Very interesting book about vitamins and supplements (versus, death, natural)

[karen_s]

If you are concerned about the safety of vitamins/supplements, buy "premium" brands such as Thorne Research.

I personally avoid all "cheap" vitamins, even things like Centrum, because my body will not digest their thick coatings. I only buy whole-foods vitamins/supplements from reputable companies.

Our family avoids drugs whenever possible, and we use things like nutrition, exercise, chiropractic, and vitamins to stay healthy versus waiting until sickness strikes to treat symptomatically.

[BlueSkyHoliday]

Apparently you are not aware that the FDA is the self policing arm of big pharma. If you believe that the FDA exists to provide consumer protection, then I'd like to talk to you about buying my ocean front property in Arizona.

Well actually yes I do believe that the FDA exists to provide consumer protection. I've never been a conspiracy-theory person, but of course everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion on things like that.

Some (especially pharmaceutical companies) are very critical of the lengthy time it takes for a drug to be approved by the FDA (if anyone is interested, a description of the process can be found at The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effectiv ). Naturally 'stuff happens' anyway, as with Vioxx most recently, but at least the process is there. Personally I feel more comfortable with the FDA process than with the way the dietary supplement industry is currently handled.

Earlier this month I decided to try Sytrinol (OTC supplement from Carlson) to lower my cholesterol (which is genetically high, not dietary) after doing online research on it. After reading this book I went back to all the websites and noted all the citations of the "twelve years of clinical studies" that the patent holder for Sytrinol claims proves it is effective. DH is in the research field so I was able to get access to the papers themselves online. Yes there have been approximately 20 papers published during the last 12 years on these GENERAL COMPOUNDS (polymethoxylated flavones) effect on lipids. However, only five of them utilized the exact same two compounds (nobiletin and tangeritin) found in Sytrinol; and all but three of them were conducted on hamsters and mice rather than on humans. The three human studies were the most recent. In all three studies the sample groups were very small and (most important) the length of time of the studies was very short, ranging from three months to less than a year. This in my opinion is not enough time to evaluate any ingested substance for side effects from long-term use in humans. And the human studies were all conducted by a Canadian research company with ties to the person who was seeking the USA patent for the Sytrinol formula. None of the conclusions presented in any of those "twelve years of clinical research" was sufficient to convince me that Sytrinol was effective (it might be, but again it might not) or -- more importantly -- that it has no side effects. I'd rather not be an unofficial guinea pig, thanks.

[emilybh]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyHoliday

Well, I am actually on both sides of the fence on this issue.

First of all, I look upon a prescription drug as an absolute last resort. My body doesn't tolerate medications well, and the only time I will take a prescription drug is when I have a confirmed infection, and even then I will only accept erythromycin because I know from experience that it is the antibiotic that my body tolerates best (I'm allergic to anything resembling penicillin, and sulfa drugs are ineffective for me). As for painkillers, steroids, or anything else -- I refuse to take them. I take Advil for pain and stiffness, and plain chlorpheniramine maleate (brand name: Coricidin) for allergy symptoms. Both over the counter. But as far as drugs go, that is IT.

So I am definitely on the 'anti-prescription-drug' bandwagon.

However... the premise of the book I read is not that conventional drugs are preferable to supplements. It is that the dietary supplement industry itself is essentially un-policed except by its own, which brings up the fox-guarding-the-henhouse scenario. Most people do not realize or don't bother to investigate the supposed 'clinically proven' positive effects of anything ranging from vitamins to compounds like ephedra. Many (not all, but enough to give pause) studies that purportedly show something to be either beneficial or safe, were performed by research facilities with a connection (if you take the time to really investigate it) with the manufacturer of the item or the person seeking a patent for it. To my mind, that throws the entire credibility of the study into question because it is not 100% objective and unbiased testing. I personally would not have confidence in its conclusions. Not that I trust the drug companies' testing either, mind you! They too have an financial axe to grind -- but I do trust studies that have been done by independent research such as the FDA. Unfortunately the FDA has no oversight on herbal remedies and vitamin supplements. Personally I think they should have.

Of course anything in excess can be harmful. The problem is that some people have a tendency to think "if some is good, then more is better". Vitamin C toxicity is not unknown by any means, but what is stopping someone from taking too much of a high-potency pill that is available in any retail store for less than $10 a bottle? Of course people abuse prescription drugs as well, but at least it's not AS easy or affordable for them to get (or so one would hope).

As far as the FDA classifying supplements as drugs, this is something I have thought desirable for a long time. I do NOT agree with carrying it to extremes such as the linked website above describes (re: water and small medical devices). But I do think that the supplement industry today is too much like the Wild West with no effective sheriff. There needs to be extensive and independent research into whether or not these things really (a) Do any good, and (b) Do not have the potential to do serious harm in reasonable dosages. If it will take reclassifying them as drugs in order to get that kind of oversight, then IMO that's what should be done.

People are up in arms right now about toys, foods and other items imported from China containing lead and other harmful components, and rightfully so. This is happening because the manufacturing industry in China lacks competent and unbiased oversight that is aimed toward protecting the consumer from fraud and health hazards. The supplement industry in the USA currently operates in the same way: self-policing. Others may disagree with me but I don't consider self-policing to be sufficient when there is so much money to be made (just like the China outsourcing).

By the way, one of the interesting facts in this book is that out of the over 90,000 dietary supplements currently available (not brands, but actual ingredients), only two have been shown by extensive independent and unbiased research studies to have proven beneficial effects. One is fish oil. The other is vitamin D in certain dosages (NOT the mega-doses the industry usuallly promotes). Health claims for EVERY other herb or vitamin supplement remain unproven or unsubstantiated by independent research using current accepted scientific standards.

Oh PULEEEEZE BlueSkyHoliday! You have bought into the medical establishment's propaganda HOOK, LINE and SINKER!

Having food supplements that have never harmed a flea with proper use regulated to the point where we'd have to get a prescription would mean the costs would triple and we'd have to pay for an OFFICE visit on top of that just to get perfectly safe FOOD based items from a doctor. You SURELY can't have throught this through entirely! I NEVER want to see the day where in this supposedly free country, where for hundreds of years these same supplements, provided by nature, have been available at an affordable cost, are taken away from us and available only through a doctor via a prescription. Don't you see its a scam? If these supplements are so DANGEROUS, why weren't they banned or regulated a long time ago? The reason is because THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS.

Don't you think they should prohibit alchohol first? That is actually dangerous! Everyone agrees!

The international organization CODEX is trying to do exactly what you say throughout the world and I hope they never accomplish it. You can read about them here. Codex Summary
They have already accomplished it in Germany. Maybe you should spend some time there and see how much "happier" Germans are now, now that they can no longer walk into a store and pick up the supplements they used to be able to do.... before you wish the same on this country! The only supplements available to Germans now are so weak and watered down, they don't do anything!

[CosmicWizard]

emilybh thanks for the link to the eye-opening Codex Summary. This is the kind of information that ought to be provided via mass media, but I won't be holding my breath.

BlueSkyHoliday wrote: Well actually yes I do believe that the FDA exists to provide consumer protection.

Let's talk about my Ocean Front Property in Arizona. Have I got a deal for you!

blessings...Franco

[BlueSkyHoliday]

If these supplements are so DANGEROUS, why weren't they banned or regulated a long time ago? The reason is because THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUS.

Don't you think they should prohibit alchohol first? That is actually dangerous! Everyone agrees!

emilybh, we will just have to agree to disagree (politely) on this subject. However I do want to respond to the example you gave and the comment immediately preceding it.

Yes, alcohol can be a dangerous and potentially addictive substance. Fermented alcohol products have been around for thousands of years. Yet it was only in the 20th century that the health dangers of alcohol were first recognized and then subsequently it was GOVERNMENT REGULATED. Does that mean that alcohol was not dangerous before then? Of course not. It only means that eventually we acquired the science and social responsibility to recognize its hazards. And alcohol IS regulated -- that's why we have laws about who is allowed to buy it, HOW it can and cannot be advertised, and what happens to people who break laws concerning it (i.e., DWI)! I was happy to see the legal drinking age raised from 18 to 21, and personally in my opinion it should be further raised to 25, but I doubt that will happen in the foreseeable future.

Tobacco is another good example. It too is a dangerous and addictive substance. People have been smoking tobacco for hundreds of years. Yet -- just as with alcohol -- it is only fairly recently that its true effects became known. We now (thankfully, IMO) have GOVERNMENT REGULATION of cigarettes as a result. Not only are there laws as to who can buy it and how it can be advertised, but more and more states have laws prohibiting its use in public places. Again personally I would love to see a Federal law banning smoking in all public places. That is something I truly hope will happen in the future.

I do not think that dietary supplements should be restricted to 'access by prescription only'. That would be ridiculous, and I am not a fan of doctors (or lawyers!) so I would not support anything that would further complicate our already-mangled health care system (such as it is). However I stand firmly by my belief that any and all claims made for the beneficial effects of any vitamin or natural product should be supported by the same level of research and the same approval process that is applied to prescription drugs and that if a product falls short of that, it should not be allowed to be sold anywhere. Period. We have two FDA classifications: one for 'prescription drugs' and another for 'nonprescription drugs' which I think supplements should be placed into.

I also happen to think that the DSHEA was a mistake. IMO it is good that the labeling must now include the "These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to prevent, treat or cure any disease" disclaimer, because it is better than nothing. However, until labeling can include better information, such as potential drug interactions and usage warnings (as is done with prescription drugs, as a result of proper research which is rarely done on supplements) IMO it does not nearly go far enough. Without that, the advertising and labeling of supplements falls into the same category of any other product that is advertised and marketed by the use of minimally or entirely unsubstantiated claims as to its effects (such as cosmetics at one end of the spectrum, and shark cartilage for cancer treatment at the other).

Again we will just have to agree that we disagree.

Thanks for the offer of the Arizona property, franco, but we lifelong Yankees would never be happy living amongst the lizards even if we could watch them hang ten (eight??) on little tiny surfboards every day.

[CosmicWizard]

BlueSkyHoliday wrote:

Thanks for the offer of the Arizona property, franco, but we lifelong Yankees would never be happy living amongst the lizards even if we could watch them hang ten (eight??) on little tiny surfboards every day.

I appreciate your sense of humor, but please be advised that this is not your common ordinary Arizona property. This is luxurious Ocean Front property that I'm offering to sell you!

blessings...Franco

[emilybh]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyHoliday

emilybh, we will just have to agree to disagree (politely) on this subject. However I do want to respond to the example you gave and the comment immediately preceding it.

Yes, alcohol can be a dangerous and potentially addictive substance. Fermented alcohol products have been around for thousands of years. Yet it was only in the 20th century that the health dangers of alcohol were first recognized and then subsequently it was GOVERNMENT REGULATED. Does that mean that alcohol was not dangerous before then? Of course not. It only means that eventually we acquired the science and social responsibility to recognize its hazards. And alcohol IS regulated -- that's why we have laws about who is allowed to buy it, HOW it can and cannot be advertised, and what happens to people who break laws concerning it (i.e., DWI)! I was happy to see the legal drinking age raised from 18 to 21, and personally in my opinion it should be further raised to 25, but I doubt that will happen in the foreseeable future.

Tobacco is another good example. It too is a dangerous and addictive substance. People have been smoking tobacco for hundreds of years. Yet -- just as with alcohol -- it is only fairly recently that its true effects became known. We now (thankfully, IMO) have GOVERNMENT REGULATION of cigarettes as a result. Not only are there laws as to who can buy it and how it can be advertised, but more and more states have laws prohibiting its use in public places. Again personally I would love to see a Federal law banning smoking in all public places. That is something I truly hope will happen in the future.

I do not think that dietary supplements should be restricted to 'access by prescription only'. That would be ridiculous, and I am not a fan of doctors (or lawyers!) so I would not support anything that would further complicate our already-mangled health care system (such as it is). However I stand firmly by my belief that any and all claims made for the beneficial effects of any vitamin or natural product should be supported by the same level of research and the same approval process that is applied to prescription drugs and that if a product falls short of that, it should not be allowed to be sold anywhere. Period. We have two FDA classifications: one for 'prescription drugs' and another for 'nonprescription drugs' which I think supplements should be placed into.

I also happen to think that the DSHEA was a mistake. IMO it is good that the labeling must now include the "These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to prevent, treat or cure any disease" disclaimer, because it is better than nothing. However, until labeling can include better information, such as potential drug interactions and usage warnings (as is done with prescription drugs, as a result of proper research which is rarely done on supplements) IMO it does not nearly go far enough. Without that, the advertising and labeling of supplements falls into the same category of any other product that is advertised and marketed by the use of minimally or entirely unsubstantiated claims as to its effects (such as cosmetics at one end of the spectrum, and shark cartilage for cancer treatment at the other).

Again we will just have to agree that we disagree.

Thanks for the offer of the Arizona property, franco, but we lifelong Yankees would never be happy living amongst the lizards even if we could watch them hang ten (eight??) on little tiny surfboards every day.

Well maybe we aren't that far apart. I'm a big advocate of labeling. I'd like to know what is IN a product I buy. In fact I think what is a lot more harmful than food supplements is FOOD sold in regular grocery stores where genetically engineered foods and irradiated foods are allowed to be sold without the product indicating anywhere on the label that it contains such ingredients.

Irradiation is a known cause of cancer. Studies which involved giving bread made from irradiated wheat to Indian children who soon after developed cancer which proved this were shared amoung several countries and , all nations except ours decided to ban all irradiation of food. The FDA decided that it wasn't harmful enough to ban it. So today unless all of the ingredients in the food have been irradiated, no labeling is necessary. You can read all about the studies and the FDA's decision to eveidently decide to help the food manufacturing industry in the countries over protecting consumers in a bood called, THE FOOD THAT WOULD LAST FOREVER.

Now enough studies have been done to determine that genetically engineered foods also are harmful to humans but the FDA has again sided with the food industry who says that the American public might be "confused" if the products were labeled. A book called GENETIC ROULETTE goes into all the scary details. Some of the health hazards of genetically modified foods are described here

Health Risks of GM Foods:Summary /Debate - Seeds of Deception


So again, I think all of us can only be helped by proper labeling. Also, I think its a crime and dishonest for the food industry to continue marketing products to consumers who think they are perfectly safe when they have known for a long time, they are not...and it isn't like it is just a few companies that use GM foods, it is practically ALL of them. There is something like a 75% chance that what you will pick up in a regular grocery store that is packaged, or canned, including frozen foods, will be made from or contain genetically modified foods.

[BlueSkyHoliday]

emilybh, we do indeed have some solid common ground here. I have said for years that the US government's (USDA) labeling regulations are NOT NEARLY TOUGH ENOUGH! I'm sure you have read Marion Nestle's book 'What to Eat' which goes into this in great detail. It has been so frustrating to see COOL (Country Of Origin Labeling) sidetracked for so long -- the bill was originally signed in 2002 but keeps getting delayed again and again (thanks to the lobbyists ) so that I believe now it has been pushed back to September 2008!! Grrrrr.

Luckily we do have places like Whole Foods Market who have been voluntarily doing COOL on their produce and other perishables, and I do pay great attention to where something comes from and whether it is conventional or CERTIFIED organic.

I have several food allergies and so I'm an inveterate ingredient-list reader. I also avoid any food that has more than 100 mg of sodium per serving (I'm happiest when the amount is between 0 and 50!). I'm happy that now the breakdown of fats by type has been implemented. When I buy anything other than fresh food I always read labels before I buy, and avoid things with preservatives and other chemical junk that I don't want to ingest!

Even so, it is like pulling teeth to get information from manufacturers on any ingredient they are not required by law to disclose. I have emailed and phoned several times to ask whether Promise Spread containing a 'vegetable oil blend' contains any esterified oils and have been unable to get an answer because they are not REQUIRED by USDA regulations to disclose that. They do list the kinds of oils they use by name, but do not mention whether any of those oils have been esterified. Similarly, manufacturers of laundry detergents are not required to indicate whether their product contains optical brighteners (which are actually flourescent dyes deposited on the fabric fibers and do not rinse out). Some brands mention having them, as a selling point, but others do not -- and just try to get an answer from a phone representative who wouldn't even know a 'brightening' ingredient if it bit him on the backside!

I agree with you 100% on the question of GM and irradiated foods. The information should be out there ON THE LABEL so that the consumer can decide for herself whether or not to buy it -- the same way I decide whether or not to buy something based on, among other things, the sodium content, the saturated fat content, the trans fat content (it must be zero!), high fructose corn syrup, and whether or not it contains onion or garlic (both of which I'm allergic to).

By the way, have you ever tried Oikos brand Greek-style yogurt? It's creamy and delicious and only has 3 ingredients: organic nonfat milk, organic sugar, and organic pure vanilla. That's it! No pectin or inulin like national brands often use. Whole Foods carries it.

[emilybh]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyHoliday

emilybh, we do indeed have some solid common ground here. I have said for years that the US government's (USDA) labeling regulations are NOT NEARLY TOUGH ENOUGH! I'm sure you have read Marion Nestle's book 'What to Eat' which goes into this in great detail. It has been so frustrating to see COOL (Country Of Origin Labeling) sidetracked for so long -- the bill was originally signed in 2002 but keeps getting delayed again and again (thanks to the lobbyists ) so that I believe now it has been pushed back to September 2008!! Grrrrr.

Luckily we do have places like Whole Foods Market who have been voluntarily doing COOL on their produce and other perishables, and I do pay great attention to where something comes from and whether it is conventional or CERTIFIED organic.

I have several food allergies and so I'm an inveterate ingredient-list reader. I also avoid any food that has more than 100 mg of sodium per serving (I'm happiest when the amount is between 0 and 50!). I'm happy that now the breakdown of fats by type has been implemented. When I buy anything other than fresh food I always read labels before I buy, and avoid things with preservatives and other chemical junk that I don't want to ingest!

Even so, it is like pulling teeth to get information from manufacturers on any ingredient they are not required by law to disclose. I have emailed and phoned several times to ask whether Promise Spread containing a 'vegetable oil blend' contains any esterified oils and have been unable to get an answer because they are not REQUIRED by USDA regulations to disclose that. They do list the kinds of oils they use by name, but do not mention whether any of those oils have been esterified. Similarly, manufacturers of laundry detergents are not required to indicate whether their product contains optical brighteners (which are actually flourescent dyes deposited on the fabric fibers and do not rinse out). Some brands mention having them, as a selling point, but others do not -- and just try to get an answer from a phone representative who wouldn't even know a 'brightening' ingredient if it bit him on the backside!

I agree with you 100% on the question of GM and irradiated foods. The information should be out there ON THE LABEL so that the consumer can decide for herself whether or not to buy it -- the same way I decide whether or not to buy something based on, among other things, the sodium content, the saturated fat content, the trans fat content (it must be zero!), high fructose corn syrup, and whether or not it contains onion or garlic (both of which I'm allergic to).

By the way, have you ever tried Oikos brand Greek-style yogurt? It's creamy and delicious and only has 3 ingredients: organic nonfat milk, organic sugar, and organic pure vanilla. That's it! No pectin or inulin like national brands often use. Whole Foods carries it .

We definitely are in 100% agreement about Whole Foods! It is my FAVORITE place to shop -- especially with genetically engineered foods being so rampant. I had no idea until recently all the mainstream food manufacturers used them -- but NOT at Whole Foods THANK HEAVENS!

No I haven't tried that yogurt. I try to avoid dairy except for a treat once in a while. Maybe I'll get some the next time I go to Whole Foods which is 45 minutes from here unfortunatly.

[6 FOOT 3]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyHoliday

By the way, have you ever tried Oikos brand Greek-style yogurt? It's creamy and delicious and only has 3 ingredients: organic nonfat milk, organic sugar, and organic pure vanilla. That's it! No pectin or inulin like national brands often use. Whole Foods carries it.

Thanks for the info on this product BlueSky....Its very hard to find Yogurt with NO High Fructose Corn Syrup......