Review proposes a clear dichotomy between clinically validated functional foods and unvalidated functionalized foods, highlighting the need for rigorous regulatory and communication standards.
Diet is one of the main drivers of non-communicable chronic diseases (NCD). Modifying the food supply may be an attractive strategy for promoting health and reducing NCD risk. The intentional modification, processing, enrichment, or fortification of foods to produce “functional foods” currently varies according to legal definitions and existing regulatory frameworks, initially intended function, and production methods. This review critically appraises the existing definitions and concepts applied to functional foods, proposing a new concept of “functionalized foods”. The conceptual difference between the two categories is that the term “functional foods” is used for products validated for human health through controlled trials, while “functionalized foods” is used for food products obtained through enrichment or (bio)fortification that lack such a validation, yet. Consequently, the review aims to establish a framework for better understanding the range of existing products, enhancing communication, and promoting a more accurate interpretation of the functional food landscape.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frumuzachi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: