The vitamin police

[Guest guest]

S

Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:33:27 -0700 (PDT)

The vitamin police

 

 

 

 

The vitamin police

Tell me, again, just why the United Nations is so concerned about

nutritional supplements

 

 

Alan Bock/The Orange County Register | August 16 2005

 

 

 

If you take vitamin supplements, as I do, you'll want to pay attention

to an emerging debate over how closely vitamins might be regulated in

this country.

 

The outcome could be as severe as the Food and Drug Administration

regulating vitamins like prescription drugs or as simple as more

detailed labeling about vitamin supplements and their effects.

 

Whichever way it goes, the controversy is gathering momentum.

 

 

 

Every day I get several e-mails warning that a shadowy international

body, Codex Alimentarius, is on the verge of cutting off availability

of vitamins and other nutritional supplements to American consumers,

restricting our health freedom, or dictating formulas so large dosages

just won't be available.

 

Most of the vitamin consumers worried about Codex are also concerned

with the recently passed Central American Free Trade Agreement. As

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul put it, CAFTA " increases the

possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American

public. "

 

 

 

How real are these threats? In brief, the threats exist but are not

yet cataclysmic. But it could take mobilizing vitamin and supplement

consumers to neutralize them.

 

Where does the main threat come from? Codex Alimentarius, Latin for

" food code " or " food law, " is a United Nations-affiliated

international organization formed in 1963 under the aegis of the Food

and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization. It

promulgates international regulatory guidelines on a range of

food-related issues. At its July 4-9 meeting in Rome it dealt mostly

with uncontroversial minutiae like " proposed draft maximum level for

total aflatoxins in unprocessed almonds, hazelnuts and pistachios " and

" maximum residue levels in/on dried chili peppers " and a lot of

organizational detail.

 

 

 

It spent about five minutes on July 4 passing a proposal to promulgate

guidelines for regulating vitamins and mineral food supplements. As

the FAO/WHO reported, " The guidelines recommend labeling that contains

information on maximum consumption levels of vitamins and mineral food

supplements, assisting countries to increase consumer information,

which will help consumers use them in a safe and effective way...

 

" The guidelines say that people should be encouraged to select a

balanced diet to get the sufficient amount of vitamins and minerals.

Only in cases where food does not provide sufficient vitamins and

minerals should supplements be used. "

 

 

 

That wording is a red flag to many users of vitamins and other

supplements.

 

There are two distinct approaches to vitamins, both with nuances. One

approach sees the main purpose of supplements as preventing diseases

caused by deficiencies, like scurvy, beriberi and pellagra. The early

quasi-official " recommended daily allowances, " which have been revised

only slightly, are based loosely, without allowance for individual

biochemical or environmental differences, on the amounts of nutrients

needed to prevent deficiencies that lead to deadly diseases.

 

Other researchers, including Linus Pauling (who developed the concept

of " molecular disease " after DNA was discovered), Denham Harman (the

free-radical theory of aging) and Roger Williams (biochemical and

nutritional individuality) began to develop and test the idea that

there might be levels of nutrients that not only prevented deadly

diseases but improved health and ameliorated the aging process. Since

the late 1950s studies have suggested strongly that the intake of

certain vitamins can reduce the risk of numerous diseases, including

heart disease and cancer.

 

 

 

Europe acts with caution

 

As there are different approaches to the usefulness of vitamins, there

are different approaches to the most desirable way to regulate

vitamins (assuming there's a need to regulate; the fact that the

American Association of Poison Control Centers has reported no deaths

due to vitamins for the last 8 years suggests the putative dangers of

" overdose " are somewhat overblown).

 

One faction believes that vitamins are useful only to prevent

deficiency diseases, that there must be potential dangers to doses

markedly higher than deficiency-prevention doses, that claims about

disease prevention are mainly the work of charlatans, and that

vitamins should, by and large, be used only under medical supervision.

This is a variation on the " precautionary principle, " which suggests

that substances should not be allowed on the market until they are

proven safe and effective beyond doubt, though how that can apply to

natural substances that occur in food and are already readily

available is a question.

 

 

Most European countries and Australia regulate vitamins similarly to

the way the United States regulates prescription drugs. A set of EU

guidelines, the Food Supplements Directive, based on 1998 German

regulations that emphasize " maximum upper limits " and would have taken

as many as 5,000 products off the European market, went into effect

August 1, but its impact might be mitigated by litigation.

 

 

 

U.S. treats vitamins as food

 

The United States, on the other hand, at least since the 1994 Dietary

Supplement Health and Education Act, treats vitamins as food, not

drugs. The act was passed in one of the more remarkable instances of

grassroots politicking - vitamin manufacturers mobilized many of their

customers - in response to efforts by the FDA to assume more control

over vitamins and supplements, which would probably have led to

pharmaceutical-like restrictions if the FDA had had its druthers.

Since the 1994 act vitamins and supplements have grown from a $3.4

billion to a $20 billion industry. And the FDA would still love to get

its regulatory mitts on vitamins and supplements.

 

The Codex Commission obviously leans toward the European model. Its

guidelines - still not written, and there's a chance, if minuscule, of

influencing them with a barrage of scientific evidence - are likely to

recommend dosages similar to current RDAs, with the strong suggestion

that higher dosage formulas not be allowed.

 

 

 

Even if such formulations are not mandated, they will come with a

great deal of " education " to the effect that the authorities have

determined that vitamins with higher dosages are a waste that leaves

consumers literally urinating away their money. Many vitamin consumers

who pay little attention will believe this, according to Bill Sardi, a

nutrition journalist, author and consumer advocate in San Dimas

(www.knowledgeofhealth.com). If those who believe there are

therapeutic and disease-preventing dosages are right, a great deal of

unnecessary illness will ensue.

 

U.S. will be divided on Codex

 

More- http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/160805vitaminpolice.htm