werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (03/04/86)
<<>>
From American Medical News, (Feb. 28, 1986)
"Warnings are sought on vitamin supplements"
A panel of leading scientists, concerned about the long-term
effects of using vitamin supplements for disease prevention, has called
on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to initiate printed warnings on
packaging.
Scientists representing the California Dietetic Assn, and the Dairy
Council of California said at a recent meeting tha they were concerned about
the increased usage of vitamin supplements by a growing number of consumers.
"Vitamin pills do not effectively treat health concerns such as
cancer, osteoporosis, and premenstrual syndrome, despite a growing army
of believers," said David Heber, MD/PhD, chief of clinical nutrition at
UCLA medical school.
The $3Billion supplement industry is growing at a rate of 15% a year,
with the number of pills actually sold increasing 8% annually. Calcium
supplement sales last year increased 50% and are predicted to increase an
additional 33% this year.
"The FDA should initiate consumer protection measures, including a
printed caution on all supplement labels and packaging, warning consumers
that vitamins and minerals won't prevent disease and that the long term
consequences of long-term frequent use are unknown," Dr. Heber said.
Vitamin and mineral supplements become drugs when taken at 10 times
the recommended dietary allowance.
Such use can upset nutrient absorbtion rates, causing nutritional
deficiencies and serious health problems," he said.
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
"Time flies when you're streaking out N. gonorrheae." bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/05/86)
> "The FDA should initiate consumer protection measures, including a >printed caution on all supplement labels and packaging, warning consumers >that vitamins and minerals won't prevent disease and that the long term >consequences of long-term frequent use are unknown," Dr. Heber said. The article quoted almost sounds reasonable, then you hit a paragraph like this. Of course vitamins prevent disease (scurvy, rickets, beri-beri), they just don't prevent some diseases. I hope if the FDA labels, they be specific somehow, probably by providing what is known in a positive way rather than a negative statement like this ("won't prevent disease") which is rather hard to, er, swallow. Unfortunately, what makes us all cynical is that we know that unless something is completely accepted by most everyone (and hence probably common and trivial knowledge, like vitamin C prevents Scurvy) it won't make it on the label. This will only serve to erode the credibility of the FDA rather than its intended purpose. I think consumer education in the form of readily available pamphlets, possibly put by the gov wherever they sell vitamins (as much as possible) would go a lot further than a little warning label. People need information, not labels. Even better if they would invite reasonably speculative views (not that mega-doses will cure cancer, but perhaps Linus Pauling's view on Vitamin C, even if just as a dissenting view to standard medical practice.) -Barry Shein, Boston University
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (03/05/86)
x For more useful discussion and expose, check out Consumer Reports, March '86.
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/06/86)
>The article quoted almost sounds reasonable, then you hit a paragraph like >this. Of course vitamins prevent disease (scurvy, rickets, beri-beri), >they just don't prevent some diseases. I hope if the FDA labels, they be >specific somehow, probably by providing what is known in a positive way >rather than a negative statement like this ("won't prevent disease") >which is rather hard to, er, swallow. Sorry, Barry, but I don't agree. Diseases like beri-beri and scurvy are deficiency diseases, and in the context of modern western diets, simply don't exist without something else being terribly wrong (e.g., chronic alcoholism.) You might as well argue (and it would be a good argument) that a well-balanced diet prevents deficiency diseases. Certainly, the point that Craig was making is that "vitamin supplements" as opposed to the particular chemicals, vitamins, which are found naturally in food, do not prevent disease. This sounds like semantic cavilling, but I think it's an important distinction, and it is the crucial point which is used by the hucksters and mavens to get the credulous and uneducated to fork out money. For the average non-3rd-world person, and that includes the seemingly-poorly- fed hacker as well as the nutrition maven, taking vitamin supplements will not prevent such deficiency diseases from occurring, because they would never have occurred anyway. It is very difficult to produce a clinically significant vitamin deficiency, except in carefully controlled, long-term experimental situations, or, as in the case of pellagra, scurvy, or beri-beri, where environmental conditions were such that the everyday diet was CONSISTENTLY missing essential nutrients for many months or years, as is seen in populations whose primary sources of calories are corn (pellagra) or polished rice (beri-beri), or where citrus and other fruits are lacking (scurvy). In a real sense, these kind of diseases are aberrations, "man-made" by dietary limitations due to convention or culture (pellagra) or through technological change (beri-beri, after the introduction of steam-powered milling machines) or by enforced dietary restrictions (scurvy among sailors at sea.) Of course, the vitamin pushers and addicts really aren't talking about such old-world scourges as beri-beri and pellagra when they talk about preventing disease. Rather, they allude to a hazy "wellness" which can't be measured or quantified or studied. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU {bbncca,bbnccv,harvard}!spdcc!dyer
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (03/11/86)
> > > "The FDA should initiate consumer protection measures, including a > >printed caution on all supplement labels and packaging, warning consumers > >that vitamins and minerals won't prevent disease and that the long term > >consequences of long-term frequent use are unknown," Dr. Heber said. > > The article quoted almost sounds reasonable, then you hit a paragraph like > this. Of course vitamins prevent disease (scurvy, rickets, beri-beri), > they just don't prevent some diseases. Before the nit-picking starts, I'd like to explain a few things about the source, American Medical News. It is not a refereed journal. It is prepared by journalists, and is of a quality somewhat less than the New York Times. Any given quote from AMN is there more because it sounds good than its intrinisic content (as long as all factual information is correct). But "they just don't prevent some diseases" is just as facile. Vitamins don't prevent MOST diseases, or "Disease" with a capital D. Each Vitamin is such because its absence produces a set defined disease state or states. Any claims to the contrary are just that, "claims." Going further, I don't think the ideas of pamphlets will work. Try convincing 'General Nutrition' to put pamphlets on its counter whose net effect would be to discourage 95% of its business. On a related subject, have you ever noticed in such stores all the books are away from the Vitamins and supplements. There is a reason for that. Vitamin companies (many publish these books) are allowed to lie, to exagerate, to present completely one sided opinions that border on blatant advertising or fraud, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T DO IT ON THE LABEL. Hence, they publish the books. However, it was ruled that a book sold along with the vitamin it promotes counts as a "label" and after several successful prosecutions, the trade journal for "health food" stores warned about keeping the books and the vitamins within arms reached. (A good account of this is in Victor Herbert's book.) -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "Well that's my story, not that it matters..."