Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? #5

Clearing up the Confusion

Within the past couple of years, several media outlets, public universities and private companies have started to address the growing public confusion surrounding dietary supplements. Unfortunately, much of the dietary supplement coverage in the popular press has only added to the confusion by raising hypothetical questions about the “dangers” of dietary supplements. It is clear from the scientific and medical literature, however, that the vast majority of dietary supplements, when used as directed, have an outstanding safety profile.

Private health education companies such as Supplement Watch (www.supplementwatch.com) have done a tremendous job of bringing the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) for various supplements from the research journals to the public. Both companies accomplish their mission of educating and guiding lay-consumers about the pros and cons of using dietary supplements – and they both do so with no financial ties to the supplement industry. Through the educational efforts of these and other organizations, consumers are achieving a higher degree of what I refer to as “open-minded skepticism” about which supplements may provide benefits, which ones seem to be ineffective, and which others may be downright dangerous.

From even a casual glance at the current state of the dietary supplement landscape, it is abundantly clear that we need far more research and scientific substantiation of product/ingredient claims. When asked the obvious question regarding “How much research is enough” for dietary supplements, however, it may well be that the answer will ultimately come from consumers and marketers, rather than from scientists. As reliably as the sun comes up each morning, scientists and health professionals will insist on “more” research for a particular supplement – a critically important position that will undoubtedly help to refine our understanding of the mechanisms by which supplements work (or don’t). Unfortunately, “more” research is not necessarily the most prudent approach when viewed in light of the market pressures under which supplement companies operate. From one viewpoint, “enough” research could be defined as that amount needed to convince a skeptical consumer to become a regular user.

For some of the most popular nutritional supplements (e.g. calcium/vitamin D for bone health) the evidence for benefits is so clearly established for certain populations that they should be “automatically” be included in the diet. For many other supplements, including most herbal supplements, the existing data is tantalizing enough to put some scientists and most self-care enthusiasts into the “might help” frame of mind – which means that many consumers will try the supplement before all the data is in. The final category where a handful of supplements reside is the neighborhood of “might hurt” – and primarily includes hormone precursors, glandular extracts, central nervous system stimulants and others with direct toxic effects on the liver, kidneys or other body systems. Unfortunately, this last category of supplements will continue to be available until educated consumers begin to assert their “open-minded skepticism” and demand that supplement manufacturers demonstrate that their products satisfy scientific standards for safety and efficacy. I hope that this book can be a part of that effort.

http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com

http://back2basicnutrition.com

http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com