substantiated but there are many that are not. If we were to be judged against the same stringent parameters as a pharmaceutical product many nutritional health supplements available within our industry would be found severely wanting.
When it comes to health claims, as an industry we are very good indeed. These are known by manufacturers and retailers alike, they are well researched, clearly set out by EFSA, we are supported by the HFMA and regulated by bodies such as the MHRA, Trading Standards and the Advertising Standards Association. Some of us would say that the supporting research, and associated claims, could be reviewed more regularly and with greater alacrity but we cannot deny that the playing field is level and the rules well understood. The problem, as I see it, comes when manufacturers try to score points via bio-availability claims. These are generally unregulated and more often than not these are poorly supported by research, if indeed at all. Not only are they often unsupported, they are confusing. Confusing for the customer, but rather embarrassingly often confusing for the manufacturer and retailer as well. 16 times better absorbed. 130 times better absorbed. Slow release. Fast release. How does a consumer understand what is actually beneficial for this particular nutrient? The alternative, of course, is the default, “this ingredient is in its natural state rather than synthesised and so better absorbed”. Well who says? Where’s the proof?
Now I can hear the howls of derision to this but allow me to explain. Everyone operating within the nutritional supplement industry would agree that research must underpin all that we stand for. However, our need for commercial success through marketing one-up-manship is clearly an addictive mantra and we are now awash with products, each claiming a higher bio-availability than the next. Yet how many of these products have been fully absorption researched? I mean the actual finished product and not just a single ingredient? No matter how exciting or exotic the claim, if the active ingredient within the product is poorly absorbed by the body it’s simply a very expensive trip to the loo.
” … how many of these products have been fully absorption researched? I mean the actual finished product and not just a single ingredient?”
The fact is that there are talented laboratories around the world fine-tuning and improving how a key active ingredient is absorbed. In doing so they create a variety of artificial digestive environments, they dramatically vary the dosage and they play with the molecular structures and vary the excipients. Some may even then study their now proprietorial ingredient on human subjects. Once a demonstrable improvement has been achieved the results are set out in a brochure and the bar is set for the next raw ingredient manufacturer. But these are bespoke trials on an isolated ingredient and often a smaller dose has been used in the commercial supplement. It may have been combined with a few other active ingredients to enhance the label health claim which may or may not have an impact on absorption. Who’s to say that these changes haven’t dramatically reduced the product’s effectiveness? Who has conducted a clinical study to demonstrate how well this new product is absorbed in a normal gut? What about the difference in bioavailability between time of day, fasting or fed state, age, malabsorption issues…. the list of variable factors goes on.
Here’s a true example. A few years ago during a developmental stage of a transdermal magnesium product I made a mistake. We had proven beyond doubt that elemental magnesium in the form of magnesium chloride was absorbed through the skin. We then added aloe vera to the product. It felt great on the skin and we were rather happy with it. When the absorption results came through however it was clear that the additional ingredient had effectively blocked all magnesium absorption into the body. The product never made the shelves but I question how many products on our shelves could not stand up to an objective absorption test?
Now, of course I’m being obtuse to make a point but the point needs to be made. If the nutritional supplement industry wants to be seen as grown-up and credible then we must be prepared to justify the claims we are making to our consumers and I do not believe this is happening to any degree of satisfaction. Like health claims, bio-availability claims should be based upon clear, verifiable and universal measures… quite simply based upon good research.