More 'bashing' of Supplements...
The anti-supplement lobby is at it again by highlighting a study in which vitamins and minerals given to babies with Down ’s syndrome did not provide any benefits. As a result of this study they are suggesting that supplements don’t work and indeed may be dangerous.
Nothing new in these claims, but it does continue to amaze me why the media gives these negative reports so much credence and yet choose to ignore the very positive studies highlighting the benefits of many nutrient supplements. The positive studies far outweigh the negative ones and any thinking person can easily see the benefits.
Anyone who is knowledgeable about the subject of supplements know that the prime objective of these nutrients are to prevent degenerative disease and that they will not work miracles for those people who already have a chronic disease.
They will certainly help in a recovery process but to rely on a few vitamins and minerals to reverse a serious condition is being naive.
Alex McNally has written a good short article on this subject which you can review by clicking here.
Reader Comments (3)
A couple of weeks ago, the FDA announced a permanent injunction against two food companies that were making claims such as: "Chemicals found in cherries may help fight diabetes."
Two different studies – one a lab study and one an animal study – have shown that anthocyanins (antioxidant compounds found in tart cherries) may help reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. But the FDA has ordered the companies to stop making the claims "…until the products are approved by the FDA as new drugs…"
That's right: as new drugs. Cherries.
Only in America!
March 4, 2008 | Muzz
Hi Muzz,
Yes, I saw that news item.
There is without doubt a lots of interesting things happening with regard to 'natural' products and claims. However, the US FDA is is not alone when it comes to the issue of 'natural' product claims.
We also have a dictatorial situation in New Zealand as well with Medsafe. As an example on another matter, just two weeks ago they decided with no consultation to industry and without giving any satisfactory explanation that they would make Ipriflavone a scheduled medicine even though it has always been considered a dietary supplement ingredient,
This was decided in the interests of 'harmonization' with Australia and on the advise of an Australian 'official'.
There are other issues as well regarding our NZ equivalent of the US FDA, but that I will talk about at a later time. Although many people complain about the US FDA they are not as bad as many other regulatory agencies in other parts of the world.
With regard to claims there is a need for regulatory 'watchdogs' as many companies make claims way over the top to the detriment of consumers. The problem is to get the right 'balance'.
March 5, 2008 | Warren Matthews
I have a vague memory of this being researched about ten years ago as this ipriflavone was being used by athletes as a substitute for an anabolic steroid. This may be why it is "sensitive" for the Powers-that-Be.
Yup, just googled it - it doesn't read all that worrying in low dosage though.
March 6, 2008 | Muzz