Regulatory Framework of Fortified Foods and Dietary Supplements for Athletes: An Interpretive Approach

The Policy of Compulsory Large-Scale Food Fortification in Sub-Saharan Africa

Food fortification with micronutrients was initially justified in developed countries by a lack of availability of micronutrients in staple crops, mainly due to soil exhaustion. However, in Sub-Saharan arable lands, soil fatigue is not predominant, and communities consume mostly home-grown, organic, non-processed crops. Sub-Saharan food systems are nevertheless deeply entwined with food insecurity, driver of illnesses. Family production can promote subsistence, food stability, and self-sufficiency, the main SSA setback being the vicious cycle of poverty and the lack of dietary variety, contributing to malnutrition. Poverty reduction and women's education are significant strategies for reducing child and adolescent undernourishment. Fortification of foods consumed daily by individuals makes sense and can minimize, if not entirely, eliminate deficiencies. Compulsory mass fortification of foods in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) with single micronutrients is, however, controversial since they work in synergy among each other and with the food matrix, for optimal absorption and metabolism. Since the causes of malnutrition are many, caused by diverse, unequal, and unjust food distribution, interrelated with political, social, cultural, or economic factors, education status of the population, season and climatic changes, and effectiveness of nutrition programs, just food fortification cannot solve the composite of all these elements. Further, compulsory fortification is excessive, unproductive, and likely harmful to human health, while many challenges remain in assessing the quality of available premixes. Furthermore, aiming at dietary diversification is the best approach of increasing trace element intake from commonly accessible and easily available food sources.

An online exploratory survey of Australian athletes' and exercisers' use of and attitudes towards ultra-processed sports foods

Sports foods are convenient alternatives to everyday foods to fuel performance. Strong scientific evidence supports their use; however, commercial sports foods are classified by the NOVA system as ultra-processed foods (UPF). Consumption of UPF has been associated with poor mental and physical health, but little is known about athletes' consumption of and attitudes towards sports foods as a source of UPF. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess Australian athletes' intake of and attitudes towards sports foods and UPF. Adult athletes were recruited to complete an anonymous online survey via social media between October 2021 and February 2022. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and Pearson's χ2 test was used to assess potential relationships between categorical demographic variables and consumption of sports foods. One hundred forty Australian adults participating in recreational (n 55), local/regional (n 52), state (n 11), national (n 14) or international (n 9) sports completed the survey. Ninety-five percent reported consuming sports foods within the past 12 months. Participants consumed sports drinks most commonly (73 %) and isolated protein supplements most frequently (40 % at least once per week). Participants reported everyday foods to be more affordable, taste better, present less risk of banned substances, but less convenient and greater risk of spoilage. Half (51 %) of participants reported concern about health effects of UPF. Participants reported regular UPF consumption despite taste and cost-related preferences for everyday foods and health concerns regarding UPF intake. Athletes may need support to identify and access safe, affordable, convenient, minimally processed alternatives to sports foods.

Dietary Supplements as Source of Unintentional Doping

Background

The substances used in sport could be divided into two major groups: those banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency and those which are not. The prohibited list is extremely detailed and includes a wide variety of both medicinal and nonmedicinal substances. Professional athletes are exposed to intense physical overload every day. They follow a relevant food regime and take specific dietary supplements, which is essential for the better recovery between trainings and competitions. However, the use of “nonprohibited” dietary supplements (DS) is not always completely safe. One of the risks associated with the use of dietary supplements is the risk of unintended doping—originating from contaminated products. The presence of undeclared compounds in the composition of DS is a serious concern. The aim of this study is to evaluate the risk of unintentional doping.

Materials and Methods

Literature search was done through PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. Studies investigating the presence of undeclared compounds, in dietary supplements, banned by WADA met the inclusion criteria. The last search was conducted in June 2021. The present review is based on a total of 50 studies, which investigated the presence of undeclared compounds in DS.

Results

The total number of analyzed DS is 3132, 875 of which were found to contain undeclared substances. Most frequently found undeclared substances are sibutramine and anabolic-androgenic steroids.

Conclusion

More than 28% of the analyzed dietary supplements pose a potential risk of unintentional doping. Athletes and their teams need to be aware of the issues associated with the use of DS. They should take great care before inclusion of DS in the supplementation regime.