Summary
Prebiotics are back in focus – but what truly defines them? In this BENEO-Institute Expert Talk, we explore the scientific criteria behind “prebiotics”, the importance of selective utilisation, and why regulatory frameworks take precedence over private certification seals.
In this expert discussion, we explore:
- What defines a “prebiotic” according to the ISAPP scientific consensus
- Why selective utilisation is essential for distinguishing prebiotics from general fibres
- How chicory root fibres fit within established scientific criteria
- Why private certification seals have limitations
- What EU regulatory frameworks require when communicating about prebiotics
Introduction: Why a Scientific Definition of Prebiotics Matters
Prebiotics are gaining renewed visibility in discussions around gut microbiota and digestive health. As interest grows, understanding the scientific definition of prebiotics is becoming increasingly important. Alongside this well-established definition, a private “prebiotic verified” seal applying its own criteria has entered the conversation.
This development has prompted further discussion about what constitutes a scientifically substantiated prebiotic, such as chicory root fibres.
What truly defines a prebiotic? Why does selective utilisation matter? And does a private certification seal change anything from a regulatory perspective?
To bring clarity to the discussion, we invited three experts from the BENEO-Institute to share their views in an open conversation: Dr. Jessica Van Harsselaar from Nutrition Science, Theresa Bagus from Nutrition Communication and Christina Rudolph from Regulatory Affairs.
Let’s listen in.
Expert Discussion: Growing Interest in Prebiotics and Emerging Questions
Theresa:
Prebiotics are clearly regaining attention – especially in Europe, where the discussion around gut health has traditionally been more cautious. That’s exciting for the category. But with growing visibility comes growing complexity. Recently, we’ve seen a private “prebiotic verified” seal entering the market, applying its own evaluation criteria.
Naturally, customers and consumers are asking:
What does this mean?
Are all true prebiotics defined in the same way?
And does a certification seal change anything from a scientific or regulatory perspective?
Let’s start with the foundation: What defines a “true prebiotic”?
Scientific Definition: What Makes a “True Prebiotic”?
Jessica:
Scientifically, the definition is very clear and well established. According to the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) a prebiotic is “a substrate that is selectively utilized by host microorganisms, conferring a health benefit”.[1]
The ISAPP definition of prebiotics is widely recognised as the scientific benchmark in this field.
The word “selectively” is the key element here.
Selective utilisation is the cornerstone of the scientific definition of a prebiotic.
Dr. Jessica Van Harsselaar
Many dietary fibres are fermented in the gut. But fermentation alone does not make an ingredient a prebiotic. Selective utilisation means that specific beneficial microorganisms, such as bifidobacteria, are preferentially stimulated rather than broadly increasing overall fermentation activity. That selective stimulation must then be linked to a demonstrated targeted health benefit in humans. This concept is also explored in the context of product applications, for example in our article on sippable wellness and prebiotic drinks.
Selective vs. General Fermentation: Why the Distinction Matters
If you remove the requirement for selectivity, the definition becomes much broader. In that case, ingredients with general fermentative effects may qualify even if selective microbiota modulation linked to a specific health benefit has not been demonstrated to the same extent. And scientifically, that blurs the distinction between true prebiotics and general fibres. This distinction is particularly important when evaluating well-evidenced true prebiotics such as chicory root fibres.
ISAPP has reinforced this scientific position with a detailed checklist[2] describing what should be demonstrated. Only substances that meet all of the following criteria based on the totality of evidence qualify as true prebiotics, otherwise they remain potential candidates:
- Clearly defined and described
- Utilised selectively by microbiota
- Explained mechanism
- Recognised health benefit
- Both selectivity and benefit demonstrated together
- Confirmed safety
- Defined effective dose and formulation
This level of rigor protects the scientific meaning of the term “prebiotic.” It also supports consistent interpretation by scientists, regulators and healthcare professionals.
Category Integrity: Why Precision in Definition Is Crucial
Theresa:
So the difference is not about whether something is “good for the gut” in a general sense. It’s about whether it meets very specific criteria.
Jessica:
Exactly. And that precision is important for the long-term credibility of the category. If the definition becomes too inclusive, “prebiotic” as term loses clarity. Over time, that could confuse consumers and professionals alike.
Regulatory Perspective: Do Private Seals Change the Rules?
Theresa:
We’ve also seen a private “prebiotic verified” seal entering the market, applying its own evaluation criteria. From a communication perspective, those can appear authoritative. How should we look at this from a regulatory standpoint?
Christina:
First, it’s important to clarify that private certification seals are not regulatory approvals.
In the European Union, the term “prebiotic” is considered a non-specific health-related message within the meaning of Article 10(3) of the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation. Such messages must be accompanied by a specific authorised health claim included in the EU Register. In the EU, only one authorised health claim can substantiate and accompany the term prebiotic and this is chicory inulin and its contribution to bowel function. [3] [4] [5]
Private seals may provide marketing visibility –
Christina Rudolph
but they do not confer regulatory approval.
A private seal does not alter this requirement. Private certification schemes operate independently from public regulatory authorities and cannot substitute compliance with binding EU food legislation. It does not create new communication rights for health-related messages, and it does not replace the need for an accompanying authorised health claim.
So, from a legal perspective in the EU, the framework remains unchanged.
Global Context: Science and Regulation Set the Framework
It is also worth noting that regulatory systems differ globally. In some countries, health claims are subject to strict pre-approval processes. In others, self-regulation plays a larger role. However, in general, authorities rely on legislation and scientific evaluation, not on private certification schemes, when assessing what may be communicated to consumers.
In other words, a private seal may provide marketing visibility, but it does neither confer regulatory approval nor modify existing legal standards.
Theresa:
That’s an important distinction. A seal can look official, but it does not carry regulatory approval.
Christina:
Exactly. It is crucial not to confuse private initiatives with public regulatory frameworks.
The emergence of alternative definitions and seals highlights how attractive and competitive the prebiotic market has become. As interest grows, so do attempts to position ingredients within that space.
From a regulatory perspective, what ultimately matters is not the existence of a private seal, but compliance with applicable legislation in each jurisdiction. Clear scientific definitions support consistent regulatory interpretation and reduce ambiguity in communication.
Science as the Foundation: Evidence Over Marketing
Theresa:
From a communication standpoint, that reinforces the need for clarity rather than confrontation.
When customers ask about these developments, the most constructive response is not to criticise, but to explain:
- What the established scientific definition requires.
- What regulatory frameworks allow.
- And where the differences lie.
Jessica:
I agree. Ultimately, strong science is the most stable foundation.
If we look at chicory root fibre, for example, they have been used as reference by the founding fathers of the prebiotic concept and have been investigated for decades. It selectively stimulates beneficial bifidobacteria, as demonstrated in controlled human intervention studies. It meets ISAPP’s scientific criteria for a prebiotic and is supported by a large body of peer-reviewed human clinical evidence. A deeper dive into clinically substantiated prebiotics can be found in our overview of scientifically proven prebiotics.
When an ingredient is supported by that level of scientific substantiation, the definition is not a marketing choice – it is a scientific conclusion.
When science is robust, the definition is not a marketing choice –
Dr. Jessica Van Harsselaar
it is a scientific conclusion.
Aligning Science and Regulation: A Prerequisite for Trust
Theresa:
It seems that this alignment between science and regulatory frameworks is essential.
Christina:
Absolutely. Clear scientific definitions support consistent regulatory interpretation. And regulatory clarity is key to maintaining consumer trust.
If definitions become overly broad, the risk is not only scientific dilution but also increasing uncertainty in communication. Precision helps everyone: authorities, companies and consumers. This is particularly relevant for well-documented prebiotics such as chicory root fibres. Maintaining rigorous scientific criteria helps safeguard the integrity of the term “prebiotic” across markets.
The Bigger Picture: Protecting the Meaning of “Prebiotic”
Theresa:
So perhaps the broader question is not about a specific seal, but about safeguarding the integrity of the term “prebiotic.”
Jessica:
That’s a very fair way to frame it.
Prebiotics are a powerful concept. The link between selective microbiota modulation and health benefits is one of the most exciting areas in nutrition science. But that link depends on specificity. If we no longer differentiate between selective and non-selective fermentation, we lose the mechanistic clarity that underpins the concept.
Christina:
And from a regulatory perspective, clarity reduces ambiguity. Ambiguity often leads to increased scrutiny. Clear definitions, aligned with recognised scientific standards, support stable communication conditions.
Theresa:
If we were to summarise this discussion for customers or consumers, what would be the key message?
Key takeaways
- The ISAPP definition as widely recognised benchmark says: a prebiotic requires selective utilisation by host microorganisms and a demonstrated health benefit in humans.
- Selective microbiota modulation distinguishes prebiotics, including chicory root fibres, from general fermentable fibres.
- The private “prebiotic verified” marketing label follows a broader industry-driven approach without an independent scientific consensus.
- Private certification schemes do not replace regulatory compliance under frameworks such as the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation.
- Scientific rigor and human clinical evidence safeguard long-term credibility and consumer trust in the term “prebiotic”.
Conclusion: Maintaining Clarity Across Markets
Maintaining alignment between science, regulatory frameworks and communication ensures that the term “prebiotic” retains its clarity and value across markets.
Further reading
What is a genuine prebiotic effect?
https://blog.beneo.com/sippable-wellness-prebiotic-drinks/
Which prebiotics are scientifically proven to work?
https://blog.beneo.com/the-only-proven-prebiotics-revealed/
How is the BENEO-Institute involved in global prebiotic research?
https://blog.beneo.com/beneo-institute-global-prebiotic-research/
Scientific overview of prebiotic fiber and gut health:
https://dietaryfiber.org/prebiotic-fiber-and-gut-health/
References
[1] Gibson et al. (2017) Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 14(8):491–502. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrgastro.2017.75.pdf
[2] Hutkins et al. (2025) Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 22(1):54–70. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41575-024-00981-6 and ISAPP’s prebiotic checklist:
https://isappscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-ISAPP-Prebiotic-checklist.pdf
[3] EFSA (2015) Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to “native chicory inulin” and maintenance of normal defecation by increasing stool frequency pursuant to Article 13.5 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA Journal 13(1):3951. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3951
[4] EU (2015) Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2314 of 7 December 2015 authorising a health claim made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health and amending Regulation (EU) No 432/2012. Official Journal of the European Union 12.12.2015(L328/46). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2314&from=EN
[5] EU Register of Health Claims. https://ec.europa.eu/food/food-feed-portal/screen/health-claims/eu-register