Scientific Advisory
The situation
A functional food brand was evaluating a differentiated omega-3 raw material for use in a protein bar. The supplier package included a randomised crossover pharmacokinetic study showing a substantial increase in fasting absorption against a conventional ethyl ester comparator. The marketing implication was obvious and attractive.
What we found
The study was sound and the mechanism was explicable: the ingredient starts at a stage in the absorption pathway that conventional forms have to reach first. But the study was a fasting, single-dose capsule design in healthy adults. It was not run in a food matrix, it did not test a bar, and it was not evidence that a lower dose would deliver equivalent exposure.
Three things would need demonstrating before the finished product could carry any version of the claim:
Process compatibility through the actual manufacturing conditions.
Oxidative and sensory stability in the final package.
Matrix-specific release behaviour in a high-protein format.
There was also a specification detail worth catching early. The grade designation referred to combined EPA and DHA content, not EPA alone, which is an easy misreading to carry into a label.
What we did
We set out the defensible position rather than the maximal one: a differentiated dosage form with a measured fasting pharmacokinetic advantage in capsule form, described accurately, with the study boundary stated.
We separated what the raw-material data supported from what would require finished-product work, and specified the analytical panel for the latter.
The outcome
The brand had a claim it could stand behind at the point of substantiation, and a clear list of what the finished bar would need to demonstrate before any stronger statement could be made.
A single review cycle is usually enough to establish whether the data in hand describes the product you intend to sell.