Fermented foods: a perspective on their role in delivering biotics.

Fermented foods are often erroneously equated with probiotics. Although they might act as delivery vehicles for probiotics, or other 'biotic' substances, including prebiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics, stringent criteria must be met for a fermented food to be considered a 'biotic'. Those criteria include documented health benefit, sufficient product characterization (for probiotics to the strain level) and testing. Similar to other functional ingredients, the health benefits must go beyond that of the product's nutritional components and food matrix. Therefore, the 'fermented food' and 'probiotic' terms may not be used interchangeably. This concept would apply to the other biotics as well. In this context, the capacity of fermented foods to deliver one, several, or all biotics defined so far will depend on the microbiological and chemical level of characterization, the reproducibility of the technological process used to produce the fermented foods, the evidence for health benefits conferred by the biotics, as well as the type and amount of testing carried out to show the probiotic, prebiotic, synbiotic, and postbiotic capacity of that fermented food.

Emerging issues in probiotic safety: 2023 perspectives.

Probiotics are used for both generally healthy consumers and in clinical settings. However, theoretical and proven adverse events from probiotic consumption exist. New probiotic strains and products, as well as expanding use of probiotics into vulnerable populations, warrants concise, and actionable recommendations on how to work toward their safe and effective use. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics convened a meeting to discuss and produce evidence-based recommendations on potential acute and long-term risks, risks to vulnerable populations, the importance for probiotic product quality to match the needs of vulnerable populations, and the need for adverse event reporting related to probiotic use. The importance of whole genome sequencing, which enables determination of virulence, toxin, and antibiotic resistance genes, as well as clear assignment of species and strain identity, is emphasized. We present recommendations to guide the scientific and medical community on judging probiotic safety.

What is the context? Probiotics, available to healthy consumers as both dietary supplements and foods, are also used by some patient populations. The goal of this paper is to determine if any new factors have emerged that would impact current views about probiotic safety for both these populations.What is new? The authors conclude that established practices are sensibly addressing factors important to the safety of traditional probiotics used by the general population. They also make recommendations regarding emerging safety considerations. Probiotics targeted for patient populations should undergo stringent testing to meet quality standards appropriate for that population, preferably verified by an independent third party. The safety of probiotics derived from species without a history of safe use must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Research is needed to address some gaps, for example which best animal models to use for safety assessment of live microbes, the possibility of antibiotic resistance gene transfer via transformation, and potential impact of probiotic-induced changes in microbiomes, interactions with drugs, and probiotic colonization.What is the impact? Probiotics of sufficient quality for patient populations are being developed and should be used accordingly. Long-term safety assessments for probiotics should be consistent with, and not more stringent than, current regulatory requirements for biologic drugs, including fecal microbial transplants. Rigor in collecting and reporting data on adverse events is needed. The authors confirm the need for understanding the entire genetic makeup of a probiotic as a cornerstone for assessing its safety.

Positive Health Outcomes Associated with Live Microbe Intake from Foods, Including Fermented Foods, Assessed using the NHANES Database.

BACKGROUND: Live dietary microbes have been hypothesized to contribute to human health but direct evidence is lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether the dietary consumption of live microbes is linked to improved health outcomes. METHODS: Data from the NHANES 2001-2018 were used to assess microbial intake and their adjusted associations with selected physiological parameters (e.g., blood pressure, anthropometric measures, and biomarkers) among adults aged 19 y and older. Regression models were constructed to assess the microbial intake with each physiological parameter and adjusted for demographics and other covariates. Microbial intake was assessed as both a continuous variable and a 3-level categorical variable. Fermented foods were assessed in a separate model. RESULTS: In continuous models, an additional 100-g intake of microbe-containing foods was associated with a lower systolic blood pressure (regression coefficient: -0.331; 95% CI: -0.447, -0.215 mm Hg), C-reactive protein (-0.013; 95% CI: -0.019, -0.008 mg/dL), plasma glucose -0.347; 95% CI: -0.570, -0.124 mg/dL), plasma insulin (-0.201; 95% CI: -0.304, -0.099 µU/mL), triglyceride (-1.389; 95% CI: -2.672, -0.106 mg/dL), waist circumference (-0.554; 95% CI: -0.679, -0.428 cm), and BMI -0.217; 95% CI: -0.273, -0.160 kg/m2) levels and a higher level of high density lipoprotein cholesterols (0.432; 95% CI: 0.289, 0.574 mg/dL). Patterns were broadly similar when microbial intake was assessed categorically and when fermented foods were assessed separately. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to quantify, in a nationally representative data set of American adults and using stable sets of covariates in the regression models, the adjusted associations of dietary intakes of live microbes with a variety of outcomes, such as anthropometric measures, biomarkers, and blood pressure levels. Our findings suggest that foods with higher microbial concentrations are associated with modest health improvements across a range of outcomes.

Frequently asked questions about the ISAPP postbiotic definition.

The term postbiotic was defined by the International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) as "a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host." Although the ISAPP definition is widely cited, some concerns were aired after publication, and alternative definitions of postbiotic, as well as different terms for inactivated microbes, have been previously suggested. This paper addresses questions about the ISAPP definition that have been raised in different forums, including scientific meetings, social media commentary and personal communications. We focus on the rationale, scope, wording, composition and commercial implementation, as well as what is expected of postbiotics regarding safety, efficacy, quantification and mechanisms of action. We hope that exploring these questions will further clarify the definition and its scope and support a common understanding of the concept of postbiotics.

Postbiotics: The concept and their use in healthy populations.

The term postbiotic was recently defined by an panel of scientists convened by the International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics as "a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host." This definition focused on the progenitor microbial cell or cell fragments, not just metabolites, proteins or carbohydrates they might produce. Although such microbe-produced constituents may be functional ingredients of the preparation, they are not required to be present in a postbiotic according to this definition. In this context, terms previously used such as paraprobiotics, ghostbiotics, heat-inactivated probiotics, non-viable probiotics, cell fragments or cell lysates, among others, align with the term postbiotics as conceived by this definition. The applications of postbiotics to infant nutrition and pediatric and adult gastroenterology, mainly, are under development. Some applications for skin health are also underway. As postbiotics are composed of inanimate microorganisms, they cannot colonize the host. However, they can in theory modify the composition or functions of the host microbiota, although evidence for this is scarce. Clinical results are promising, but, overall, there is limited evidence for postbiotics in healthy populations. For example, postbiotics have been studied in fermented infant formulas. The regulation of the term postbiotic is still in its infancy, as no government or international agency around the world has yet incorporated this term in their regulation.

Considerations for determining safety of probiotics: A USP perspective.

A history of safe use is a backbone of safety assessments for many current probiotic species, however, there is no global harmonization regarding requirements for establishing probiotic safety for use in foods and supplements. As probiotic manufacturers are increasingly seeking to use new strains, novel species, and next-generation probiotics, justification based on a significant history of use may be challenged. There are efforts underway by a variety of stakeholders, including the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), to develop best practices guidelines for assessing the quality and safety of probiotics. A current initiative of the USP seeks to provide expert advice specific to safety considerations for probiotics. Toward this goal, this review provides a helpful summary guide to global regulatory guidelines. We question the suitability of traditional animal toxicology studies designed for testing chemicals for relevance in assessing probiotic safety. This includes discussion of the use of excessive dose levels, the length of repeated dose toxicity studies needed, and the most suitable animal species used in toxicology studies. In addition, the importance of proper manufacturing practices with regard to final product safety are also included. Thus, an outline of essential parameters of a comprehensive safety assessment for a probiotic are provided.

The Concept of Postbiotics.

The scientific community has proposed terms such as non-viable probiotics, paraprobiotics, ghostbiotics, heat-inactivated probiotics or, most commonly, postbiotics, to refer to inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confer health benefits. This article addresses the various characteristics of different definitions of 'postbiotics' that have emerged over past years. In 2021, the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) defined a postbiotic as "a preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host". This definition of postbiotic requires that the whole or components of inactivated microbes be present, with or without metabolic end products. The definition proposed by ISAPP is comprehensive enough to allow the development of postbiotics from different microorganisms, to be applied in different body sites, encouraging innovation in a promising area for any regulatory category and for companion or production animals, and plant or human health. From a technological perspective, probiotic products may contain inanimate microorganisms, which have the potential to impart a health benefit. However, their contribution to health in most cases has not been established, even if at least one probiotic has been shown to confer the same health benefit by live or inanimate cells.

Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 Protects against Antibiotic-Induced Functional and Compositional Changes in Human Fecal Microbiome.

The administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics is often associated with antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and impacts gastrointestinal tract homeostasis, as evidenced by the following: (a) an overall reduction in both the numbers and diversity of the gut microbiota, and (b) decreased short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production. Evidence in humans that probiotics may enhance the recovery of microbiota populations after antibiotic treatment is equivocal, and few studies have addressed if probiotics improve the recovery of microbial metabolic function. Our aim was to determine if Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 (BB-12)-containing yogurt could protect against antibiotic-induced fecal SCFA and microbiota composition disruptions. We conducted a randomized, allocation-concealed, controlled trial of amoxicillin/clavulanate administration (days 1-7), in conjunction with either BB-12-containing or control yogurt (days 1-14). We measured the fecal levels of SCFAs and bacterial composition at baseline and days 7, 14, 21, and 30. Forty-two participants were randomly assigned to the BB-12 group, and 20 participants to the control group. Antibiotic treatment suppressed the fecal acetate levels in both the control and probiotic groups. Following the cessation of antibiotics, the fecal acetate levels in the probiotic group increased over the remainder of the study and returned to the baseline levels on day 30 (-1.6% baseline), whereas, in the control group, the acetate levels remained suppressed. Further, antibiotic treatment reduced the Shannon diversity of the gut microbiota, for all the study participants at day 7. The magnitude of this change was larger and more sustained in the control group compared to the probiotic group, which is consistent with the hypothesis that BB-12 enhanced microbiota recovery. There were no significant baseline clinical differences between the two groups. Concurrent administration of amoxicillin/clavulanate and BB-12 yogurt, to healthy subjects, was associated with a significantly smaller decrease in the fecal SCFA levels and a more stable taxonomic profile of the microbiota over time than the control group.

The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics.

In 2019, the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) convened a panel of experts specializing in nutrition, microbial physiology, gastroenterology, paediatrics, food science and microbiology to review the definition and scope of postbiotics. The term 'postbiotics' is increasingly found in the scientific literature and on commercial products, yet is inconsistently used and lacks a clear definition. The purpose of this panel was to consider the scientific, commercial and regulatory parameters encompassing this emerging term, propose a useful definition and thereby establish a foundation for future developments. The panel defined a postbiotic as a "preparation of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confers a health benefit on the host". Effective postbiotics must contain inactivated microbial cells or cell components, with or without metabolites, that contribute to observed health benefits. The panel also discussed existing evidence of health-promoting effects of postbiotics, potential mechanisms of action, levels of evidence required to meet the stated definition, safety and implications for stakeholders. The panel determined that a definition of postbiotics is useful so that scientists, clinical triallists, industry, regulators and consumers have common ground for future activity in this area. A generally accepted definition will hopefully lead to regulatory clarity and promote innovation and the development of new postbiotic products.

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on fermented foods.

An expert panel was convened in September 2019 by The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) to develop a definition for fermented foods and to describe their role in the human diet. Although these foods have been consumed for thousands of years, they are receiving increased attention among biologists, nutritionists, technologists, clinicians and consumers. Despite this interest, inconsistencies related to the use of the term 'fermented' led the panel to define fermented foods and beverages as "foods made through desired microbial growth and enzymatic conversions of food components". This definition, encompassing the many varieties of fermented foods, is intended to clarify what is (and is not) a fermented food. The distinction between fermented foods and probiotics is further clarified. The panel also addressed the current state of knowledge on the safety, risks and health benefits, including an assessment of the nutritional attributes and a mechanistic rationale for how fermented foods could improve gastrointestinal and general health. The latest advancements in our understanding of the microbial ecology and systems biology of these foods were discussed. Finally, the panel reviewed how fermented foods are regulated and discussed efforts to include them as a separate category in national dietary guidelines.

Should There Be a Recommended Daily Intake of Microbes?

The collective findings from human microbiome research, randomized controlled trials on specific microbes (i.e., probiotics), and associative studies of fermented dairy consumption provide evidence for the beneficial effects of the regular consumption of safe live microbes. To test the hypothesis that the inclusion of safe, live microbes in the diet supports and improves health, we propose assessment of the types and evidentiary quality of the data available on microbe intake, including the assembly and evaluation of evidence available from dietary databases. Such an analysis would help to identify gaps in the evidence needed to test this hypothesis, which can then be used to formulate and direct initiatives focused on prospective and randomized controlled trials on live microbe consumption. Outcomes will establish whether or not the evidence exists, or can be generated, to support the establishment of dietary recommendations for live microbes.

Criteria to Qualify Microorganisms as "Probiotic" in Foods and Dietary Supplements.

Still relevant after 19 years, the FAO/WHO definition of probiotics can be translated into four simple and pragmatic criteria allowing one to conclude if specific strains of microorganisms qualify as a probiotic for use in foods and dietary supplements. Probiotic strains must be (i) sufficiently characterized; (ii) safe for the intended use; (iii) supported by at least one positive human clinical trial conducted according to generally accepted scientific standards or as per recommendations and provisions of local/national authorities when applicable; and (iv) alive in the product at an efficacious dose throughout shelf life. We provide clarity and detail how each of these four criteria can be assessed. The wide adoption of these criteria is necessary to ensure the proper use of the word probiotic in scientific publications, on product labels, and in communications with regulators and the general public.

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics.

In May 2019, the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) convened a panel of nutritionists, physiologists and microbiologists to review the definition and scope of synbiotics. The panel updated the definition of a synbiotic to "a mixture comprising live microorganisms and substrate(s) selectively utilized by host microorganisms that confers a health benefit on the host". The panel concluded that defining synbiotics as simply a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics could suppress the innovation of synbiotics that are designed to function cooperatively. Requiring that each component must meet the evidence and dose requirements for probiotics and prebiotics individually could also present an obstacle. Rather, the panel clarified that a complementary synbiotic, which has not been designed so that its component parts function cooperatively, must be composed of a probiotic plus a prebiotic, whereas a synergistic synbiotic does not need to be so. A synergistic synbiotic is a synbiotic for which the substrate is designed to be selectively utilized by the co-administered microorganisms. This Consensus Statement further explores the levels of evidence (existing and required), safety, effects upon targets and implications for stakeholders of the synbiotic concept.

Probiotics as a Tx resource in primary care.

While probiotics have not been marketed as drugs, clinicians can still recommend them in an evidence-based manner.