Hunger-busting hoodia still ‘excellent prospect’, insists Phytopharm

Hoodia gordonii can cause digestive problems in beverages, but still has “excellent prospects” as an appetite suppressant in solid foods and supplements, according to Phytopharm - the firm leading research into the extract.

Unilever’s decision to terminate its multi-million pound partnership with Phytopharm to develop hoodia-based satiety products had come as a shock. But it did not mean hoodia was unsafe or ineffective, per se, insisted Phytopharm.“Unilever was working specifically on a beverage application, where the extract is metabolised too quickly. The problem is, if you use enough to be efficacious, it can have digestive side effects. However, we are very confident of striking a deal to work with another company on applications in foods or supplements. It’s still an excellent prospect.”

Neither party has been very forthcoming about the nature of the clinical research they have conducted into hoodia. But Phytopharm insisted it had conducted “several human trials” indicating the safety and the effectiveness of hoodia.

Unilever, which has been researching hoodia with Phytopharm since December 2004, is understood to have conducted a recent trial on hoodia in a SlimFast-style drink, which prompted it to abandon the collaboration.

A spokesman for Unilever said “safety and efficacy issues” underpinned its decision to terminate the partnership, but rejected the suggestion that any broader conclusions about hoodia could be drawn from its decision. “We can only comment on the branded product we are researching. We can’t say whether it would be advisable to put hoodia in supplements, for example.”

The euro 20M Unilever had pumped into the collaboration was a “relatively small” percentage of the hundreds of millions it spent on research and development on an annual basis, he added. “We always knew that this was a relatively high risk project. But I wouldn’t describe it as money down the drain. You always learn from research.”

Jeya Henry, professor of human nutrition at Oxford Brooks University, said the aborted project raised wider issues. He said: “The hype over functional foods and ingredients so often outpaces the science. You also often find that once you get into the detail of putting these ingredients into real food and drink applications, the whole things comes apart.”

Dr Mark Tallon, chief science officer at consultancy NutriSciences, said regulatory worries may have played a part in Unilever’s decision: “There is a significant concern over the novel foods issue regarding hoodia and its active ingredient P57, although I believe it’s possible that this could be resolved through toxicology and phase I-III trials. However, over the past five years we have seen no credible human data from any respected university, only two rodent trials, plus the MacLean et al (2004) study demonstrating a mechanism of action.”

More problematically, he said, the market was “saturated” with generic hoodia products, which had dented its credibility. “After years of fake claims and promises from generic hoodia manufacturers consumers may have turned their back on it as a solution.”

Jonathan Shorts, md of ingredients distributor Gee Lawson, agreed: “We decided not to supply hoodia because we couldn’t guarantee it was the correct species. There is a huge amount of Chinese hoodia out there, for example, whereas the hoodia with the clinical evidence behind it is from South Africa.”