A lively panel discussion at last month’s HFMA AGM and awards event explored opportunities for future supplement industry growth – covering everything from AI to personalisation, education to sustainability – and was tasked with answering the question ‘should we diversify, or stick with what we know best?’.
In the chair and asking the questions was Theresa Cutts, the HFMA’s PR & marketing consultant. Taking part were Andrew Thomas (founder and CEO of BetterYou), Kate Rose, (Waverlex/AllicinMax) and Jalal Janmohamed (co-founder and managing director of Wren Laboratories/Optibac).
A key theme throughout was that innovation should not be pursued simply for novelty’s sake. Andrew Thomas explained that successful innovation solves a real problem and offers a clear consumer benefit. He described how BetterYou’s oral spray technology emerged almost accidentally during work on transdermal magnesium products. Collaboration with Dr Charles Heard at Cardiff University led to the suggestion that an oral spray delivery system (which Heard had used for an anti-malarial preventive) might be effective for vitamin D (testing showed it was absorbed very efficiently through the oral membrane). It was the perfect illustration of how meaningful innovation often comes from identifying unmet needs rather than deliberately chasing ‘the next big thing’.
Kate Rose reinforced this point by discussing how traditional formats still remain highly valuable. AllicinMax’s powder capsules, developed 25 years ago, continue to sell strongly because of their flexibility and adaptability. Subsequent research had led the brand to develop successful cream and gel based products, and a food sprinkle product was potentially in the pipeline. But Rose wanted to reinforce her point that older delivery formats still meet important consumer needs when they are practical and effective.
Jalal Janmohamed described how the probiotic market has evolved dramatically over the past two decades. in the early days, most products were generically labelled ‘acidophilus’, with limited differentiation. Advances in research now allow companies such as Optibac to target highly specific health and life-stage needs, with products formulated to support women’s intimate health, constipation, diarrhoea and pregnancy. He argued there is still significant opportunity to diversify within the probiotic category as scientific understanding grows. But he stressed the importance of staying within areas of genuine expertise rather than expanding into unrelated supplement categories without sufficient scientific understanding. “I think I can confidently say we’ll be staying with biotics! If I look at areas such as omegas, protein supplements and herbals, there are experts in this industry who know that stuff inside out – and we don’t. We really like having the confidence of launching products in a category where we fully understand the research behind them”.
The panel was asked how, as an industry, we should balance consumer excitement around new products and ideas, with what the evidence currently tells us works. There was agreement that modern consumers increasingly expect both efficacy and convenience. And it was noted that supplement users today are more educated about the issues than they’ve ever been, and that specialist brands are often talking to a sophisticated audience. Andrew Thomas said that consumers want choice rather than rigid claims about one delivery method being superior to another. “Basically, avoid being fundamental (about one delivery system) because that’s when you start turning people off”. In other words, the goal should be helping consumers make informed decisions, not dismissing alternative formats.
Another major focus was the growing influence of artificial intelligence. Theresa Cutts wanted to know how the panel viewed the enormous opportunities of AI, but also its capacity to generate misinformation and the sustainability issues that have been raised (around intensive energy, land and water use of datacentres).
Kate Rose observed that customers are increasingly using AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude to seek health advice before contacting brands. “AI is taking consumer health research capabilities to a new level,” she said, but cautioned that “while this creates opportunities because consumers arrive more informed, it also creates risks due to misinformation they may well have encountered”.
How brands can play a role in informing AI
The panel acknowledged that AI-driven search behaviour is already changing how people discover health information online. Instead of using traditional linear product searching, consumers are now asking conversational questions about symptoms and health concerns leading algorithms to prioritise blogs, educational content and scientific articles. As a result, brands may need to rethink digital communication strategies by publishing more evidence-based educational content. Andrew Thomas argued that companies have a responsibility to contribute accurate clinical data so that AI systems rely on evidence rather than marketing claims: “AI is currently essentially received wisdom – it draws on what information is there. It can give you an opinion, but sometimes – if you look at those little blue lozenges – you’ll see they’re based on brands telling you a particular thing.”
Kate Rose agreed and developed the theme: “We know that the algorithms are trained to look for blogs and journal articles to pull this up to inform the reader. So maybe something we need to think about is guiding and ‘feeding’ AI by increasing the amount of reliable and well-evidenced information we post to our website.”
“…something we need to think about is guiding and ‘feeding’ AI by increasing the amount of reliable and well-evidenced information we post to our website”
On sustainability, the panel admitted they weren’t sufficiently well informed to make judgements about these impacts. But they agreed that the pace of AI development meant that there was little alternative, from a business perspective, than to fully engage with the technology. As Jalal Janmohamed put it: “There is a strong sense that if you don’t start using AI now, you will be missing out out.”
Education emerged as one of the strongest recurring themes. All the panellists argued that the health supplement industry has historically been built on education and should continue to prioritise it. Andrew Thomas suggested stronger collaboration with the NHS and healthcare professionals – “something that still eludes us” – could improve public understanding of nutrition and supplementation. The discussion also highlighted widespread and well-documented nutritional deficiencies, raising questions about how these important issues can gain wider traction in national discussion about health.
Personalisation – ‘the dream’, but still an elusive one
The panel explored the future potential of personalised nutrition, including roles for 
wearable tech diagnostics and apps. Drawing on his own specialism, probiotics, Jalal Janmohamed expressed scepticism about current microbiome testing because the science still lacks a clear understanding of what constitutes an ideal microbiome for individuals. However, he was enthusiastic about wearables that continuously monitor biomarkers such as blood glucose levels. Future devices may one day indicate precisely when someone needs additional micronutrients like iron or magnesium. Andrew Thomas described personalisation as the “dream” of supplementation, where technology could eventually recommend changing nutrient intake based on sleep, stress or activity data. “We’ve done very small scale nutritional personalisation ourselves, and we’ve seen that it can work extremely well and as planned. The challenge is how you do that at scale. But I do think it is gradually becoming within our reach.”
At the same time, the panel recognised ethical concerns around data privacy and the collection of personal health information. There was also debate about food fortification versus supplementation – or as a complement, or alternative option. While fortified foods may help certain groups, concerns were raised about the prevalence of ultra-processed foods and whether fortification levels are sufficient to address real deficiencies. Kate Rose made a case for fortified foods for particular groups: “I suspect that some people would prefer a fortified food, whether it’s a UPF or otherwise. That might be someone who has learning issues, and my son is one of those people. I suspect he’d prefer to eat processed food than take a tablet. There is a question about how often that type of route would be appropriate, but I do think there is an argument for food fortification in some situations.”
Looking ahead 10 years, the panellists predicted continued growth in preventative health and wellness. Jalal Janmohamed expected increasing emphasis on provenance, prevention and healthier lifestyles. Andrew Thomas believed personalisation and preventative supplementation would become more important, but stressed that consumer autonomy and education must remain central. Kate Rose meanwhile made the bold prediction that the market may not actually look radically different in 2036! But she was confident that demand for wellness products and healthier living would continue to expand significantly.
