Cited by 317Probiotics and Fermented FoodsComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesHealthcare Regulation

The Unregulated Probiotic Market

Open access
de Simone, Claudio·2019·Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This narrative review provides an overview of the current regulation of probiotics, with a focus on those used for the dietary management of medical conditions (Medical Foods). FINDINGS: The probiotic market has grown rapidly, both for foods and supplements intended to enhance wellness in healthy individuals, and for preparations for the dietary management of disease. Regulation of probiotics varies between regions. Unless they make specific disease-related health claims, probiotics are regulated as food supplements and regulation is focused on the legitimacy of any claims, rather than efficacy, safety and quality. Many properties of probiotics are strain-specific, and safety and efficacy findings associated to specific formulations should not be generalized to other probiotic products. Manufacturing processes, conditions and ingredients are important determinants of product characteristics and changes to manufacturing are likely to give rise to a product not identical to the "original" in efficacy and safety if proper measures and controls are not taken. Current trademark law and the lack of stringent regulation of probiotic manufacturing mean that the trademark owner can commercialize any formulation under the same brand, even if significantly different from the original. These regulatory deficits may have serious consequences for patients where probiotics are used as part of clinical guideline-recommended management of serious conditions such as inflammatory bowel diseases, and may make doctors liable for prescribing a formulation not previously tested for safety and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Current regulation of probiotics is inadequate to protect consumers and doctors, especially when probiotics are aimed at the dietary management of serious conditions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.01.018

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Globally, regulatory inconsistency prevails.

    “Globally, regulatory inconsistency prevails.38”
  • Well-studied probiotic species include Bifidobacterium (ssp. adolescentis, animalis, bifidum, breve, and longum) and Lactobacillus (ssp. acidophilus, casei, fermentum, gasseri, johnsonii, reuteri, paracasei, plantarum, rhamnosus, and salivarius).

    “well-studied probiotic species include Bifidobacterium (ssp. adolescentis, animalis, bifidum, breve, and longum) and Lactobacillus (ssp. acidophilus, casei, fermentum, gasseri, johnsonii, reuteri, paracasei, plantarum, rhamnosus, and salivarius) [211].”
  • Probiotics have been studied in vulnerable groups including infants, patients with severe acute pancreatitis, inflammatory bowel diseases, liver diseases, HIV, and other conditions, with greater cause for concern for products containing high concentrations up to 450-900 billion live bacteria per dose.

    “Further, probiotics have been studied in vulnerable groups, including infants, patients with severe acute pancreatitis, inflammatory bowel diseases, liver diseases, HIV, and other conditions [213, 216–218] with even greater cause for concern with the small number of products that contain high concentrations of up to 450–900 billion live bacteria per dose [211].”
  • All common probiotic species are considered safe for the general population by EFSA.

    “All common probiotic species are considered safe for the general population by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), although this definition does not provide guidance on the increasing use of probiotics in people with medical conditions.”
  • The benefits of probiotics are not validated by EFSA, jeopardizing the use of the term probiotic without an approved claim, with some exceptions such as Italy, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria.

    “Moreover the benefits of probiotics are not validated by EFSA, jeopardizing the use of the term probiotic without an approved claim with some exceptions such as in Italy, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria [211].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, et al. Expert consensus document: the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 11:506-514.
  2. Guidance for Industry: Frequently Asked Questions About Medical Foods. Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Simone, C.
Venue
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
809-817
ISSN
1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2787854015
Cited by
317
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 6
FWCI
26.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Università degli Studi dell'Aquila
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
Keywords
probiotics, probiotic regulation, medical foods, dietary supplements, health claims, trademark law, inflammatory bowel disease, consumer protection, physician liability
MeSH terms
Diet Therapy, Drug and Narcotic Control, Health Policy, Humans, Dietary Supplements, Probiotics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review