4.7 Review

A current look at nutraceuticals - Key concepts and future prospects

期刊

TRENDS IN FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 68-78

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.02.010

关键词

Nutraceuticals; Supplements; Nutrition; Health; Disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Nutraceuticals exist in a legal limbo and the existing legislative efforts remain confusing, complex and not harmonized throughout the many regions of the Globe. These compounds are believed to contribute to improvements in physical and/or mental health and to ameliorate or avoid disease or health-related conditions. However, the promised food and health revolution is yet to come. Although some of these compounds have been shown to improve health, similar claims made for others have not been unequivocally demonstrated. Scope and approach: Herein, we explore the different definitions of nutraceuticals, associated legal definitions and constraints, while evaluating some of the facts and fictions surrounding these compounds. Lastly, we speculate on how the industry can evolve and how nutraceuticals can, in fact, make good on their promised health benefits. Key findings and conclusions: The high value market potential has led government agencies to establish regulatory requirements for the design, testing and marketing of these products, though much remains unregulated. Biologically, the often contradictory available data are based on the fact that the beneficial effects of a given chemical, agent or substance when consumed in food does not automatically translate into an enhanced health effect if consumed in concentrated forms or in higher quantities. How the nutraceutical industry will respond to the current lack of knowledge of these compounds, increasing demands of regulatory agencies and to the growing awareness of the general audience may very well determine the evolution of the industry and, to some extent, the health of their customers. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据