David Bell & Boxin Ou, PhD03.01.07
Three customers are enthusiastically engaged in a debate about the comparative ORAC (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) values of certain well known juice brands containing two of the hottest natural ingredients du jour. Except for some minor errors, these earnest shoppers are right on target about average ORAC values per serving and realistic comparisons to fruits and vegetables. All three customers also have bottles of expensive products in their carts.
What this scenario represents is just how far ORAC has come in the minds of consumers today. What's critical now is determining where ORAC is headed in the future.
Whether it is nutrition science, math, or history, the average person holds tenaciously on to-and makes purchasing decisions based on-simplistic understandings of things. While this may frustrate the experts, it does not necessarily stand in the way of good decision-making. (Imagine the grammarian who bemoans the plummeting standards of English usage. Yet, English in all its mutated forms is a phenomenally productive vehicle for global communication-in spite of the expert.) In relation to food and nutrition, the laundry list of consumer half-conceptions is legion, and incorporates every last detail of nutrition labeling.
Certain things sink into the consumer mind and stay there. One of them is that antioxidants are good for you, and consumers are constantly seeking ways to make confident purchasing decisions about them. This belief has fueled demand-witness the formidable growth in products that refer not only to antioxidant benefits, but also ORAC as a standard for measuring them. Some of the premium branded products that take advantage of the rapidly growing awareness of antioxidants and/or ORAC include Dole, Hershey's, M&M Mars, Sunsweet, Welch's and Wyman's.
A recognizable pattern to consumer behavior regarding ORAC is beginning to take shape. That is, consumers generally understand the ranges of ORAC values within some reasonable margin of error. So, they look for ORAC values of 3000 to 5000 per serving of a high-antioxidant food and express genuine skepticism about an ORAC claim of, say, 30,000 for a manageable dose of anything. Based on what we know about whole foods and their derivatives (i.e., concentrates and extracts) this reflects a strong informed intuition. In fact, the body of evidence in the scientific literature confirms that (1) food-based antioxidants are good for you, and (2) one ought to expect antioxidant intake, as expressed in ORAC, in the range previously described from single servings of high antioxidant food sources.
ORAC is entering the consumer lexicon as a user-friendly expression, and product marketers are catching on to this. Thus the short-list of previously mentioned household name brands that employ it. A few more may trigger a tipping point. And this is a good thing so long as ORAC is a good tool.
It has long been established that ORAC is scientifically valid. And we suggest that it is gaining traction among consumers. However, some critics discount in vitro ORAC values. We believe this criticism is unfair unless the same logic is extended to ingredient measurements in general: it can be applied to time-honored standards in the food and nutrition industry. Simply put, food and nutraceutical ingredient measurements do not and are not intended to give evidence of in vivo performance-in absolute or relative terms.
Vitamins are a good example. They occur naturally in most foods and are both added to foods and formulated in supplements. It is a universally accepted protocol to quantitate vitamins against reference standards and include these results in micrograms, milligrams or IUs on Nutrition Facts or Supplement Facts panels. Manufacturers, marketers and consumers have come to understand, use and rely upon these measurements, even though they tell nothing by themselves about either absolute or relative performance in vivo. Nutrition labeling of fats, carbohydrates, and proteins is similar in that a quantifiable measure of what is in a product does not give a precise picture of how either specific ingredients or a complex matrix will perform in vivo.
We recommend keeping any unique tool in perspective, including ORAC. It is a valid measure of a substance's ability to quench peroxyl radicals in vitro. An accepted standard such as ORAC, particularly when embraced by consumers, can help accelerate beneficial consumption trends. Furthermore, it can become an even better tool. Industry efforts to monitor and influence the responsible use of ORAC values are not only possible, they are already happening, and steps to broaden the scope of antioxidant testing while making more meaningful bridges to outcomes in human health are also evolving.
The Brunswick Labs Certified program is a start. It has been designed to bring a recognizable and authoritative standard-an antioxidant imprimatur, so to speak-to consumer product marketing. Of particular note, the program will provide a graphic symbol of quality assurance reinforced by rigorous guidelines for compliance. We anticipate this will have three productive effects: (1) It will reward responsible product testing; (2) It will offer immediate visual proof that the highest testing standards have been met; and (3) It will provide a stronger brand identity with consumers.
Most experts are of the opinion that the nutraceuticals industry needs to undertake stronger self-regulation efforts. We believe this program will help rectify one of the most frequent complaints about ORAC usage in the market-undisciplined and misleading use of ORAC values.
Another reasonable criticism of the original ORAC assay is that it represents only one incomplete measure of antioxidant capacity-that is, quenching of the peroxyl radical. Now, this is a good start, but it is not and should not be promoted as a comprehensive picture of antioxidant protection (and Brunswick Labs has never promoted ORAC as such). Analyzing antioxidant capacity to neutralize other radicals under more diverse circumstances is essential to a more complete understanding.
A variety of tests are now available which broaden this analysis considerably, allowing for valid measurement against peroxyl in emulsions (such as cosmetic formulations) and oils (such as carotenoids), as well as against hydroxyl, hydroxynitrite and superoxide. In addition, measurement of specific polyphenolic classes, sub-classes and compounds is also gaining momentum. Such markers serve as valuable companions to ORAC tests: one providing evidence of antioxidant action, and the other identifying the agent of activity. For example, leading companies are profitably promoting anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins, and flavanols in connection with ORAC and their products' antioxidant health benefits.
Consumer awareness and acceptance of each new assay will have a shorter growth curve due to the groundwork already laid by the original ORAC assay. It will still require a working symbiosis with product companies. Consumers will rely upon valid comparative values against which to judge products. A critical mass of comparative data takes a while to accumulate, during which time companies are, in effect, investing in a future return.
This strategy can be seen in testing already being carried out by a premier cosmetics company that uses the ORAC emulsion assay to measure the antioxidant capacity of its skin care products. This industry leader is betting on the future value it will derive from experiments done now even though (1) a substantial body of similar data does not yet exist, and (2) the application of ORAC values to skin care products does not hold the same meaning as it does to ingested products. Innovation involves risk, but it also drives value to companies and customers in the long run.
If ORAC is good for consumers, then a more complete picture of antioxidant protection is better, and direct evidence of in vivo benefits is better still.
Clinical studies that advance the relationship between inputs and outcomes in human health are the next frontier, particularly if they correlate tests such as ORAC to broadly accepted human markers for health. This frontier has been in view for a long time; it is return-on-investment considerations that have slowed its arrival.
At least three factors have impeded industry progress in this vital area. First, the cost of clinical trials has been challenging, if not prohibitive to many companies. However, rapid growth and improvement in offshore clinical trial resources, particularly in China, are making clinical studies more feasible. Initial studies demonstrate strong interest in establishing direct connections between ORAC in products and both systemic and condition-specific markers of human health. The targets are medically and economically sensible, including oxidative stress, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. We expect demand for clinical trial services to reflect the medical and economic magnitude of health concerns.
Second, valid baselines have not yet been established for a number of potentially meaningful markers against which significant change can be measured. Studies demonstrating strong direct correlation between antioxidant intake and markers for in vivo antioxidant levels and oxidative stress are establishing a beachhead of evidence. Brunswick Labs and others continue to build R&D efforts aimed at gaining further clinical validation for effective biomarkers. Promising examples include a bioflavonoids assay and novel applications of lipid and DNA damage markers.
Third, FDA regulation and enforcement have seriously dampened the prospects of return on investment from clinical studies. A significant impediment is the FDA's interpretation of disease claims, as exemplified by its enforcement against claims about the anti-inflammatory properties of non-drug antioxidants. Such interpretations may seem restrictive and unfair. After all, there is abundant scientific evidence to support such claims. Nonetheless, we believe there is still plenty of room to establish meaningful and valuable connections-ones that resonate with the consumer-that are built around the inverse relationship between antioxidants and oxidative stress. This can be a winning message, even without connection to disease, because of the consumer's belief in the health dangers of oxidative stress and benefits of antioxidants. They continue to act on these beliefs in the marketplace.
For the future, it is a synergistic set of resources that will prove most valuable to consumers: more comprehensive analysis of antioxidant benefits, improved quality assurance standards, and demonstrable in vivo results. As 2007 unfolds, we believe ORAC is well positioned to play a valuable role in advancing consumer understanding of antioxidants in all three arenas. And consumers are increasingly informed and capable. Armed with Internet access and a growing sense of responsibility for one's own health, they will continue to seek out the best information, fine-tune their understanding of antioxidants and spend money accordingly.NW
About the authors: David Bell is a business development and strategy advisor whose firm, Bell Advisory Services (New Bedford, MA), focuses on the food and nutrition industries. He is recognized as an expert in the application of antioxidant science to product marketing. He can be reached at 508-264-0827; E-mail: dnb@belladvisory.com. Boxin Ou, PhD, is president of Brunswick Laboratories, LLC, Norton, MA. Dr. Ou is well known in the area of antioxidant science and is responsible for the development of the modern ORAC assays. He serves on the editorial boards of Food Chemistry (Elsevier) and Current Nutrition and Food Science (Bentham Science). He can be reached at 508-285-2006; E-mail: info@brunswicklabs.com.
What this scenario represents is just how far ORAC has come in the minds of consumers today. What's critical now is determining where ORAC is headed in the future.
The Power of Consumer Belief
Whether it is nutrition science, math, or history, the average person holds tenaciously on to-and makes purchasing decisions based on-simplistic understandings of things. While this may frustrate the experts, it does not necessarily stand in the way of good decision-making. (Imagine the grammarian who bemoans the plummeting standards of English usage. Yet, English in all its mutated forms is a phenomenally productive vehicle for global communication-in spite of the expert.) In relation to food and nutrition, the laundry list of consumer half-conceptions is legion, and incorporates every last detail of nutrition labeling.
Certain things sink into the consumer mind and stay there. One of them is that antioxidants are good for you, and consumers are constantly seeking ways to make confident purchasing decisions about them. This belief has fueled demand-witness the formidable growth in products that refer not only to antioxidant benefits, but also ORAC as a standard for measuring them. Some of the premium branded products that take advantage of the rapidly growing awareness of antioxidants and/or ORAC include Dole, Hershey's, M&M Mars, Sunsweet, Welch's and Wyman's.
ORAC as a Consumer-Friendly, Meaningful Tool
A recognizable pattern to consumer behavior regarding ORAC is beginning to take shape. That is, consumers generally understand the ranges of ORAC values within some reasonable margin of error. So, they look for ORAC values of 3000 to 5000 per serving of a high-antioxidant food and express genuine skepticism about an ORAC claim of, say, 30,000 for a manageable dose of anything. Based on what we know about whole foods and their derivatives (i.e., concentrates and extracts) this reflects a strong informed intuition. In fact, the body of evidence in the scientific literature confirms that (1) food-based antioxidants are good for you, and (2) one ought to expect antioxidant intake, as expressed in ORAC, in the range previously described from single servings of high antioxidant food sources.
ORAC is entering the consumer lexicon as a user-friendly expression, and product marketers are catching on to this. Thus the short-list of previously mentioned household name brands that employ it. A few more may trigger a tipping point. And this is a good thing so long as ORAC is a good tool.
It has long been established that ORAC is scientifically valid. And we suggest that it is gaining traction among consumers. However, some critics discount in vitro ORAC values. We believe this criticism is unfair unless the same logic is extended to ingredient measurements in general: it can be applied to time-honored standards in the food and nutrition industry. Simply put, food and nutraceutical ingredient measurements do not and are not intended to give evidence of in vivo performance-in absolute or relative terms.
Vitamins are a good example. They occur naturally in most foods and are both added to foods and formulated in supplements. It is a universally accepted protocol to quantitate vitamins against reference standards and include these results in micrograms, milligrams or IUs on Nutrition Facts or Supplement Facts panels. Manufacturers, marketers and consumers have come to understand, use and rely upon these measurements, even though they tell nothing by themselves about either absolute or relative performance in vivo. Nutrition labeling of fats, carbohydrates, and proteins is similar in that a quantifiable measure of what is in a product does not give a precise picture of how either specific ingredients or a complex matrix will perform in vivo.
We recommend keeping any unique tool in perspective, including ORAC. It is a valid measure of a substance's ability to quench peroxyl radicals in vitro. An accepted standard such as ORAC, particularly when embraced by consumers, can help accelerate beneficial consumption trends. Furthermore, it can become an even better tool. Industry efforts to monitor and influence the responsible use of ORAC values are not only possible, they are already happening, and steps to broaden the scope of antioxidant testing while making more meaningful bridges to outcomes in human health are also evolving.
Improving the ORAC Brand
The Brunswick Labs Certified program is a start. It has been designed to bring a recognizable and authoritative standard-an antioxidant imprimatur, so to speak-to consumer product marketing. Of particular note, the program will provide a graphic symbol of quality assurance reinforced by rigorous guidelines for compliance. We anticipate this will have three productive effects: (1) It will reward responsible product testing; (2) It will offer immediate visual proof that the highest testing standards have been met; and (3) It will provide a stronger brand identity with consumers.
Most experts are of the opinion that the nutraceuticals industry needs to undertake stronger self-regulation efforts. We believe this program will help rectify one of the most frequent complaints about ORAC usage in the market-undisciplined and misleading use of ORAC values.
Another reasonable criticism of the original ORAC assay is that it represents only one incomplete measure of antioxidant capacity-that is, quenching of the peroxyl radical. Now, this is a good start, but it is not and should not be promoted as a comprehensive picture of antioxidant protection (and Brunswick Labs has never promoted ORAC as such). Analyzing antioxidant capacity to neutralize other radicals under more diverse circumstances is essential to a more complete understanding.
A variety of tests are now available which broaden this analysis considerably, allowing for valid measurement against peroxyl in emulsions (such as cosmetic formulations) and oils (such as carotenoids), as well as against hydroxyl, hydroxynitrite and superoxide. In addition, measurement of specific polyphenolic classes, sub-classes and compounds is also gaining momentum. Such markers serve as valuable companions to ORAC tests: one providing evidence of antioxidant action, and the other identifying the agent of activity. For example, leading companies are profitably promoting anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins, and flavanols in connection with ORAC and their products' antioxidant health benefits.
Consumer awareness and acceptance of each new assay will have a shorter growth curve due to the groundwork already laid by the original ORAC assay. It will still require a working symbiosis with product companies. Consumers will rely upon valid comparative values against which to judge products. A critical mass of comparative data takes a while to accumulate, during which time companies are, in effect, investing in a future return.
This strategy can be seen in testing already being carried out by a premier cosmetics company that uses the ORAC emulsion assay to measure the antioxidant capacity of its skin care products. This industry leader is betting on the future value it will derive from experiments done now even though (1) a substantial body of similar data does not yet exist, and (2) the application of ORAC values to skin care products does not hold the same meaning as it does to ingested products. Innovation involves risk, but it also drives value to companies and customers in the long run.
Outcomes in Human Health
If ORAC is good for consumers, then a more complete picture of antioxidant protection is better, and direct evidence of in vivo benefits is better still.
Clinical studies that advance the relationship between inputs and outcomes in human health are the next frontier, particularly if they correlate tests such as ORAC to broadly accepted human markers for health. This frontier has been in view for a long time; it is return-on-investment considerations that have slowed its arrival.
At least three factors have impeded industry progress in this vital area. First, the cost of clinical trials has been challenging, if not prohibitive to many companies. However, rapid growth and improvement in offshore clinical trial resources, particularly in China, are making clinical studies more feasible. Initial studies demonstrate strong interest in establishing direct connections between ORAC in products and both systemic and condition-specific markers of human health. The targets are medically and economically sensible, including oxidative stress, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. We expect demand for clinical trial services to reflect the medical and economic magnitude of health concerns.
Second, valid baselines have not yet been established for a number of potentially meaningful markers against which significant change can be measured. Studies demonstrating strong direct correlation between antioxidant intake and markers for in vivo antioxidant levels and oxidative stress are establishing a beachhead of evidence. Brunswick Labs and others continue to build R&D efforts aimed at gaining further clinical validation for effective biomarkers. Promising examples include a bioflavonoids assay and novel applications of lipid and DNA damage markers.
Third, FDA regulation and enforcement have seriously dampened the prospects of return on investment from clinical studies. A significant impediment is the FDA's interpretation of disease claims, as exemplified by its enforcement against claims about the anti-inflammatory properties of non-drug antioxidants. Such interpretations may seem restrictive and unfair. After all, there is abundant scientific evidence to support such claims. Nonetheless, we believe there is still plenty of room to establish meaningful and valuable connections-ones that resonate with the consumer-that are built around the inverse relationship between antioxidants and oxidative stress. This can be a winning message, even without connection to disease, because of the consumer's belief in the health dangers of oxidative stress and benefits of antioxidants. They continue to act on these beliefs in the marketplace.
For the future, it is a synergistic set of resources that will prove most valuable to consumers: more comprehensive analysis of antioxidant benefits, improved quality assurance standards, and demonstrable in vivo results. As 2007 unfolds, we believe ORAC is well positioned to play a valuable role in advancing consumer understanding of antioxidants in all three arenas. And consumers are increasingly informed and capable. Armed with Internet access and a growing sense of responsibility for one's own health, they will continue to seek out the best information, fine-tune their understanding of antioxidants and spend money accordingly.NW
About the authors: David Bell is a business development and strategy advisor whose firm, Bell Advisory Services (New Bedford, MA), focuses on the food and nutrition industries. He is recognized as an expert in the application of antioxidant science to product marketing. He can be reached at 508-264-0827; E-mail: dnb@belladvisory.com. Boxin Ou, PhD, is president of Brunswick Laboratories, LLC, Norton, MA. Dr. Ou is well known in the area of antioxidant science and is responsible for the development of the modern ORAC assays. He serves on the editorial boards of Food Chemistry (Elsevier) and Current Nutrition and Food Science (Bentham Science). He can be reached at 508-285-2006; E-mail: info@brunswicklabs.com.
