Talk:Probiotic/Archive 1

Welcome
http://www.nutriwatch.org/04Foods/ff.html -- Check out the section for "Dairy Products".

This topic definitely needs to be expanded. I'll be stopping by on my journeys in researching probiotic foods.. but expertise will be warmly welcomed.

-- Sy / (talk) 01:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lactobacillus casei
Lactobacillus casei

Lactobacillus rhamnosus

Streptococcus thermophilus

Bifidobacterium breve

Lactobacillus acidophilus

Bifidobacterium longum

Lactobacillus bulgaricus

Bifidobacterium infantis

Bifidobacterium

POV?
"It is a common myth, even among professionals within the health care community..." So what do you have to back up your assertions if the health care community disagrees with you? This paragraph as well as the section on prebiotics seem distictly POV to me. -Adjusting 21:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Probiotics are healthy bacteria, not just in supplements but also in foods. The Harvard Helath Letter ran an informative article about them in the May 2005 issue, which states that "a growing body of evidence suggests that you can treat and even prevent some illnesses with foods and supplements containing certain kinds of live bacteria." They go on to say that "The strains most often found in probiotic supplements and foods like yogurt are lactic acid bacteria belonging to the genera Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium."

Containing yeasts?
I just came across this article now, and I saw this sentence:


 * Probiotics are dietary supplements containing potentially beneficial bacteria and yeasts.

I don't claim to have a huge knowledge of probiotics, but I know that they are very often used in the treatment of candidiasis, and people who have canidiasis are usually told to avoid all mushrooms, yeasts, truffles, etc., in their diet – in other words anything that's a fungus. I have bought probiotics regularly, and have picked up bottles from shelves in health shops to have a good look before choosing. I can't recall ever seeing one that contained yeast.

I don't pretend that I feel 100% confident taking it out, as I'm not completely sure. However, it seems most unlikely that any of the normal probiotics would have yeast, and it aslo seems unlikely that any of them at all would have it. If someone feels it should go back in, please leave a note on the talk page, so that I can be sure that this is a genuine edit. Thanks. Ann Heneghan (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I know of no probiotic formulations that contain yeasts. Indeed if they did include yeast species such as Saccharomyces spp then one would expect rapid fermentation of the probiotic formulations. Velela 10:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not common for 'commercial' probiotics to contain yeast, largely due to the public misconception about what yeast is and its role in disease and health. For example, Ann Heneghan above demonstrated the classic public misunderstanding; i.e., that people with a Candida infection should avoid all yeast. This is akin to saying that people with a bacterial infection (say for example, Helicobacter pylori) avoid all bacteria,(for example, Lactobacillus casei). Not all bacteria are the same; just as not all yeast are the same, though the common ignorance is prevalent enough to stop probiotic companies from adding yeast. See Quackwatch's entry


 * Many of the studies which have tested various probiotics both in animals an in human clinical trials have used certain strains of yeast such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces boulardii. Simply search PubMed for either of these two fungal species + "probiotic(s)". - Unsigned

Probiotics are healthy bacteria, not just in supplements but also in foods. The Harvard Health Letter ran an informative article about them in the May 2005 issue, which states that "a growing body of evidence suggests that you can treat and even prevent some illnesses with foods and supplements containing certain kinds of life bacteria." They go on to say that "The strains most often found in probiotic supplements and foods like yogurt are lactic acid bacteria belonging to the genera Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium." - Unsigned

There's also very useful information about probiotics at this website: http://www.usprobiotics.org/basics/ and they mention that "One yeast - Saccharomyces boulardii - also has been evaluated as a probiotic." - Unsigned


 * Saccharomyces boulardii is a yeast that is commercially available. It has surface receptors that interact with certain toxins from Clostridium difficile making it useful in adjunctive treatment of pseudomembranous colitis.  It is useful in other settings, as well.  It is unique among commercially available microorganisms in that it is the best studied.  Google "Saccharomyces boulardii" for more info. Kd4ttc 17:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Specific Organisms
I am wondering if we should refer to probiotic organisms by name in the benefits section, in addition to listing them later. The reason I would like to see this is that the benefits of some of the species have been much more well-documented than others. 'L. casei' and 'L. reuteri', for example, have shown real benefits for human health after repeated effects (a lot of the assertions about preventing infection, regulating the immune system, etc is based on studies on these species). Others, such as the much more well-known L. acidophilus, have never really shown anything above placebo. --AaronM 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lacking in Citations
I just marked a need for citations in several places. I'm not universally questioning the validity of the claims, I'm just eager to see some actual data to back them up. Forgive me if adding this to the talk page is an unnecessary step, I'm fairly new to wiki editing. 24.220.79.116 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"There is no published evidence that..."
It is always difficult to substantiate claims that begin with "There is no published evidence that...". It also borders on the absence of evidence = evidence of absence syllogism. When I read this sentence (There is no published evidence that probiotic supplements are able to replace the body’s natural flora when these have been killed off; indeed bacterial levels in feces disappear within days when supplementation ceases), I went with interest to the link, which is a BBC documentary. I found the source of this claim. But I also found, couple of minutes later in the clip, a researcher, talking about the perspective of colonizing the gut of young children with protective probiotics. The enthusiam appears to be very real, because health impacts are expected to be enormous. It seems that this source has lots of useful info, but is not well balanced. As a result, these negative opening remarks, right at the beginning of this article are unjustified. I'll try and find evidence to appropriately correct this disinformation. However, a quick look at the research (it is huge) seems to indicate that probiotics have been shown to rebalance microbiota (I mean, durably). This brings me to another questionable phrasing: "to replace the body’s natural flora when these have been killed off". Syntax is not great, but the main problem is that it is assumed that we're dealing with a natural flora that could be "killed off" and should then be "replaced". First, even if it was the problem, there are researchers who focus precisely on populating the gut of infants, before the whole flora has developped. Second, doctors prescribe probiotics to balance, not to repopulate. Total destruction does not happen in real life. To summarize, weak reference, wrongly interpreted; not neutral, damaging to the rest of the article, which has good references. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 16:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, a little more on this. The documentary can be found at : . The exact place where we can find the reference for the  "there is no evidence that" is 16 min 55 (pro); 17 min 44 (con). The BBC journalist presents the "con" section with this remark: "Maybe you need to keep on taking extra bacteria to get the benefit of them". The skeptic researcher says: "we can show that ..." (concerning the short-lived effects of probiotics). I perceive that this is biased. I think that "We can show" the opposite as well. Back to research. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There we go:
 * The most commonly used probiotics are strains of lactic acid bacteria (e.g., Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus). The beneficial effects of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium have been discussed for decades. Bacteria in these two genera resist gastric acid, bile salts and pancreatic enzymes, adhere to intestinal mucosa and readily colonize the intestinal tract. Let's go a little further. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Antibiotics
Is it true that taking probiotics while on antibiotics can be beneficial? If so, I think this should be added. Yes I believe so

Have a look a the paper referred to in research section of article.Chris 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lactobacillus"
Many people avoid dairy products, is someone's 'dairy free gut' going to benifit from a milk based bacteria ? I think this basic point, complicated by complex terminology, would benifit discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.150.150 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The bacteria are not from milk, but from the intestine.Knorrepoes (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Research in Scandinavia
There is a lot of research in Scandinavia about probiotics that is not represented in this article, not to mention the array of probiotic products that can be found in Scandinavia, such as filmjölk. This includes clinical trials with human subjects. So if someone is looking to expand the research section, looking through Scandinavian research articles may be useful. (Some articles are in English.) For example, Lactobacillus plantarum 299v was developed in a Swedish research facility and is currently marketed as ProViva products in Sweden. –panda (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This should not be mentioned under this article, but at the appropriate species; such as for the example of L. plantarum. Or LGG for example. A lot of research has also been done in many other countries, such as the Netherlands, France, Switzerland...Knorrepoes (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've missed my point. There is text in the "Criticism" section that claims that info about probiotics comes primarily from test tube trials and not human clinical trials, for example, but they already did human clinical trials in Scandinavia some years ago.  Plus the "research" section is a total of 2 sentences right now and only contains information from 2007.  –panda (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blood pressure lowering
Lowering blood pressure by peptides produced during fermentation of milk is not a probiotic property. In such products the benefit is not due to the presence of bacteria but their metabolites. This paragraph should be removed in my opinion. Theser (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, go ahead... Actually, the same may be true for lactose intolerance, the lactse produced is active even when the bacteria do not survive the stomach. Knorrepoes (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The blood pressure and lactose intolerance issues are cited (by the same source) so it may be a good idea to check the reference first before removing it. I can take a look at it later if no one else does beforehand. –panda (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No matter what Dr Sanders state in the paper it is confusing the issue to mention effects caused by peptides produced during milk fermentation in a article on probiotics. This is clearly NOT an effect of probiotics, which are per definition "Live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host".Theser 07:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the article yet since I haven't had time. That said, I don't see how the defn you've given contradicts that blood pressure decreased by peptides produced during milk fermentation is not a probiotic property unless the milk fermentation was not caused by probiotic bacteria (that obviously had to be alive).  If the case is that the bacteria caused the fermentation, which produced the peptides, which then lowered blood pressure, then the bacteria did (indirectly) lower the blood pressure and conferred a health benefit on the host. –panda 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Reasons for Skepticism" Dispute
This section contains a number of unsubstantiated claims regarding the purpose and function of certain bacteria in host organisms. What makes me concerned about this section is that its premise seems to contradict the entire purpose of the article. The term "probiotic" is a dichotomous term, implying that there is in fact a distinction between "good/beneficial" bacterial and "bad/harmful" bacteria. This section not only undermines that idea, but fails to provide any logical and/or factual/empirical findings to support such a broad conclusion. Furthermore, it is poorly written and contains misspellings.

If this is, in fact, an unjustified oversimplification, then why is it that certain strains of bacteria do improve the human condition? Additionally, there is nothing in the definition of probiotics which suggest that they must, and can only, act independently; that they cannot act in groups in order to achieve a positive effect.

At any rate, I would recommend that the author of this section meet a couple of requirements before deletion of this section: 1) Provide citations. 2) Revise the section.

Respectfully, articles on Wikipedia are not soapboxes; they are designed to contain factual information with citations. If this burden is not met, it does not meet Wikipedia's high quality standards, and ergo, must be deleted.

70.77.93.61 05:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)  -- I agree with the above poster, but believe deletion is required. If you feel the section is still important, rewrite it with RESEARCH. It contains no useful information and looks like nothing more than soapbox drivel. It does NOT meet Wikipedia's quality standards and is unsupported by a cursory search of many of the known research databases, including those indexed by Google Scholar.

In the future it would be wise to verify your facts before writing them into an article. You've made this page look worse than those new age "cure everything with magnets" pages that pop up around the net. This is a great disservice to Wikipedia, and a great disservice to its millions of users looking for FACTUAL information.

wrt "It is difficult to see how bacteria taken by mouth can survive the process of human digestion (though research shows that they do, in fact, survive [49])", if the research SHOWS that they do in fact survive, then why should this remain difficult to see? This statement should be removed or reasons for disputing the research should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.46.58 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to contradict itself
That's all i have to say.

--Z E U S (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Types
Hi there,

I have made some additions to the types of Lactobacillus. There were serval missing that I know about. I have added the fact that ONE Group prdocues a product called MiVitality In-Liven which contains the complete Lactobacillus family. Although, some of the particular strains I'm not so sure about so I have requested more information on this so I can be 100% clear.

I also made a change to Lactobacillus caucasicus as it previously stated that it was a 'fantasy name'. This is incorrect, it is also named Lactobacillus kefiri. I have also modified Lactobacillus sporogenes as this is also an originator of Lactobacillus and not a made up name. It seems the section on Lactobacillus was taken from this website http://www.food-info.net/uk/ff/probiotics.htm and not much post-editing work was done. 'Fantasy name' really isn't the right thing to be putting as an entry in Wiki. 0s1r1s (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The InLeven product contains only a few species, not the whole family, that is impossible. Sporogenes and caucasicus are not recognised names, thus invalid and cannot be used.Knorrepoes (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sporogenes is a recognized name. It is produced by both Thorne Research and Pure Encapsulations. Both are professional only grade product lines and are always well reasearched before porduction. Lactobacillus Sporogenes is a strain that is viable without refrigeration. Great for travelling. KK 13 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.39.217 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See here to get some more information on why this name is illegal and should be Bacillus coagulans.Knorrepoes (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Side effects"
This paragraph is not justified. The claimed possible side effects of ingesting probiotics have never been documented in the scientific literature. In my opinion the paragraph should be removed, or at least the content verified. Theser 07:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See Besselink, Lancet, 14 Feb 2008 for fatalities due to probiotic use. 167.73.110.8 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

POV
The lack of any mention that this entire concept is held in contempt by the scientific and medical communities is not mentioned. JBKramer 18:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's because it's not "held in contempt" by science/medicine. In large part, the research that would provide evidence for or against the claims of probiotics is being done or has not been done before.  There are some in vitro results that support the hypothesis that it could be beneficial and limited animal studies.  I don't see many voices shouting out against it.  It's more of a waiting game as the evidence is generated.  I'm not concluding that this article is neutral, only that your contention that we need to add text condemning the approach according to science/medicine isn't going to provide that neutrality (and certainly not without actual evidence of disdain from science/medicine).  ju66l3r 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article currently states that probiotic claptrap can do the following, that it cannot do: Prevention of Colon Cancer, Cholesterol Lowering, Lowering Blood Pressure, Improving Immune Function and Preventing Infections, Reducing Inflammation, Improving Mineral Absorption and Prevents Harmful Bacterial Growth Under Stress. None of this (except for the lactose breakdown, and the repopulation of the gut for compromised individuals) has any basis in science or medicine, yet the pseudoscientific garbage studies are cited for each of them. JBKramer 19:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to indicate that experiments are indicating that these are potential benefits of the methods. This is more neutral and reasonable than removing the discussion entirely.  This is not fortune-telling; it's a relevant and approachable scientific question with research in peer-reviewed journals.  You may disagree that it will eventually lead to true medical benefits, but you can't remove the fact that people are studying it to determine if this is the case or not (just as you can't just wholesale delete the fortune telling article because you don't believe in what some think is the power of Tarot card reading).  ju66l3r 19:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one good example of why wikipedia is not highly regarded as a source of information. The studies cited are pretty much all lousy. For example, VSL#3 has only one published study of 8 patients and has never been repeated. One defender of probiotics above stated that "the research that would provide evidence for or against the claims of probiotics is being done or has not been done before". Well, that is a fair summary of the field. However, the article has no mention that research is really just beginning and that the claims should be viewed skeptically. However, when challenges are made by contributors to wikipedia they get edited out by the probiotic enthusiasts. It is really amazing that there is no section on skepticism here or any comment about the quality of the purported data. Kd4ttc (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

totallydisputed?
It is one question to wield NPOV as a weapon against an article you don't agree with. It's another item altogether to outright question the factual basis of the article. You are going to have to provide sources that dispute probiotics as a science. Good luck. ju66l3r 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The usual standard is first to show evidence of effect rather than to demand evidence of no effect. Most of the articles in the probiotic field are poorly done. Kd4ttc (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lancet article added today, showing inceased fatalities in acute pancreatitis. I believe that this page should be added to the Rational Skepticism category. Pustelnik (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lactus Bulgaricus
I have some info that 10% of lactus Bulgaricus population does indeed survive stomach acid making their way to intestines. So L.Bulgaricus should indeed have some therapeutic characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.14.6 (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Article needs complete make over
This article brings more confusion than clarity to the reader. The introduction is poorly written and does not explain clearly what probiotics are. E.g. the lengthy paragraph on LAB should be replaced by a link to the lactic acid bacteria article. For those of you being able to read German, take a look at the German Wiki on probiotics (probiotikum) which is much more in the encyclopedia format – short and concise.

Further, to avoid the discussion of pro/con probiotics, which should not take place in an encyclopedia, a historical, descriptive perspective should be taken. The table of “proven probiotic strains” is useless as the claims are not documented by scientific references. Links to companies/probiotic producers are not proper documentation. Some keywords on the claimed effects could, however, be extracted from the table, e.g. immune stimulation, lactose intolerance, alleviates atopic eczema…

My suggestion to an outline of this article would be:

1 Introduction/definition

2 History of probiotics

3 Probiotic foods

4 Probiotic food supplements

5 Potential benefits (short list), emphasizing that scientific documentation is often scarce and that mode of action is poorly understood

6 References and links (non-commercial if any).

- What do you think ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theser (talk • contribs) 08:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me - the current version is a mess and I suspect the hand of some major probiotic suppliers at work here. Go for it. Velela (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article has no coherence as it currently exists.--AaronM (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a physician this article is an example of a problem with wikipedia. The references often are to small uncontrolled studies or references that are followed say something like the findings are preliminary and need to be followed up, but the only thing that gets in here is the optimistic bit.  Since there is no discussion of the quality of the data it reads as if probiotics have major health utility when practical experience has not borne that out.  Even the phrase probiotic is jaded - the implication is that the germs are good, when in reality they are just germs.  There is no discussion on the field being unregulated and having resisted regulation.  Safety concerns are not throughly addressed.  Strain drift and strain differences are not discussed.  There isn't even any mention that the subspecies are probably important.  The work it would take to go through each reference and debunk it or to elevate it (in the few cases where that is warranted) is major.  There is also a pervasive POV here on promoting probiotics and I have seen criticism against probiotics whittled out of the article.  Also, I say someone revert a set of additions to the table of proven probiotics because they were felt to be ads, when to my reading the claims added had as much justification as anything already in the article.


 * The Germans are probably the most sophisticated in their use of whole bacterial products. Perhaps the German version of this article should just be translated.  Kd4ttc (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While the German version may be more concise, it also only contains 6 references + 2 books. I don't know if all of the references in the English version should be kept or not, but a complete literature review may be warranted to determine what should go vs what should stay.  A note on links to companies/probiotic producers as not proper documentation -- this may be true for the majority of the world but in Sweden, I believe that all medical claims made by Swedish companies must be approved by the Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverkets, a Swedish governmental agency) or else the company can be reported for false claims and fined until the claim is removed.  So even if something is published on a company's website in Sweden, it can be considered a reliable reference.  –panda (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lactobacillus fortis. Designed for children - hardly a proven effect in humans. The strain should be removed until (documented) effects are presented Theser (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is biased
This article sounds more like an advert for a company that make these, i wouldn't be surprised if someone from Actimel or another one like that had edited it. I'm going to change it so it doesn't sound like propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.105.71 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence reads, "...thought to be healthy for the host...", so I was surprised not to find a criticism section. At 1st glance, it really does sound like an advertisement.Leon7 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright?
Some of the text on the page appears to be copied from another source

For example, see the paragraphs about Henry Tissier and Alfred Nissle

24.60.190.107 (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Multi-probiotic
The Multi-probiotic section reads like an advertisement, should we delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettgo1 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In fact I think this article would benefit substantially by not referring to any specific probiotic products or strains, i.e. the lengthy table of alleged health benefits should also be omitted.Theser (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Adverse effects"
I've removed this text:

"There is no published evidence that probiotic supplements are able to completely replace the body’s natural flora when these have been killed off; indeed bacterial levels in feces disappear within days when supplementation ceases. "

I'm not sure that it should be in the article at all, but it certainly doesn't fit in this section. This criticism doesn't even allege an adverse effect, but rather the lack of a positive effect. Helvetica (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I will rename the "adverse effects" as "potentially adverse effects," so as to match the correspending section on benefits. I also plan to move this section, as I beleive that having it above the benefits section gives it undue weight. The potential benefits of probiotics are much more notable and have been much more extensively discussed (both in scientific literature and the media) than any alleged adverse effects. More work still needs to be done to improve this section. For instance, I'm not sure about this sentence: "In a therapeutic clinical trial conducted by M. Besselink and colleagues in The Netherlands, the consumption of a cocktail containing genetically modified strains of probiotic bacteria, increased the death rate of patients with acute pancreatitis ." If the bacteria were GMO, then their properties could be completely different from those commonly found in probiotic foods or supplements. Just as an adverse reaction to a strain of GMO corn wouldn't be an indictment against corn in general. So I'm not sure if that should be included. Anyhow, for now I'm going to move it and do some other sorting for better flow of the article. Helvetica (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. Thanks for the updates to the article! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not just pills!
The begining of the article states that: "Probiotics are dietary supplements of live microorganisms thought to be healthy for the host organism."

This strikes me as unduely limiting. It's my understanding that the term "probiotic" refers to the microorganisms themselves - whether they're consumed in the form of a pill or powder in a food that has active live cultures - anything from yogurts/soy-yogurts to kefir, to sauerkraut, to kimchi, to kombucha, etc.

If there's no objection, I'd like to re-word the introduction, and perhaps other parts of the article so that it's not specifically about supliments, but about microorganisms which can be consumed either from suppliments or from foods. Helvetica (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This sounds like a good idea. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I've gone through the article now and generally tried to broaden the scope, while eliminating or changing parts which seemed to discuss probiotics simply as supplements. A fair bit of work still needs to be done to expand the discussion of food sources of probiotics - including which foods commonly contain which strains of bacteria and yeasts... Helvetica (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that probiotics are available both as part of food, e.g. milk fermented with a specific LAB strain with a documented effect and as food supplements. However, one cannot assume that any LAB can be classified as a probiotic. On the contrary, probiotic properties are strain dependent, i.e. two strains of the same bacterial species may have different properties. For these reasons the list of alleged probiotic food products are misleading and should be removed. Not just any yogurt, soy yogurt, kefir, kombucha, sauerkraut, and kimchi contain probiotic bacteria. Theser (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, the whole list should be removed.Knorrepoes (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Line 117 was reverted in accordance with the statement above.Theser (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words Galore!
I'm truly shocked by the enormous number of weasel words in this article. The fact that we have an entire section on "Potential Benefits" is ridiculous. Either there are benefits arising from probiotics, and this is documented by peer-reviewed research in respectable publications, or there is just supposition, possibility, and research commissioned by biased/interested parties. If the first, they are clear benefits and get written about as such; if the second, they have no place in Wikipedia: we deal in facts, not possibilities. I propose a wholesale re-write of this section, but recognise that a lot of work has gone into it, so don't intend to do anything without first seeking comment here. So, any comments? RomanSpa (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for opening a discussion on the talk page before editing. First, most, if not all, research is potentially biased and may have used poor methodology.  This is why no one study, even if reported in a respectable, peer reviewed journal, proves anything. So while it may be a fact that a study was done, the positive or negative outcome may only possibly be correct.  I have looked at the section you are most concerned about and it seems to be well-referenced.  Could you point out some specific problems? Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with RomanSpa. Pro and con sections are heavily deprecated in the Wikipedia. Articles are supposed to describe all sides of a topic neutrally, not just list pros and cons. At the very least this article seems to have been lent on by vested interests.- Wolfkeeper  18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a great deal of negative information in references #46 and #47. Perhaps you could use those articles to refute some of the statements that claim them to be beneficial. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Probiotics May Reduce Death and Disease in Preterm Neonates
http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/720913?src=cmemp&uac=123195AX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.249.37 (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Use in industry
In the section "Other uses" I moved the sentence: "Probiotics are used in industry to improve yields of pork and chicken production." The source of this statement is in French. I have no idea of how common this is, or if this is just one laboratory. Please, those who are better in French than I am, and those who know something about the use of probiotics in industry, add to this section or delete it. Lova Falk    talk   08:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The manipulation of the gut microbiota through the administration of probiotics and antibiotics has been used for growth promotion in farm animals for 50 years and is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States [1] and by the European Commission in Europe [2]. "


 * (from "The Increase of Lactobacillus Species in the Gut Flora of Newborn Broiler Chicks and Ducks Is Associated with Weight Gain")
 * http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010463 Bstard12 (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Nutrition March 2010 supplement
In March 2010, the Journal of Nutrition ran Supplement: Guidance for Assessing Probiotics Beneficial Effects—How to Fill the GAP. I've glanced through these articles but am not quite up for summarizing them at the moment; in March 2011 I believe they will become freely-available on the website but in the meantime you can find some PDFs online through Google Scholar. II | (t - c) 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejuvelac
Why is Rejuvelac or its component parts not mentioned? I realize that it appears to be a "brand" and understand why the name itself might not be mentioned but it, or what is in it, appears to be VERY beneficial according to the work done at the Optimum Health Institute in San Diego. PiPhD (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a fermented drink with unknown bacterial strains in it, so it simply is not a probioticKnorrepoes (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Strain Number
Bacteria vary widely in behavior and biochemistry even within species. That's why we need a strain number to truly specify what properties a particular bug has. If probiotics are really out to prove themselves and/or actually help people, then specific strains need to be tested, and only those strains with known benefits then be sold with claims of efficacy. I certainly agree with removing product listings from this page that do not have the specificity indicated by a strain notation. --AaronM (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism
I entered the section on reasons for skepticism. Probiotics sound catchy, but it really represents a fecal romanticism that if everything were just natural everything would be good and well. Studies are just coming out to suggest what roles these expensive supplements play. Kd4ttc 22:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise with your concerns and have, in the past, edited out some text about good bacteria and bad bacteria from an earlier version. What I am sure that your own observations acknowledge is that severely disrupted or compromised gut flora, especially after the use of broad-spectrum anti-biotics, benefit greatly from early restitution of a more normal gut flora which helps to obviate Candida colonisation. My own scientific (but non medical) reading of the literature suggests that some modern life-style and diets are themselves the reason for a compromised gut flora and in such cases some assistance in restoring a more normal flora may be beneficial. I am however wholly with you that by far the most appropriate way to restore a normal gut flora is by adoption of healthy diet and life-style (see Prebiotic). I would suggest that your inserted text need to be re-worked and simplified to sit well with the rest of the topic or else risk a unilateral deletion (but not from me!) Velela 23:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be amusing to see that happen. The diarrhea that results from antibiotics is due to alteration of bacterial processing of mucus, rather than a flora change. I put the skeptic part in a separate section to confirm it is rather editorial in nature. If wholesale deleted it would be best if there were a rational stated. Kd4ttc 00:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Fecal romanticsim"? Can't we leave the armchair Freudian analaysis out of this?
 * I think it was just a euphemism. i kan reed (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

EFSA statement
The cited EFSA statement in recent edits on 8/1/11 was in reference only to Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis Bb-12, and not to the other species that this opinion was cited in reference to. Are there other EFSA statements that apply to various other probiotic species? If so, they may be included. In the mean time, I am going to remove a reference to the EFSA statement on B. animalis from parts of the article that discuss other species. --AaronM (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Has the EFSA even evaluated most of the claims where it's authority has been cited? If not, the article should say so. Saying that the claims "have not been approved" gives the impression that the claims HAVE been evaluated and been rejected, which is quite different. Also, the cited EFSA statement is still a specific statement about a specific strain, and does not say anything about the EFSA positions on the other strains where it is being cited. --AaronM (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Commercial strains
Over recent months, a trend in the article is for manufacturers to include their unpublished commercial products in the list of strains, possibly giving them an air of credibility among other strains for which published peer-reviewed research exists. I'm moving the unpublished commercial strains to here for review and discussion. --Zefr (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Excerpting the following from the article as unconfirmed science. --Zefr (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete list of supplement products that contain more than one strain.

Clarification required for Clostridium difficile
The opening has the following sentence:

A "less aesthetically acceptable but probably effective" treatment for Clostridium difficile infection is fecal transplantation.

This has no relation to anything before it or after it and it's not even clear what Clostridium difficile infection is or what might be more aesthetically acceptable. Will delete this sentence in a day or two if this is not clarified. Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --AaronM (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sentence removed. It seems like it might work in the article some how, but not where it was at. Here it is with the reference:


 * A "less aesthetically acceptable but probably effective" treatment for Clostridium difficile infection is fecal transplantation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakablogger2 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of that sentence is to include another probiotic treatment that is supported by evidence and a recommendation in the world's leading medical journal. When these medical sources talk about probiotics, they're not just talking about yogurt; they frequently mean fecal bacteria that are cultured from the stool samples of healthy people and transferred to people with ineffective intestinal flora. There's better evidence for this treatment than there is for some other applications of probiotics that are discussed in the entry. (Sorry for the typo in the citation title.) --Nbauman (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem with that, but it says "less aesthetically acceptable" when it's not clear what is more acceptable, and it isn't clear what Clostridium difficile has to do with the topic of probiotics. Also, it's not clear what "fecal transportation" is and there's no link to an article on that topic. Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I just read the Science magazine special issue on the gut microbiota, and I noticed that there are several very strong studies on the benefits of therapeutic use of bacteria administered as fecal transplants. I've linked to two non-subscription plain-language WP:RS that have links to other studies. I'm surprised the field has advanced so far in 2 years. Apparently one or two strains administered in yogurt or some other food isn't enough; the gut microbiome contains thousands of bacterial species and at least hundreds have to be introduced or re-introduced to have any effect. If you want to talk about probiotic treatment, you have to talk about fecal transplants. --Nbauman (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Indian probiotics
Sandbox material, some plagiarized, removed from Article. --Zefr (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Products containing probiotics entered Indian markets in 2007. But all the main players use bacteria of foreign origin. Now scientists at National Dairy Research Institute have found two types of bacteria-Lactobacillus plantarum-91 (Lp-91) and Lactobacillus fermentum-1 (Lf-1) which can be employed in the industry. Lp-91 has been shown to lower the cholesterol in animals by 21 per cent. Lf-1 has been found to be effective against colitis in mice. Scientists at Anand Agricultural University in Gujarat and Christian Medical College in Vellore, Tamil nadu, have also been conducting test on these bacteria. The scientists at Anand have used bacteria Lactobacillus helveticus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus to standardise several types of dahi(curd), lassi (sweet butter milk) and butter milk.

Lactic acid bacteria
Removed from the Article: these bacteria are employed in fermentation of products, but typically (kefir excepted) do not contain live cultures in amounts intended for probiotic supplementation. Accordingly, they have questionable relevance under WP:REL and need WP:MEDRS and quantitative evidence if probiotic claims are made.--Zefr (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Some additional forms of lactic acid bacteria include:
 * Lactobacillus bulgaricus
 * Streptococcus thermophilus
 * "Lactobacillus bifidus" - became new genus Bifidobacterium

Some fermented products containing similar lactic acid bacteria include:
 * Pickled vegetables
 * Fermented bean paste such as tempeh
 * Kefir
 * Buttermilk or Karnemelk
 * Kimchi
 * Pao cai
 * Sauerkraut
 * Soy sauce
 * Zha cai


 * I've reverted your edit. If you are going to delete content then you will need more than your own opinion to back you up. The three species you removed are known probiotic agents and the foods you removed are known dietary sources of probiotics. If you think that probiotics can only refer to named strains cultured for purposes of creating nutritional supplements (and that seems to be where you are headed) then I will have to remind you that this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for you to push your own particular point of view. Besides, much of what you said is wrong. Many of the food products listed above, when prepared, stored, and served correctly, are quite high in probiotics and often surpass supplements in raw numbers of microbes present and almost always surpass supplements in number of species. Of course not all species in these "wild fermentations" are proven to have probiotic properties but the science is still emerging on this issue; certainly the species are not harmful as the process of lacto-fermentation is ancient and considered by experts to extremely safe. Also, unlike supplements, fermented foods will not usually have consistent populations from batch to batch but this is consistent with the properties of natural food products. Please do everybody a favor and read up on the science before continuing in this vein. Thanks, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 22:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

move initial discussion of word to an etymology section?
The initial paragraph is quite long and contains a lot of information about who originally used the term "Probiotic" and what they used it for... would it be useful to make this a separate section? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Factors Affecting Viability
This section has not refs as the flag says. I propose we remove it, if no one can produce citations. Michaplot (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal until/unless good sourcing can be found. Alexbrn talk 04:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Gut Pathogens Review Articles and a couple of thoughts on the Probiotics wiki-page
The journal Gut Pathogens has recently published an in-depth historical and scientific review. It is open access, which we like. It has tons of material which is relevant to this page, if someone can properly digest it. :-)

The review was big enough to be split into three separate articles. Here is the title, and links to the individual articles with their respective subtitles:

Review Title: 'Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances'
 * Part I – autointoxication revisited
 * Part II – contemporary contextual research
 * part III – convergence toward clinical trials

Notably, Metchnikoff himself didn't coin the term auto-intoxication, although he may (?) have been the first to promote administration of bacteria to change and improve patients' intestinal flora.

I think the most important contribution of this review is that it opens up room between the two extreme sides of the discourse.

Metchnikoff's position was that toxins produced by intestinal flora are a cause of arteriosclerosis and age-related decline. He also was partly responsible for a boom in the popular media on auto-intoxification (he was the co-author of a popular article titled 'Why not live forever?' which appeared in a in a 1912 issue of Cosmopolitan).

At this period, there were also links being made between toxins from intestinal flora and melancholia and other mental health problems. But arguably the doctors themselves got a bit crazy. Metchnikoff himself advocated probiotics (without using that term). But other doctors, like Sir Arbuthnot Lane, undertook more extreme measures, like surgery to take out parts of the intestine, or by-passing the colon altogether. A New Jersey physician named Henry Cotton blamed auto-intoxification for "virtually all forms of psychoses, mood and behavioral disorders" (reviewer's words), and performed "horribly invasive interventions" including "hundreds of colectomy operations" which killed 30% of his patients! Eventually someone published an article saying that the colon is not an optional organ (I’d have to look for the citation).

By the 1930s and 1940s, the pendulum of public and medical opinion had swung the other way, the now-controversial concept of "auto-intoxification" was seen as totally crazy, and was often categorically dismissed. However, the authors (Alvarez and Donaldson) cited as totally debunking auto-intoxification, had some of their own crazy ideas. They had 5 healthy people refrain from pooping for 90 hours and remarked on how distressed they were. It’s not toxins, it’s just pressure. Nevermind that people who were concerned with the impacts of intestinal toxins focused not just on people with chronic constipation, but more often upon those who had alternating constipation and diarrhea.

And so we got the opposite theory-heavy-and-evidence-light insult upon the science. Instead of "Intestinal toxins are the root of all health problems, and if you buy my probiotic pills you'll live forever!" (not a direct quote, but a fair paraphrase), we got the replacement: "Anyone who talks about toxins from your bowels causing problems is caught up in Oedipal guilt and has Freudian fetishes with toilet-training hygienic." (also a fair paraphrase). The trend went the other way, so that for example ulcers were seen to be entirely caused by psychology--it was all psychosomatic.

The reality is more complicated. Some people do research which tries to dig into this without falling into extreme position one way or the other.

Enter the bacterium called H. pylori, which the NIH now says “is a major cause of peptic ulcers”. Enter research which shows that probiotics can help people with ulcers. It is complex. Most people with H. pylori don’t get ulcers. The issue is probably a mix of reasons, including the gastrointestinal ecology.

Anyway, the point is that science has moved on. In part two of the review, the mission includes this:

I'll point out one of these things: There is a good deal of evidence coming from a number of studies that LPS 1. is produced at greater amounts in certain situations (e.g. diet and composition of intestinal flora) 2. can cross the intestinal barrier more under some circumstances (stress and disease) 3. that it causes harm when it does so (including cognitive impairment). (I recognize that I threw this list together. Sorry, I've blown a more time than I have putting this overall comment together.  Point is that, if you dig in, there is good evidence that LPS is a genuine issue.)

I'd like to see the language here (both on the Talk page and the Wiki article) move from from “debunking” or blindly promoting probiotics, and towards more nuanced and grounded representation of the science. There is now a great deal of recognition that intestinal flora issues are important for health. This is not crazy-talk. On the other hand, there is clearly the danger that probiotic supplements are peddled with trumped up claims.

One criticism coming from the BBC documentary, which has made it onto the wiki page, is that bacteria from probiotic supplements often don’t seem to ‘stick around’ after the supplements are discontinued. This is important. But there is more to it than that. Again, from part II of the review:

Anyway, there you go. Have a good day/night/morning/evening, y'all.

Pigkeeper (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Commercialization
Removed from the Article as WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM. Does not follow WP:NPOV or WP:MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Probiotics and their commercialization

Market Labeled as “functional foods” - – i.e. a food that beneficially affects one or more target functions in the body beyond adequate nutritional effects in a way that is relevant to either an improved state of health and well-being and/or reduction of risk of disease - products containing probiotics represent a promising field of business developments for the industry. The market grew from a rather small base to reach $11.3bn, with a global 8.9% growth from 2003 to 2004(Probiotics Success Strategies in Food and Drinks, Business Insights, 2009). In the course of this period, the US market has grown by 8.7% to $5bnand in Western Europe, sales of functional foods grew by 10.2% a year between 2004 and 2007(Global probiotics and prebiotics : moving beyond digestive health status quo, Euromonitor Oct. 2010). In terms of products, dairy represents 60% of the offer, where yogurts appear to be the most common format.

Several factors are identified as growth drivers. By offering health benefits in the form of simple daily products or food supplements, these products easily appeal to “health-conscious” buyers. There is a general interest in health maintenance and products have become affordable to an expanding global middle class. Also the general business growth of probiotics is taking place at a time when consumers are receiving information through government health campaigns on the benefits of a healthy diet and have a good access to information with internet.

Examples of products with probiotics and brands
 * Dietary supplements as capsules or gum: BioCodex
 * Yogurt and fermented milks: Yakult, Danone, General Mills, Nestlé
 * Milk: Mondelez International Inc.
 * Juice and drinks: ProViva, Arla
 * Chocolate, Nutrition bars: Barry Callebault
 * Infant formula: Nestlé
 * Condiments
 * Gum: BioGaia, ActiMint
 * Pet food

Non food:
 * Tampons
 * Pet food

What the NIH says about probiotics
"The conference panel also noted that in studies of probiotics as cures, any beneficial effect was usually low; a strong placebo effect often occurs; and more research (especially in the form of large, carefully designed clinical trials) is needed in order to draw firmer conclusions."

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/probiotics/#science

The fact that there is little evidence and a strong placebo effect should be integrated into the article somewhere, preferably in the intro. The NIH/NCCAM sources is by far the most reliable and scientific authority on probiotics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.175.226 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be somewhere in the intro, large parts of this article use misleading language to try to state otherwise, with sources attached that show only weak support for the language used in the article.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The latest - "General health claims for "probiotic" drinks and yogurts have been dismissed by a team of experts from the European Union." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8286646.stm Meanwhile the Wikipedia article would have you think the exact opposite is going on Gripdamage (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This sentence sounds like garbled medical sciencey-speak >"The preventive role of some probiotics has been correctly assessed in randomly clinical trials." What does "correctly assessed" mean? "Randomly clinical" sounds like a comically bad attempt at "randomized clinical trials". Kbradley osaka (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

New Talk page to supplement this one
I have constructed a new talk page to supplement this one due to the anticipation that we will be able to share resources and reliable medical references related to this topic: Talk:Probiotic/medical journal review articles. When you find a reliable source for the use of other editors that will help them update and improve references on this topic, please post them there.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not be following any more than this one Talk page. I see no point in your creating a sandbox of lists and ideas and elevating it to a second Talk page for the article. Take the material there, condense it and think about it, and add article change proposals here. The second can serve as your sandbox, but you cannot and should not expect significant discussions on one article to take place at two locations. It is against WP guidelines, at least. Le Prof 209.152.223.3 (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Use the med ref template
Medical review journal articles are now proliferating on this topic, especially for the use of probiotics for the treatment of gastrointestinal problems and for bacterial vaginosis. I have applied the search template to help other editors interested in this topic to the top of this talk page. Probiotic treatment is apparently moving into the mainstream of medical research.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Probiotic research has for many years been an important area of research, in Europe especially, and the preponderant results and opinions in the field seem reasonably well captured in the current article. If you have proposed changes to the article that would take the article in a significant new direction (in emphasis, tone, etc.), it would be best to propose the changes here, in Talk, rather than beginning an edit war (at an article that is in pretty good shape, already). (I do not oppose bold editing, but my review of your alternative Talk page and of the text appearing here does not inspire confidence that your ideas are as scholarly and well-developed as those already appearing here.) What specific statement or statements do you propose need changing? Are you referring to replacement protocols, or to orally taken formulations? Le Prof 209.152.223.3 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Probiotic yoghurt"
Question. I just heard Kevin McCloud in a Grand Designs TV programme describe people as making "not just yoghurt but probiotic yoghurt". Now, I was under the impression that all yoghurt, if the bacteria are still alive, is probiotic. But I see big companies promoting certain kinds of expensive yoghurt as probiotic. If I make yoghurt at home, using supermarket yoghurt as a starter, that's as probiotic as anything I can buy - or am I wrong? Thanks for any further info. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether yogurt is an actual probiotic depends on the extent to which the product consumed contains viable (living) organisms, after the process of its production/manufacture, packaging for sale (if a commercial product), and storage until consumption. Le Prof 209.152.223.3 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please allow Further reading section
As a fellow editor, I find it useful to have a Further reading section in science and medical articles, as a place to put citations that may be of use to draw further article content (but that have not yet been extracted). Please, as a cordial gesture, allow for a Further reading section in this article. Le Prof 209.152.223.3 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

1st sentence horrible
"Probiotics are microorganisms that provide health benefits when consumed, as claimed by some"… Not sure what grammatical principal this violates, but the addendum "as claimed by some" feels very, very wrong. First sentence of the whole article, which is the most important, and this is completely unacceptable. I haven't time to rework it, but do have time to document the issue. Also, I think there is some wiki principal about "weasel words", such as "some". The whole thing feels weak, and promises a weak article.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. It makes me cringe, especially since the benefits of probiotics (at least of the immune/GI variety) are quite proven. Would just taking out "as claimed by some" be acceptable? Pcwendland (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to be much more specific,, , in order for anyone editing here to make a change. What good secondary scientific/medical sources are you offering that would allow for a change in the thrust of this conclusion? I will look to the weasel word contention. Le Prof 209.152.223.3 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Glaring redundancies to be address, comment here
The two following, clear (glaring) redundancies exist in the article, and must be fixed; they leave the article appearing non-encyclopedic: Please leave any comments here regarding this need. I will attempt to do these edits within a few days, and will look to comments to guide the work. Le Prof 209.152.223.3 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. The lede opens with two redundant sentences defining the title term. These two sentences must be consolidated.
 * 2. The Definitions section opens with two sequential paragraphs that are largely redundant, again, defining the title term. These two paragraphs must be consolidated.

Mental health
I have removed this content from the article

which was sourced to:



This is a bold claim and the journal is not MEDLINE indexed, which would seem to raise a WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn talk 15:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , while added comment may be disqualified if it does not reflect a sufficiently held medical opinion, the concern over the specific journal you raise seems to be misplaced. Gut Pathogens is the "official journal of the International Society for The International Society for Genomic and Evolutionary Microbiology (ISOGEM)" and is indexed by "PubMed, PubMedCentral, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), Google Scholar, EBSCO, CSA, Academic OneFile, Academic Search, CSA Environmental Sciences, Expanded Academic, Health Reference Center Academic, OCLC, and Summon by ProQuest."


 * As an antiinfectives discovery scientist, I would say that there is increasing general support for the notion of complex interactions between the microbiome and human systems, both in health and in disease, and so the statements you removed do not raise a general concern. The key questions seem to be, (1) is the statement supported by the citation, and (2) is the citation a stand-alone, or does it reflect an important or preponderant current expert medical opinion.


 * Please review the material removed, and if it still fails, I can support your reductive edit. But if the journal is the only concern, I believe it can be returned. Le Prof   209.152.223.3 (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the key question is: is the source a WP:MEDRS. The answer I think is no. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In re glaring redundancies
The following is the relevant portion of a recent review that surveys the history and current consensus of the meaning of the article's title term.

I propose this content serve as the basis for editing the lede, definition, and history section. Note, there are elements of the historic definition that no longer apply, and fit better under the rubric of particular classes of Natural product, and so when the editing is done, those defunct meanings need to be made clear as only being of historic interest:

""Probiotics: historical evolution of the concept. The origin of the term ‘probiotic’ is credited to Werner Kollath as related in a publication by the German scientist Ferdinand Vergin (1954). Kollath proposed the term ‘Probiotika’ to designate ‘active substances that are essential for a healthy development of life’. The Greek meaning of the term (‘for life’) is opposed to ‘antibiotics’ (‘against life’), at that time a very well recognized ‘hit’ of science. In a paper published in Science a few years later, Lilly & Stillwell (1965) described probiotics as substances secreted by one micro-organism that stimulate the growth of another. Other US scientists later used the term probiotic with the same meaning: factors that stimulate growth (Sperti, 1971; Nutini et al. 1982). However, Parker (1974) made a different use of the term, which was applied to describe animal feed sup- plements specifically designed to improve health. He introduced a new definition: ‘organisms and substances which contribute to intestinal microbial balance’. The success of the new concept is mainly due to the subsequent work of Roy Fuller in Reading (UK), who revised Parker’s definition by removing the reference to ‘substances’. Thus, a probiotic is ‘a live microbial feed sup- plement which beneficially affects the host animal by improving its intestinal microbial balance’ (Fuller, 1989). The concept was also applicable to human nutrition and medicine (Fuller, 1991). This definition stressed the importance of viable microbial cells as an essential requirement, but kept the concept restricted to a particular mechanism of action: improvement of the intestinal microbial balance, as in Parker’s definition. Shortly thereafter, Havenaar & Huis In’t Veld (1992) broadened the definition to include the microflora of other habitats different from the intesti- nal, such as the upper respiratory tract or the urogenital tract. Pro- biotics are ‘a mono- or mixed culture of live microorganisms which applied to animal or man, affects beneficially the host by improving the properties of the indigenous microflora’. Remark- ably, the concept was still restricted to micro-organisms able to influence the indigenous microbial balance. The notion of probiotic as introduced by Fuller was attractive and successful. Subsequent scientific approaches aimed at the identification of the ideal probiotic, and discussed the character- istics and properties required for a micro-organism to qualify as a probiotic. Many scientific publications and reviews listed a series of essential requirements to be checked by in vitro methods in the screening of micro-organisms with a probiotic value. It was suggested that only strains shown to possess these essential traits should be tested in vivo. The list of essential requirements based on theoretical considerations included the following: would predict good survival during gastrointestinal transit); ovainy, 2001); pathogen antagonism); influence metabolic activities of faeces (for prevention of colon cancer). Several bacteria strains successfully qualified by passing through all the in vitro tests, and thus received the ‘full title’ of being a probiotic, in some cases without any proof of a beneficial health effect demonstrated in human studies.
 * (1) Human origin (as a token of safety for human use);
 * (2) Resistance to gastric acidity and bile toxicity (these properties
 * (3) Adhesion to gut epithelial cells (as a requirement for successful colonization in vivo – the term colonization describes the ability of a particular bacteria strain to permanently establish in the host over time without the need for periodic reintroduction of the bacteria; see Bezkor-
 * (4) Production of antimicrobial substances or bacteriocins (for
 * (5) Ability to modulate immune responses and ability to

On the other hand, most recent scientific developments have challenged the validity and usefulness of the suggested criteria for a full definition of probiotic. For instance, the Nissle Escherichia coli strain, isolated in 1917 for therapeutic purposes in the pre-antibiotic era, is not resistant to acid or bile toxicity. This strain is given in enteric-coated capsules and has proved useful for the prevention and treatment of human disease in well-designed human studies (see for instance the Lancet paper on a clinical trial in ulcerative colitis; Rembacken et al. 1999). There is no proof so far that supports or substantiates the claim linking human origin and safety for human use, or human origin and efficiency in human studies. It is also well known that many pathogens exert their deleterious effect through adhesion to gut epithelial cells (Hoepelman & Tuomanen, 1992), and again this fact has cast some doubts about the meaning of this property by itself in the definition of a strain as probiotic (Ducluzeau, 2002). Taken together, these observations suggested that the proposed list of in vitro properties could no longer be accepted as criteria for definition of a probiotic. Most common views about the in vitro tests for probiotics among the scientific community are well reflected in the report by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Working Group (2002): ‘In vitro tests are useful to gain knowledge of strains and the mechanism of the probiotic effect. However, it was noted that the currently available tests are not fully adequate to predict the functionality of probiotic microorganisms in the human body. It was also noted that in vitro data available for particular strains are not sufficient for describing them as probiotic. Probiotics for human use will require substantiation of efficacy with human trials.’

Hence, in vitro studies are and will be a very useful tool for the selection of bacteria for a particular probiotic use, but are not essential requirements for a strain to qualify as a probiotic. In addition to this consensus about the in vitro tests, some important evidence obtained in human studies has challenged Fuller’s con- cept of probiotics. First, many bacteria able to transit alive through the entire human gastrointestinal tract are devoid of a measurable health effect, and second, a persistent change in the indigenous flora by consumption of a probiotic has never been demonstrated (Bezkorovainy, 2001). According to these obser- vations, induction of changes in the indigenous flora should not be considered as a primary target of probiotics. Thus, newer defi- nitions of the probiotic concept have omitted the need to induce changes in the microbial balance, as health benefits can be pro- duced through other mechanisms as well.

The current concept of probiotics. Definitions proposed in recent years are listed below.
 * (1) ‘Oral probiotics are living micro-organisms, which upon ingestion in certain numbers, exert health benefits beyond inherent basic nutrition’. LABIP consensus definition (Guar- ner & Schaafsma, 1998).
 * (2) ‘A live microbial food ingredient that is beneficial to health’. Proposed by Salminen et al. (1998) and adopted as consen- sus definition by the FUFOSE Concerted Action sponsored by the European Commission (Diplock et al. 1999).
 * (3) ‘Live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host’. Definition by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Working Group (2002). The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics recently adopted this definition (Reid et al. 2003).
 * (4) ‘Probiotic bacteria are live food supplements which benefit the health of the consumer’, as defined in the legal proposal by the European Commission referred to earlier.

All these definitions require that the term probiotic should only be applied to microbes administered alive having a demonstrated beneficial effect (Reid et al. 2003). The similarities between these new definitions clearly reflect the consensus of scientists all over the world on this issue. The concept is now open to many different applications in a large variety of fields relevant for human and animal health. The concept is generic and covers many different aspects that may be addressed by specific strains.""

Please offer comments here as to the appropriateness of using this as a starting point to arrive at a consensus definition of the title term, probiotic, for the lede and these two sections (rather than the internally repetitious and competing content currently in place). Le Prof 209.152.223.3 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing a misleading part about rejected claims
I removed a part about rejected claims which was misleading: even though the word "rejected" is in bold, a lot of readers probably only read the claims itself and believed them to be statements in the Wikipedia article, which was almost the opposite of what it meant. So the net effect of this part was to spread misinformation. That is why I decided it was safer to remove it until further considerations.

Even writing each claim between quotes would be misleading because a lot of readers might still miss the very sentence that almost reverses their meaning.

If some people believe this part to be really necessary in this article, the only acceptable way to word it might be to include the phrase "is not proven to" before each verb.

Here is the deleted part, for reference:

The claims rejected include:
 * Lactobacillus paracasei LMG P 22043 decreases potentially pathogenic gastrointestinal microorganisms or reduce gastrointestinal discomfort.
 * Lactobacillus johnsonii BFE 6128 - immunity and skin claims (all too general for consideration)
 * Lactobacillus fermentum ME-3 decreases potentially pathogenic gastrointestinal microorganisms.
 * Lactobacillus plantarum BFE 1685 - immunity claim (deemed too general)
 * Bifidobacterium longum BB536 improves bowel regularity, resists cedar pollen allergens, and decreases pathogens.
 * Lactobacillus plantarum 299v reduces flatulence and bloating and protects DNA, proteins, and lipids from oxidative damage.
 * Lactobacillus rhamnosus LB21 NCIMB 40564 helps maintain individual intestinal microbiota in subjects receiving antibiotic treatment.

Viybel (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Probiotic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022161702/http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/en/probiotics.pdf to http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/en/probiotics.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150723090959/http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/scdocs/doc/587.pdf to http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/scdocs/doc/587.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129235248/http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/3085.pdf to http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/3085.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120514105145/http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/en/probiotics.pdf to http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/en/probiotics.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110125052709/http://www.isapp.net:80/docs/obesity_and_probiotics_isapp_response_to_raoult.pdf to http://www.isapp.net/docs/obesity_and_probiotics_isapp_response_to_raoult.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Copypaste violation noted
A tag was added after it was found, in the History section, that near to the entire paragraph on Nissle was lifted without any attribution whatsoever from the indicated CRC Press volume published in 2013 (and therefore still under copyright): Haruki Kitazawa, Julio Villena, & Susana Alvarez, 2013, "Probiotics: Immunobiotics and Immunogenics," p. 3, Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, ISBN 1482206846, see, accessed 11 June 2015.

Please do not remove the tag before (a) editing the paragraph so it is not plagiarized, (b) adding this reference as the source of the insight, and (c ) checking the rest of the WP article historical section against this source, to ensure other material was not taken without attribution.

This is illegal and dishonest, pure and simple. Shame. Le Prof 209.152.223.3 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking for copypaste problems; that is an important issue to look for. However, that paragraph (in a slightly altered form) was added to this Wikipedia article 6 years before that CRC Press volume was published, and it has been nearly identical to its present form since 2009. So it's actually more likely that Kitazawa et al are the ones who copied. --Brian the Editor (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add to this discussion. The paragraph in question in this article originated here on 30 Sept 2007. It remained in that form for a while until someone came and re-worded here on 5 November 2009. The paragraph has maintained its present form since then. The book noted above (link here) does have a very-similar paragraph re-worded only slightly from the one in this article. As Brian the Editor noted, the book was published in 2013 (publisher's site here). As far as I can tell this is the first edition. In all likelihood, the author of the textbook noted the paragraph here and accidentally merely rephrased it when writing the book. I'm going to remove the tag from the page now, but if anyone wants to talk more about this first, feel free to add it back. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

cedar pollen allergens
A search of "strengthening of the resistance to cedar pollen allergens" returns 772 results - great support, wouldn't you say? However, PubMed returns only one from the search term "cedar pollen allergens probiotic." The topic of this single article, "Effects of lysed Enterococcus faecalis FK-23 on allergen-induced serum antibody responses and active cutaneous anaphylaxis in mice.", is FK-23 - one of the products of http://www.nichinichi-phar.co.jp/en/index.html, the company that employs the only author with an affiliation listed. With this in mind, how should we handle this topic? No doubt some people interested in alleviating their cedar pollen allergy have encountered claims using typical search methods and then turn to Wikipedia for further edification. If it's not mentioned, certain of those readers might be inclined to edit the page and include it. On the other hand, if there is a subheading under Research and the actual situation is pointed out (more or less the above), would information seeking cedar pollen allergy sufferers be better served? Please note: My intent here is not to aggravate editors or fuel controversies but to improve our content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McortNGHH (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)