Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:19:40.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public health issues arising from microbiological and labelling quality of foods and supplements containing probiotic microorganisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

JMT Hamilton-Miller ,
S Shah  and
JT Winkler
JMT Hamilton-Miller*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, NW3, UK
S Shah
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, NW3, UK
JT Winkler
Affiliation:
Food and Health Research, 28 St Paul Street, London N1, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email j.hamilton-miller@rfhsm.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective

To assess the accuracy and helpfulness of labelling on products containing probiotic bacteria.

Design and setting

52 such products – 44 from the UK (21 supplements, 15 fermented functional foods, eight ‘health-care’ products) and eight from continental Europe – have been tested for microbiological content, and results compared to the information available on their labels. Products were stored in the dark at 4°C and analysed before their expiry or sell-by date. Careful note was taken of wording on labels, package inserts, packaging, promotional literature and catalogue descriptions, as applicable. Products were cultured on appropriate bacteriological media, and organisms grown were counted and identified.

Results

Bioyoghurts gave no indication of numbers, and only five accurately described their bacterial content; results of culture were usually satisfactory. ‘Health-care’ products (mostly intended for the bowel) usually indicated the presence of bacteria, but the numerical content was hard to ascertain, and cultural results fell short of label claims. Supplements were sometimes incorrectly labelled in bacteriological terms, and often contained markedly reduced numbers and/or had extraneous strains and/or strains specified on the label were missing. Products from continental Europe (that were sold for specific medical indications) seemed of a higher microbiological standard. The potential pathogen Enterococcus faecium was found in nine products. The most successful of the new functional foods in Britain now contain probiotics, and probiotic preparations are prominent among the expanding range of nutritional supplements presently available to consumers.

Conclusions

Our findings have public health implications, and suggest that improvements are needed in labelling and quality assurance procedures for products containing probiotic organisms. The presence of the potential pathogen Enterococcus faecium (intentionally or as a contaminant) in some products calls for a review of the value of this species as a probiotic.

Keywords

Functional foodsSupplementsLabellingYoghurt
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , February 1999 , pp. 223 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 1999

References

1Bibel, DJ. Elie Metchnikoff's bacillus of long life ASM News 1988; 54: 661–5.Google Scholar
2Parker, RB. Probiotics, the other half of the antibiotic story. Animal Nutr. Health 1974; 29: 4–8.Google Scholar
3Jansen, GJ, Van der Waaij, D. Review of the internal discussion. In: Fuller, R, Heidt, PJ, Rusch, V, Van der Waaij, D (eds) Probiotics; Prospects of Use in Opportunistic Infections Herborn-Dill: Institute for Microbiology and Biochemistry, 1995: 173–84.Google Scholar
4Medicines Control, Agency. A Guide to What is a Medicinal Product (MAL 8). London: HMSO, 1995.Google Scholar
5Hamilton-Miller, JMT, Shah, S, Smith, CT. ‘Probiotic’ remedies are not what they seem. Br. Med. J. 1996; 312: 55–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Hamilton-Miller, JMTShah, S. Benefits and risks of Enteroccus faecium as a probiotic. In: Sadler, MJ, Saltmarsh, M (eds) Functional Foods: the Consumer, the Products and the Evidence. London: Royal Society of Chemistry, 1998: 20–4.Google Scholar
7Hamilton-Miller, JMT. Probiotics – panacea or nostrum? BNF Nutr. Bull. 1996; 21: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Fuller, R. Probiotics in human medicine. Gut 1991; 32: 439–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Lee, Y-K, Salminen, S. The coming of age of probiotics. Trends in Food Sci. Technol. 1995; 6: 241–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10International Dairy Federation. Yogurt. Enumeration of characteristic microorganisms. IDF Standard 117A. Brussels: IDF, 1988.Google Scholar
11Buchanan, RE, Gibbons, NE (eds). Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 8th edn, 1974: 577.Google Scholar
12 Huis in't Veld JHJ, Shorrt C. Selection criteria for probiotic microorganisms. In: Leeds, AR, Rowland, IR (eds) Gut Flora and Health – Past, Present and Future. London: Royal Society of Medicine Congress and Symposium Series no. 219, 1996: 27–36.Google Scholar
13Salminen, S, Laine, M, von Wright, A et al. Development of selection criteria for probiotic strains to assess their potential in functional foods: a Nordic and European approach. Biosci. Microfl. 1996; 15: 61–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Goldin, BR, Gorbach, SL. Probiotics for humans. In: Fuller, R (ed) Probiotics: the Scientific Basis. London: Chapman & Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
15Richardson, D. Probiotics and product innovation Nutr. Food Sci. 1996; 4 (07/08); 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Salminen, SJ, Saxelin, M. Comparison of successful probiotic strains Nutr. Today 1996; 31 (suppl.): 32S–34S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Tanaka, R. The effects of the ingestion of fermented milk with Lactobacillus casei Shirota on the gastrointestinal microbial ecology in healthy volunteers. In: Leeds, AR, Rowland, IR (eds) Gut Flora and Health – Past, Present and Future, London: Royal Society of Medicine International Congress and Symposium Series no. 219, 1996: 37–45.Google Scholar
18Blanc, B. The nutritional value of yoghurt. Int. J. Immunother. 1986; 11 (suppl.): 25–47.Google Scholar
19 Anon. Focus on yoghurt and fromage frais. The Grocer 1995; 217: 41–7.Google Scholar
20 Anon. Yoghurt: how healthy is it? Which 1993; 04: 38–41.Google Scholar
21 Anon. Healthy eating: bioyoghurts. Health Which 1997; 06: 92–5.Google Scholar
22Araneo, BA, Cebra, JJ, Beuth, J et al. Problems and priorities for controlling opportunistic pathogens with new antimicrobial strategies; an overview of current literature. Zentralbl. Bakteriol. 1996; 283: 431–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Anon. Probiotics – the friendly bacteria. Health Which 1997; 08: 134–5.Google Scholar