The article following is a very serious forerunner to limiting potencies on
supplements, and our industry deserves answers to questions like these.
What is the composition of the panel and what are its qualifications?
Why is an Institute of Medicine involved? As a former graduate assistant
to premedical students and who took the only course in nutrition
that was given to them at Indiana University, I question whether
a group of MD's has the background in nutrition to make this
type of evaluations. PhD's in Biochemistry are much better
informed in my opinion.
What are the possible effects of reducing these levels? When vit E was
first discovered, only sterility was found as a deficiency effect.
Later hemolysis of red blood cells was found at levels sufficient
to prevent sterility. Recently very strong evidence was found that
about 40% of heart attacks could be prevented at much higher
levels. Once we reduce recommended levels below what is in
our typical diets, we will all be in a gigantic experiment to see
what other deficiencies develop.
Will there be a higher health level and lower cost of healthcare if
vitamin and mineral intakes are reduced?
Not edited or completed
Chicago Tribune: Panel urges FDA alter list of daily nutrients
Story here
Panel urges FDA alter list of daily nutrients
By Andrew Martin
Washington Bureau
December 12, 2003
WASHINGTON -- In a decision that could roil the food and dietary supplement
industries, a federal advisory panel on Thursday urged that the amount of
vitamins and minerals recommended as part of a healthy diet be drastically
changed to more closely resemble the needs of an average person.
The panel advised the Food and Drug Administration to change the way it
calculates the recommended daily values for nutrients, which are listed on
"nutrition facts" labels on packaged foods and on "supplemental facts"
labels
affixed to vitamin containers.
In the decade since the government adopted food labels on packages, it has
based its recommended daily allowances for nutrients on whatever segment of the
population needs the most of a given vitamin or mineral, the logic being
that it would cover the needs of almost every individual.
The problem with that formula, the panel said in its report, is that the
recommended allowances overstate the needs of 97 to 98 percent of the
population.
Under the proposed changes, the government would base its recommendations
for daily intake of vitamins and minerals on the average needs of the populace.
The "recommended dietary allowance" would become "estimated daily requirement."
"They took the highest of the highs, which was usually for growing males,"
said Dr. Irwin Rosenberg, dean of the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Freidman School of
Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University and chairman of the
advisory panel. "The result is, in many cases those numbers highly overestimated the
actual requirement, and in some ways made foods that didn't have that much
in them seem underpowered with respect to that nutrient."
If the FDA adopts the changes, the recommended daily values of some vitamins
and minerals would change dramatically. For instance, the amount of iron and
vitamin B-12 that is recommended each day would be cut by two-thirds, while the
amount of zinc and phosphorous would be cut in half.
The recommendations for fiber and vitamin C, meanwhile, would increase
slightly under the proposal.
John Hathcock, vice president for scientific and international affairs for
the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a vitamin trade group, said he had only
seen the executive summary of the panel's report, which was released late
Thursday afternoon. But he said the recommendation to change the way the FDA
configures daily values for nutrients would have huge implications "for a lot of
people, including our industry."
"It's ridiculous," Hathcock said. "It seems to me that the label ought to
tell people that if you eat this amount you'll be adequately nourished. . . .
What this would do is tell the average consumer that they have a 50 percent
chance of taking more than they need and a 50 percent chance of taking less than what
they need."
If the changes are approved, Hathcock said, it would force his industry to
relabel packages and possibly reconfigure its formulas.
Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, a not-for-profit watchdog group, called the proposed changes
"drastic" and said they would likely cause companies to reduce the amount of vitamins
and minerals in foods.
"I'm concerned that these drastic changes indicate a lack of concern for the
public's health," Jacobson said in a statement. "The numbers previously had
been set so that just about everybody would be protected. This is much less
protective."
The proposed reduction in daily value for vitamin D would give senior
citizens only half of what they need, while the proposed change for iron would be a
third of what women of childbearing age need, he said.
But Rosenberg disputed claims that the changes would cause vitamin
deficiencies in some segments of society, such as pregnant women or the elderly.
"This is not going to deprive the population of iron," Rosenberg said. "This
is not meant to direct diets. It's to allow people to make comparisons from one
product to another and how it fits into the daily diet."
He argued that using an average person was more appropriate because many
people could be getting more nutrients than they need under the current guidelines.
"Obviously, nutrients are not safe at all values," he said.
The report says that long-term, excessive use of vitamins and minerals can
cause diarrhea and liver abnormalities, but that more research was needed.
The panel was convened about a year ago at the National Academy of Sciences'
Institute of Medicine, a private organization that frequently conducts
research for the federal government. The FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Canadian health officials asked the panel to figure out how to incorporate
the latest science on nutrient intake onto food labels in both countries.
Since it instituted nutrition labels on food packages in the early 1990s,
the FDA has relied on Institute of Medicine data from 1968 to determine the
appropriate daily values for nutrients. The Institute of Medicine has been
updating its research on vitamins and minerals for the past six years.
The FDA is considering wide-ranging changes to the food label in an effort
to make it easier to use and to help curb obesity.
Copyright � 2003, Chicago Tribune
