Kjeldahl and combustion (Dumas) methods are widely accepted for total protein determination but lack analytical selectivity for protein because they measure protein on the basis of sample nitrogen content. Adulteration incidents exploiting this analytical vulnerability (for example, melamine) demonstrate that these methods are no longer sufficient to protect the public health. This article explores the challenges and opportunities to move beyond total nitrogen based methods for total protein measurement. First, it explores the early history of protein measurement science, complexities of current global protein measurement activities, and ideal analytical performance characteristics for new methods. Second, it comprehensively reviews the pros and cons of current and emerging approaches for protein measurement, including their selectivity for protein, ability to detect adulteration, and practicality for routine use throughout the supply chain. It concludes that some existing highly selective methods for food protein measurement have potential for routine quality control. It also concludes that their successful implementation will require matrix-specific validation and the use of supporting reference materials. These methods may be suitable only for food ingredients that have a low degree of compositional variability and are not complex finished food products.

The Dietary Supplements Information Expert Committee (DSI-EC) of the United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) reviews the safety of dietary supplements and dietary supplement ingredients for the purpose of determining whether they should be admitted as quality monographs into the United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary (USP-NF). The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has enforcement authority to pursue a misbranding action in those instances where a dietary supplement product indicates that it conforms to USP standards but fails to so conform. Recently DSI-EC undertook a safety evaluation of spirulina, a widely used dietary ingredient. DSI-EC reviewed information from human clinical trials, animal studies, and regulatory and pharmacopeial sources and analyzed 31 adverse event reports regarding spirulina to assess potential health concerns. At the conclusion of this review, DSI-EC assigned a Class A safety rating for Spirulina maxima and S. platensis, thereby permitting the admission of quality monographs for these dietary supplement ingredients in USP-NF. DSI-EC continually monitors reports concerning the safety of dietary supplements and dietary supplement ingredients for which USP dietary supplement monographs are developed. The DSI-EC may revisit the safety classification of spirulina as new information on this dietary ingredient becomes available.

Lutein, a yellow xanthophyll carotenoid found in egg yolks and many colorful fruits and vegetables, has gained public health interest for its putative role in visual performance and reducing the risk of age-related macular degeneration. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine’s recommended Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) focus on preventing deficiency and toxicity, but there is a budding interest in establishing DRI-like guidelines for non-essential bioactives, like lutein, that promote optimal health and/or prevent chronic diseases. Lupton et al. developed a set of nine criteria to determine whether a bioactive is ready to be considered for DRI-like recommendations. These criteria include: (1) an accepted definition; (2) a reliable analysis method; (3) a food database with known amounts of the bioactive; (4) cohort studies; (5) clinical trials on metabolic processes; (6) clinical trials for dose–response and efficacy; (7) safety data; (8) systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses; (9) a plausible biological rationale. Based on a review of the literature supporting these criteria, lutein is ready to be considered for intake recommendations. Establishing dietary guidance for lutein would encourage the consumption of lutein-containing foods and raise public awareness about its potential health benefits.

Bioactives can be defined as: “Constituents in foods or dietary supplements, other than those needed to meet basic human nutritional needs, which are responsible for changes in health status” (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services in Fed Reg 69:55821–55822, 2004). Although traditional nutrients, such as vitamins, minerals, protein, essential fatty acids and essential amino acids, have dietary reference intake (DRI) values, there is no such evaluative process for bioactives. For certain classes of bioactives, substantial scientific evidence exists to validate a relationship between their intake and enhanced health conditions or reduced risk of disease. In addition, the study of bioactives and their relationship to disease risk is a growing area of research supported by government, academic institutions, and food and supplement manufacturers. Importantly, consumers are purchasing foods containing bioactives, yet there is no evaluative process in place to let the public know how strong the science is behind the benefits or the quantitative amounts needed to achieve these beneficial health effects. This conference, Bioactives: Qualitative Nutrient Reference Values for Life-stage Groups?, explored why it is important to have a DRI-like process for bioactives and challenges for establishing such a process.

There is increasing interest by consumers, researchers, and regulators into the roles that certain bioactive compounds, derived from plants and other natural sources, can play in health maintenance and promotion, and even prolonging a productive quality of life. Research has rapidly emerged suggesting that a wide range of compounds and mixtures in and from plants (such as fruits and vegetables, tea and cocoa) and animals (such as fish and probiotics) may exert substantial health benefits. There is interest in exploring the possibility of establishing recommended intakes or dietary guidance for certain bioactive substances to help educate consumers. A key aspect of establishing dietary guidance is the assessment of safety/toxicity of these substances. Toxicologists need to be involved in both the development of the safety framework and in the evaluation of the science to establish maximum intake/upper limits.