Inflammation is a stereotypical physiological response to infections and tissue injury; it initiates pathogen killing as well as tissue repair processes and helps to restore homeostasis at infected or damaged sites. Acute inflammatory reactions are usually self-limiting and resolve rapidly, due to the involvement of negative feedback mechanisms. Thus, regulated inflammatory responses are essential to remain healthy and maintain homeostasis. However, inflammatory responses that fail to regulate themselves can become chronic and contribute to the perpetuation and progression of disease. Characteristics typical of chronic inflammatory responses underlying the pathophysiology of several disorders include loss of barrier function, responsiveness to a normally benign stimulus, infiltration of inflammatory cells into compartments where they are not normally found in such high numbers, and overproduction of oxidants, cytokines, chemokines, eicosanoids and matrix metalloproteinases. The levels of these mediators amplify the inflammatory response, are destructive and contribute to the clinical symptoms. Various dietary components including long chain ω-3 fatty acids, antioxidant vitamins, plant flavonoids, prebiotics and probiotics have the potential to modulate predisposition to chronic inflammatory conditions and may have a role in their therapy. These components act through a variety of mechanisms including decreasing inflammatory mediator production through effects on cell signaling and gene expression (ω-3 fatty acids, vitamin E, plant flavonoids), reducing the production of damaging oxidants (vitamin E and other antioxidants), and promoting gut barrier function and anti-inflammatory responses (prebiotics and probiotics). However, in general really strong evidence of benefit to human health through anti-inflammatory actions is lacking for most of these dietary components. Thus, further studies addressing efficacy in humans linked to studies providing greater understanding of the mechanisms of action involved are required.

Human studies provide evidence for beneficial effects of polyphenol-rich foods on cardiovascular health. The antioxidant activity of polyphenols potentially explains these effects, but is the antioxidant activity a reliable predictor for these effects? An International Life Sciences Institute Europe working group addressed this question and explored the potential of antioxidant claims for polyphenols in relation to cardiovascular health by using the so-called Process for the Assessment of Scientific Support for Claims on Foods project criteria. In this process, analytical aspects of polyphenols, their occurrence in foods, dietary intake, and bioavailability were reviewed. Human studies on polyphenols and cardiovascular health were reviewed together with methods for biomarkers of oxidative damage and total antioxidant capacity (TAC). In retrospective studies, F2-isoprostanes and oxidized LDL, the most reliable biomarkers of lipid peroxidation, and measures for TAC showed the expected differences between cardiovascular disease patients and healthy controls, but prospective studies are lacking, and a causal relationship between these biomarkers and cardiovascular health could not be established. Therefore, the physiological relevance of a potential change in these biomarkers is unclear. We found limited evidence that some types of polyphenol-rich products modify these biomarkers in humans. A direct antioxidant effect of polyphenols in vivo is questionable, however, because concentrations in blood are low compared with other antioxidants and extensive metabolism following ingestion lowers their antioxidant activity. Therefore, the biological relevance of direct antioxidant effects of polyphenols for cardiovascular health could not be established. Overall, although some polyphenol-rich foods exert beneficial effects on some biomarkers of cardiovascular health, there is no evidence that this is caused by improvements in antioxidant function biomarkers (oxidative damage or antioxidant capacity).

There is substantial evidence to link what we eat to the reduction of the risk of major chronic diseases and/or the improvement of functions. Thus, it is important for public health agencies and the food industry to facilitate the consumption of foods with particular health benefits by providing consumer products and messages based on scientific evidence. Although fragmentary advice is available from a range of sources, there is a lack of comprehensive scientific guidelines for the design, conduct and reporting of human intervention studies to evaluate the health benefits of foods. Such guidelines are needed both to support nutrition science in general, and to facilitate the substantiation of health claims. In the present study, which presents the consensus view of an International Life Sciences Institute Europe Expert Group that included senior scientists from academia and industry, the term ‘foods’ refers to foods, dietary supplements and food constituents, but not to whole diets. The present study is based on an initial survey of published papers, which identified the range and strengths and weaknesses of current methodologies, and was finalised following exchanges between representatives from industry, academia and regulatory bodies. The major factors involved in the design, conduct and reporting of studies are identified, summarised in a checklist table that is based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and elaborated and discussed in the text.

No abstract

No abstract