The debate around Zoe’s Daily30+ supplement and the ASA ruling highlights a much bigger tension currently playing out in nutrition.
On one side, you have scientists and companies like Zoe attempting to push people towards more plant diversity and fibre intake. On the other, regulators are increasingly wary of marketing claims that blur the line between genuinely healthy food and the growing category of ultra-processed products engineered to appear healthy.
The ASA’s decision centred on Zoe’s claim that Daily30+ was “just real food”. Their ruling pointed specifically to chicory root inulin and nutritional yeast as ingredients that had undergone more than minimal processing, and therefore could not reasonably be presented to consumers as whole foods.
Tim Spector and Zoe strongly disagree, arguing that both ingredients originate from plants and are widely accepted as beneficial components of a healthy diet. From a strictly nutritional perspective, that argument is understandable. Inulin is a fermentable fibre extracted from chicory root that has been studied extensively for its prebiotic effects, and nutritional yeast is a nutrient-dense ingredient rich in B vitamins and protein.
Blurred lines
But the question regulators are wrestling with is not whether these ingredients are safe or beneficial in isolation. The question is whether the language used to describe them accurately reflects what consumers believe they are buying. In an era where health claims, gut health messaging and functional nutrition are everywhere, the distinction between whole foods and processed ingredients has become increasingly blurred.
One of the ingredients the ASA has flagged, Chicory root inulin sits directly at the centre of that tension. Chemically speaking, it is a type of fibre called a fructan that naturally occurs in foods such as leeks, onions and asparagus. In the case of commercial inulin, the compound is extracted from chicory root through a process similar to sugar beet refining. The roots are crushed, soaked in hot water, filtered and purified before the fibre is spray-dried into a fine white powder. The resulting ingredient is then used widely across the food industry.
This is where the nuance becomes important. Inulin is not inherently harmful. In the right context it can support gut bacteria and contribute to fibre intake. The challenge is that the same ingredient has become one of the food industry’s most powerful formulation tools. It provides sweetness, adds creaminess, improves texture and, crucially, allows products to carry “high fibre” claims under UK and EU labelling rules.
As a result, inulin now appears in everything from protein bars and breakfast cereals to low-sugar biscuits and ice creams. In many cases it is being used not to improve the nutritional integrity of a food, but to manipulate how that food performs on a nutrition label. A product that is still fundamentally based on refined starch, fat and flavourings can suddenly present itself as a high-fibre, gut-friendly snack simply by adding a few grams of isolated fibre powder.
The ‘health halo’
This is where the ASA’s broader concern makes sense. Regulators are increasingly aware of what many nutrition researchers describe as the “health halo” problem. Individual ingredients can be used to signal healthfulness even when the overall food remains highly processed. The public sees the words “plant-based”, “high-fibre” or “gut-friendly” and understandably assumes the product resembles whole food nutrition.
That dynamic is not unique to fibre. The same phenomenon has happened with protein, vitamins and antioxidants. Nutrients become marketing signals, and the food industry quickly learns how to engineer products that maximise those signals.
It is also important to recognise that Zoe’s Daily30+ exists in a very different context to most fortified foods. Unlike a protein bar or confectionery product, it is designed specifically as a supplement to help people increase plant diversity in their diet. The formulation includes a wide range of nuts, seeds, fruits and legumes that collectively provide different types of fibre and plant compounds.
In that context, the presence of chicory root fibre does not undermine the product’s overall nutritional value.
Real food
However, the ASA’s instinct to scrutinise the language around “real food” should not be dismissed. Once isolated fibres enter a formulation, the product has moved away from being purely whole food. That does not make it unhealthy, but it does place it on a different part of the processing spectrum.
More importantly, the conversation around inulin cannot be separated from how the ingredient is used across the wider food system. Inulin has become the backbone of a new generation of “healthy” ultra-processed snacks, particularly in the booming category of high-protein bars and confectionery. When combined with sweeteners, flavour systems and protein isolates, it allows manufacturers to create indulgent products that score well on fibre and protein claims despite being nutritionally hollow.
That is where the real concern lies. Ingredients like inulin are not problematic because they exist (as I explained in George Nott’s analysis of the situation). They are problematic because they are frequently used to disguise the underlying quality of a product.
Chicory root fibre isn’t the problem. The problem is when it’s used to turn ultra-processed snacks into “high fibre” foods on paper, even though they behave very differently in the body than fibre from whole plants.
No comments yet