Probiotics and Health Claims: Hurdles for New Applications?

Morelli, Lorenzo

doi:10.1002/9781444329384.ch19

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They cover a wide range of living microorganisms with supposed positive effects on gut flora and producing a large number of substances (defined or not) supporting many different effects which are, for the time being, far from proven. For example, many specific health claims proposed by industrial partners for food probiotics failed recently to be validated by the European Food Safety Agency commission because of insufficient scientific or clinical evidence . To date, probiotics are classified in the category of functional products and considered to be beneficial microorganisms .…”

Section: Presentation and Comparison Of Probiotics Use In The Feed/fomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So knowledge of strain‐specific properties is lacking in food use and this is the main critical point for a targeted use. This explains recent failures in validation of the specific health claims proposed by industrial partners for these food probiotics by the European Food Safety Agency commission because of insufficient scientific or clinical evidence .…”

Section: Comparison Of Species and Strains Requirements In Feed/foodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This health approach, although not taken into consideration in regulation (which targets ‘animals already in good health’, as indicated above), is reminiscent of that described for food probiotics for which functionality is associated with health benefits. So, modification of feed additive regulation to include health effects (as Welfare additives or Product quality additives) was proposed by the FEEDAP Panel at the European level, but this approach has not been successful to date and some hurdles were recently identified regarding use of probiotics in feed/food . In fact, regulations on feed do not consider health effects, even if supported by consistent scientific knowledge proving health benefits (which implicitly justify their use), because animals are supposed to be healthy, so such regulations are not required for a European dossier.…”

Section: Health Effects and Relation To Weight Gain In Animals And Humentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Overview of differences between microbial feed additives and probiotics for food regarding regulation, growth promotion effects and health properties and consequences for extrapolation of farm animal results to humans

Bernardeau

Vernoux

2013

Clinical Microbiology and Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many years, microbial adjuncts have been used to supplement the diets of farm animals and humans. They have evolved since the 1990s to become known as probiotics, i.e. functional food with health benefits. After the discovery of a possible link between manipulation of gut microflora in mice and obesity, a focus on the use of these beneficial microbes that act on gut microflora in animal farming was undertaken and compared with the use of probiotics for food. Beneficial microbes added to feed are classified at a regulatory level as zootechnical additives, in the category of gut flora stabilizers for healthy animals and are regulated up to strain level in Europe. Intended effects are improvement of performance characteristics, which are strain dependent and growth enhancement is not a prerequisite. In fact, increase of body weight is not commonly reported and its frequency is around 25% of the published data examined here. However, when a Body Weight Gain (BWG) was found in the literature, it was generally moderate (lower than or close to 10%) and this over a reduced period of their short industrial life. When it was higher than 10%, it could be explained as an indirect consequence of the alleviation of the weight losses linked to stressful intensive rearing conditions or health deficiency. However, regulations on feed do not consider the health effects because animals are supposed to be healthy, so there is no requirement for reporting healthy effects in the standard European dossier. The regulations governing the addition of beneficial microorganisms to food are less stringent than for feed and no dossier is required if a species has a Qualified Presumption of Safety status. The microbial strain marketed is not submitted to any regulation and its properties (including BWG) do not need to be studied. Only claims for functional or healthy properties are regulated and again growth effect is not included. However, recent studies on probiotic effects showed that BWG could also be observed in humans, or not, according to species and strains. Determining the significance of farm animal results for extrapolation to humans, especially regarding body weight improvement, was not easy because they do not use the same microbial strains nor always the same species. Furthermore, the framework for the management of microbials added to feed or to food differ, especially with regard to goal, timescale and lifestyle. So no one can exclude the possibility that beneficial microorganisms having probiotic effects may have long-term effects in humans that cannot be seen to date in animals, where short-term use is the rule. A possible link to obesity cannot be excluded in relation to timescale, species and strain specificity. To conclude, beneficial microorganisms added in feed are key factors stringently regulated for short-term improvement of zootechnical performances in animals and their use does not entirely parallel that of human probiotics. So extrapolation of farm animal results to humans is biased and not sufficient to be con...

show abstract

Section: Presentation and Comparison Of Probiotics Use In The Feed/fomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Species and Strains Requirements In Feed/foodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Health Effects and Relation To Weight Gain In Animals And Humentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Overview of differences between microbial feed additives and probiotics for food regarding regulation, growth promotion effects and health properties and consequences for extrapolation of farm animal results to humans

Bernardeau

Vernoux

2013

Clinical Microbiology and Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, there is the urgent need to move from the use of conventionally produced feed to safer, cheaper, and environmentally friendly alternatives. One such way is in the use of beneficial microorganisms as feed additives or direct-fed microbials [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production of probiotic-fortified composite poultry feed from food and agricultural waste material

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The objective of the study was to ascertain the feasibility of fortifying composite poultry feed from food and agricultural waste material with the probiotic organism Lactobacillus fermentum and determine the efficiency of formulated probiotic-fortified feed via animal feeding tests.Materials and Methods:Probiotic-fortified feed (G3) was formulated using proximate analysis values of waste materials. Alternative diets were G1—Feed Mill of Nigeria starter mash and G2—Ground corn. For growth comparison test, 30 1-day-old Agricol broiler chicks were randomized into three groups of 10 chicks each with each group being placed on a separate diet (G1, G2, and G3). Probiotics antimicrobial efficacy feeding assay consisted of the treatment diets T1—Feed Mill of Nigeria starter mash and T2—probiotic-fortified feed. Twenty 1-day-old unvaccinated chicks were placed into two groups of 10 chicks each and fed 0.5 ml of 9.0 × 108 CFU/ml Escherichia coli 0157:H7 on day 1 after which they were placed on treatment diets. Data collected were analyzed and interpreted using the SPSS Statistical tool version 25.Results:Chicks fed G1 and G3 diets performed similarly (p < 0.05) in terms of measured parameters (weight, height, and wingspan) and had better performance compared to chicks on G2. In the E. coli treatment group, chicks placed on treatment diets T1 and T2 showed similar levels of E. coli cell reduction every week. Performance based on measured parameters was also similar (p < 0.05).Conclusion:Feasibility of fortifying composite animal feed with the probiotic organism L. fermentum was ascertained and the efficiency of the feed via animal feeding tests was proven.

show abstract

Probiotics and Health Claims: Hurdles for New Applications?

Cited by 2 publications

References 39 publications

Overview of differences between microbial feed additives and probiotics for food regarding regulation, growth promotion effects and health properties and consequences for extrapolation of farm animal results to humans

Overview of differences between microbial feed additives and probiotics for food regarding regulation, growth promotion effects and health properties and consequences for extrapolation of farm animal results to humans

Production of probiotic-fortified composite poultry feed from food and agricultural waste material

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About