By Christian Philippsen, Managing Director, BENEO Asia Scroll through social media for a few minutes and it quickly becomes clear that, these days, everyone seems to have an opinion about…

By Christian Philippsen, Managing Director, BENEO Asia

Scroll through social media for a few minutes and it quickly becomes clear that, these days, everyone seems to have an opinion about nutrition. One post warns against carbohydrates, another praises them as the key to sustained energy. One week a new “superfood” promises dramatic health benefits, the next it disappears from the conversation entirely.

For those trying to make healthier choices, this constant stream of advice can be very confusing. In an age where information spreads faster than scientific evidence, separating fact from trend is becoming increasingly difficult.

This challenge is exactly why the message behind World Health Day 2026 feels so timely. This year’s theme, “Together for health. Stand with science,” calls on governments, scientists, health professionals, and the general public to engage with evidence and science-based guidance to protect health and rebuild trust in scientific institutions.

Few fields illustrate this need more clearly than nutrition. What we eat influences everything from metabolic health to immunity and long-term disease risk; according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), unhealthy diets are among the leading drivers of non-communicable diseases worldwide. This includes cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity^[1]. Ensuring that nutrition guidance is rooted in credible science is therefore not just desirable; it is essential.

When Nutrition Trends Move Faster Than Science

Interest in health and wellness has never been higher^[2]. Consumers increasingly seek foods that support digestive health, immune function, and overall well-being. At the same time, new research on the gut microbiome has opened exciting opportunities to better understand how diet influences human health^[3].

However, the speed at which nutrition ideas spread today often outpaces the scientific process itself. Viral content can elevate anecdotal claims or preliminary findings into sweeping conclusions, sometimes long before robust human research is available.

Science works differently: nutritional knowledge develops through decades of cumulative research      — including controlled human studies, randomised control trials, systematic reviews, and eventually scientific consensus building. While evidence evolves over time, it is precisely this rigorous process that gives scientific guidance its credibility.

Standing with science therefore means recognising that credible nutrition advice must be grounded in evidence rather than the currently “in” trend.

Why Scientific Definitions Matter

One area where scientific rigour is particularly important is digestive health. Growing awareness of the gut microbiome^[4]      — the trillions of microorganisms living in the digestive tract      — has led to increasing interest in ingredients that support beneficial bacteria.

Among these ingredients are prebiotics. However, not every fibre automatically qualifies as a prebiotic.

The internationally recognised scientific definition from the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) describes a prebiotic as “a substrate that is selectively utilised by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit”^[5]. This definition emphasises two essential criteria: selective utilisation by beneficial microorganisms and a demonstrated health benefit for the host.

To support clarity, ISAPP has also outlined a scientific checklist^[6] describing what constitutes a “true prebiotic”. These criteria include a clearly defined substance, selective utilisation by gut microbiota, a recognised health benefit, demonstrated safety, and evidence from human studies confirming effective intake levels. Such definitions are not academic technicalities. They help ensure that ingredients described as prebiotics are supported by reproducible scientific evidence rather than broad marketing interpretations.

The Case of Chicory Root Fibre

Some ingredients clearly illustrate what it means to meet these scientific standards. For example, chicory root fibre, including inulin and oligofructose, is widely recognised as one of the most extensively studied prebiotic fibres^[7][8].

Research on chicory root fibre spans more than three decades and includes hundreds of human clinical trials investigating its effects on gut microbiota and health outcomes^[9]. These studies consistently show that inulin-type fructans are selectively fermented by beneficial bacteria such as bifidobacteria, helping support gut health and broader physiological functions.

This depth of evidence is precisely why inulin-type fructans are frequently highlighted by scientific bodies such as the ISAPP as benchmark prebiotics. Their clearly defined chemical structures, established effective intake levels, and reproducible microbiota effects allow researchers and product developers to translate scientific definitions into measurable outcomes in everyday nutrition.

In other words, chicory root fibre demonstrates how rigorous scientific criteria can move beyond theory —      delivering practical, evidence-based solutions that support digestive health while maintaining confidence in science-led nutrition.

Protecting Trust in Nutrition Science

As consumer interest in digestive health continues to grow, labels and certification schemes identifying “prebiotic” ingredients are also becoming more visible. These initiatives can help raise awareness, but only when they remain aligned with scientific consensus. If definitions are broadened beyond evidence-based criteria, there is a risk that labels may unintentionally mislead consumers.

Scientific experts have therefore emphasised the importance of maintaining clear definitions and rigorous standards. Alternative definitions or marketing labels that diverge from established scientific criteria can dilute credibility, create market confusion, and ultimately erode consumer trust in nutrition science.

For an industry that relies heavily on public confidence, maintaining scientific integrity is essential.

Standing with Science

Standing with science in nutrition is not about rejecting innovation or consumer curiosity about emerging health trends. On the contrary, scientific discovery continues to reveal new insights into how diet influences health.

But progress depends on maintaining a clear foundation of evidence. From rigorous definitions and transparent labelling to responsible communication about nutrition, every part of the food system plays a role in ensuring that consumers receive reliable information.

In a world overflowing with advice about what we should eat, credible science remains our most reliable guide. Standing with science means ensuring that innovation, communication, and public health decisions are all grounded in evidence      — helping people make choices that truly support long-term health.

[1] World Health Organization. (2025). Noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases

[2] McKinsey & Company. (2025). The future takes shape: Five dimensions of tomorrow’s wellness economy. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/the-future-takes-shape-five-dimensions-of-tomorrows-wellness-economy

[3] Zhang, P. (2022). Influence of foods and nutrition on the gut microbiome and implications for intestinal health. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(17), 9588. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23179588

[4] Dev, P. (2025). All that glitters ain’t gold: The myths and scientific realities about the gut microbiota. Nutrients, 17(19), 3121. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17193121

[5] Gibson, G. R., Hutkins, R., Sanders, M. E., et al. (2017). The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 14, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75

[6] ISAPP (International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics). (2024). ISAPP prebiotic checklist. https://isappscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-ISAPP-Prebiotic-checklist.pdf

[7] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2015). Scientific opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to chicory inulin and maintenance of normal defecation (ID 4352) pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA Journal, 13(1), 3951. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3951

[8] Sanders, M. E., Merenstein, D. J., Reid, G., Gibson, G. R., & Rastall, R. A. (2019). Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: From biology to the clinic. The Journal of Nutrition, 16(10):605-616. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41575-019-0173-3

[9] BENEO Institute. (2023). Chicory root fibre and the gut microbiota: Scientific evidence and clinical research. BENEO.