Endurance in the Time of Evanescence

What are some indicators of a brand or ingredient that can endure regulatory scrutiny, sustain robust revenues, and be embraced by the masses for more than a decade?

ByAnthony Almada, B.Sc., M. Sc.

I love cars and its parent industry. I love nutrition and its parent industry. Why do cars continue to innovate, improve and en-hance—in objectively measurable ways—while nutrition products continue to languish? What is the “hybrid” or “anti-lock brakes” equivalent of the nutrition industry, or the most recent substantive, internally birthed innovation yielding a quantum leap forward in product in vivo performance (not processing, shelf stability, nor sensory attributes) that led to a new, enduring category? Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfates were innovations from Italian and Spanish pharma entities, respectively, not nutrition. You say fish oil? Go back to the 1970s. Microorganism-derived long chain omega-3 (LCN3) fatty acids, however, are indeed exemplary. Shelf-stable and high purity LCN3’s are, too. Most of the evanescent blockbuster botanicals became stars in the sky because of innovation by European botanical pharma companies—to be sold as (then) reimbursable phytomedicines. Creatine was the brainchild of some very smart exercise biochemists—virtually devoid of initial commercial intent—based in the U.K. and Sweden.

The prodigious amount of “innovations” and “improvements” heralded by all facets of the nutrition industry value chain have been rendered unmemorable and mundane by poor in vivo performance and/or porous layers of intellectual property. In contradistinction, many of the gilded case studies deemed blockbusters center upon ephemeral finished good brands or dietary or nutritional ingredients that are buoyed by hype, false advertising, and zealous missionaries exhorting cures and treatments for many. How can one glean adverse portrayals of our industry (and its stakeholders) on a constant, daily basis, from national and regional print and e-media? It’s simple: we lack the spine and teeth to internally police and enforce while new glass house construction continue to thrive.

The 32-year vista I have attained from being in this industry has generated endurance and evanescence harbingers, which may, of course, have exceptions—but rarely so. Here are a few (note: the antithesis of each harbinger can also apply):

Evanescence: “We can do it ourselves.” The battle cry of the nutrition entrepreneur. Almost without exception the wounds of war are evident within months, and often linger through for years. Hallmarks include “courtesy letters” from FDA; offer for sale of (finished goods containing) dietary ingredients that are absolute New Dietary Ingredients without submission of an NDI dossier and allowance from FDA; misspelling of very common ingredients e.g. “Gingko biloba”; attribution of an “L-“ isomer designation to amino acids that are NOT enantiomers e.g. “L-glycine” and “L-taurine” (this gross error/oversight has been committed even by at least one company with revenues > $1B and thus is not a definitive sign of Evanescence).

Endurance: “We need to do science on our products to show that they work.” The risk friendly utterance that is rare and silenced by the din of those that eschew science on their products. A common corollary of this indicator is doing the science BEFORE the products are offered for sale, a far rarer business discipline. When portrayed against a backdrop of less than 0.1% of the finished goods sold and marketed in North America, not solely comprised of pure nutritional molecular entities (e.g. folic acid; N-acetylcysteine; calcium carbonate), having actual and reputable science, this mantra can be powerful. Its implementation as part of an execution discipline is far different. For over 75% of the companies operating in the industry, this can be em-braced (from human and financial capital perspectives) but it is not. Reason: none of the companies started with this core initiative and/or chose to sustain it.

Evanescence: “We didn’t know there was a patent!” The barrier to entry continues to be perceived at or below sea level, but the invisible fences constructed by patent applications, and the walls from issued patents, continue to be overlooked or even scoffed at. Part of this harbinger resides in the same mentality associated with “We can do it ourselves” but the financial and human capital costs of patent litigation are far too costly to sustain this hubris. A recent multi-year patent litigation suit against one of the network marketing world’s behemoths (which they “lost”), centered upon a product that was generating eight figure annual revenues and could have been averted by implementing a patent landscape assessment before deciding on a final composition. Sentinel indicators: When asked if they have “freedom to operate” they reply “On whom? We’re not surgeons!”NW