Letters to the editor should be sent to:
Links to Other ASM Pages:
"Lactobacillus sporogenes" Is Not a Lactobacillus Probiotic
Microbes have proven their value in a plethora of industrial settings, including their use as probiotics, or health-promoting microbes. Within the probiotic industry, there are those who disregard the conventions of bacterial nomenclature. Perhaps the best example of this is the use of the name "Lactobacillus sporogenes" on probiotic labels, instead of the proper nomenclature, which assigns this bacterium to the genus Bacillus (Bergey's Manual, 1974).
List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature
The name "Lactobacillus sporogenes" appeared in the scientific literature in 1932 (L. M. Horowitz-Wlassowa and N. W. Nowotelnow, Cent. F. Bak., II Abt., 87:331, 1932). However, this name was never recognized by the scientific community, and was described as a misclassification in Bergey's Manual in 1939. The bacterium described by Horowitz-Wlassowa and Nowotelnow was a spore-forming bacterium, and as such could not be included as a species of Lactobacillus, which are non-spore-forming rods. This assertion was confirmed in the 5th, 6th, and 8th editions of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. The 4th and 7th editions do not mention the name "Lactobacillus sporogenes," nor does the Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology (1986). The name is not listed on the official bacterial nomenclature list, the List of Bacterial Names with Standing in Nomenclature. Clearly, the name "Lactobacillus sporogenes" has no scientific validity. Although there is no official classification of bacteria, the names given to bacteria are regulated through the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (Bacteriological Code).
However, this name still appears on the labels of probiotic supplements worldwide and in a few publications of Asian journals. The implications of the persistence of this mislabeling should be considered. The most important of these is safety. Since "Lactobacillus sporogenes" is not recognized as a species, a product labeled with this name confirms nothing about its contents. It may be a Bacillus coagulans, as marketing literature from at least one company claims (Sabinsa Corp., Piscataway, N.J.), but is it prudent to make this presumption, especially with products making no assertion of correct nomenclature? If the identity of the bacterium is in question, no conclusions about its safety can be made. Although B. coagulans is not considered pathogenic, neither is it an organism normally associated with food production (although Bacillus subtilis is used in the production of "natto," a Japanese food), a status enjoyed by many members of the genus Lactobacillus. Presumably the products on the market are consumed without undue risk. However, no independent panel of experts has evaluated the safety of B. coagulans for human consumption as has been done for the lactobacilli. Erroneously calling this organism a lactobacillus incorrectly associates it with the same safety record as lactobacilli.
Another implication of mislabeling is related to probiotic product efficacy. Unlike probiotic species of lactobacilli, members of the genus Bacillus are not considered normal members of the intestinal flora and do persist in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract. Published literature supporting the role of Bacillus coagulans in enhancing human health is sparse, especially as compared to literature published on Lactobacillus use as probiotics.
To continue to persist using this taxonomically incorrect name leads to speculation about the advantages of willingly mislabeling a product. It is likely that companies hope to benefit from association with the large aggregate of published literature and history of use on the safety and health benefits of the genus Lactobacillus. This "halo effect" would disappear if products were labeled as containing Bacillus instead of Lactobacillus. Furthermore, a marketing advantage can be achieved by using shelf-stable Bacillus spores instead of more labile Lactobacillus. The perpetuation of intentional mislabeling in the long run will serve to erode consumer confidence and undermine the credibility of the probiotic industry. Furthermore, the implications of mislabeling may have negative regulatory implications for the entire probiotic category. The FDA convened an information-gathering meeting in September 2000 on probiotics, suggesting we can expect closer regulatory scrutiny of this product category in the future (Clemens, R., Food Technol. 55:27, 2001). The industry should act to correct the issue of mislabeling before the FDA or consumer watchdog groups do it first.
Mary Ellen Sanders
Dairy and Food Culture Technologies
Littleton, Colo.
mesanders@msn.comLorenzo Morelli
Instituto di Microbiologia UCSC
Piacenza, ItalyScott Bush
Rhodia Inc.
Madison, Wis.
Email: webmaster@asmusa.org