Functional foods or fallacy?

The March 2009 edition of Which? asks "Which food is best for you?" in their survey of 'functional foods'. The most interesting insight is 81% of the respondents in their survey don't know whether to believe the manufacturers' health claims. This level of scepticism is surprisingly high, given

• the plethora of UK and European regulations around health claims
• the market for these products exceeds £600 million and continues to grow
• manufacturers seem to invest ever more in promoting healthy benefits as they relaunch tired brands, or build the franchises of specialist functional food ranges

The overall conclusion from Which? is ambivalent, indicating these products sometimes work, and the claims are legally justifiable. However, they point out functional food brands are expensive, and in many instances, natural alternatives are both more effective and cheaper.

Of particular interest to me are the cholesterol-busting claims of some brands. Do functional foods represent a credible alternative to statin medications, and should manufacturers be persuading consumers that consuming their products is a pathway to a healthier and longer life? Which? clearly makes the point elsewhere in the March 2009 edition, that it is much more important to limit foods high in saturated fat, with the clear implication that functional foods don't represent good consumer value.

Health claims are a perfectly valid brand proposition, however promotion of "friendly bacteria" and "healthy Omega-3" appears to smack more of marketing opportunism than being a meaningful step in improving the health of the nation.