Big Government Plan for Your Supplements

Here's the latest CODEX update from National Health Federation

Anti-Vitamin Misinformation

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) celebrated its 50^th year of existence the first week of July while also conducting its 36^th session, with several hundreds of member-state delegates and non-governmental organizations in attendance.  Chairman Sanjay Dave was re-elected as CAC Chairman and presided over the meeting in a fair and business-like manner.
          But fair and business-like did not compensate for the Commission’s gross nutritional ignorance that resulted in certain Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) being approved for vitamins and minerals over the repeated and strong objections of the National Health Federation (NHF), a Codex-accredited non-governmental organization.
          As Scott Tips – the NHF’s delegate at that meeting – remarked afterwards, “Of course we spoke up in opposition to approval of these NRVs, because they will reduce by 20% to 66% all but one of the already-low B vitamin NRVs, increase Calcium NRVs while reducing Magnesium NRVs (the exactopposite of what modern nutrition tells us should be done), and promote, at best, subsistence nutrition when optimal nutrition is called for here. These are standards that would only allow consumers to put one foot before the other, barely avoiding slipping into the grave, as they shuffle through life.  Consumers deserve better, they deserve optimal nutrition that allows them to maximize their potential and quality of life.”
          To continue reading the full report of what happened at this most recent meeting, CLICK HERE. The fight over these NRVs is not over and will continue in November in Germany at the Nutrition Committee meeting to be held there.
          Another detailed critique of the proposed Codex recommendations has been written by health journalist Bill Sardi, as commissioned by the NHF.  The entire critique can be read online.  Sardi has written the U.S. delegate to Codex in the past, opposing passage of similar guidelines. He has been an outspoken critic of Codex.
          Codex has drawn the similar ire of other health-freedom advocates.  There is a concern that Codex solely serves the needs of big business and that it is a conduit for disease mongering by establishment of nutrient recommendations that lock in in a certain level of disease in human populations that then requires more doctoring and drugs.
          For more information, contact the National Health Federation, the only health-freedom organization with standing to participate at Codex meetings.

Proposed Changes In Recommended Daily Dietary Intake Of Essential Vitamins & Minerals CODEX (World Health Organization/ Food & Agriculture Organization of The United Nations) versus Daily Value/Reference Daily Intake
NUTRIENT	Proposed Recommended Nutrient Intake (RNI) -CODEX	100% Daily Value(what is listed on dietary supplement labels) based on RDI (Reference Daily Intake)	Difference
Thiamin (Vitamin B1)	1.2 mg	1.5 mg	-20%
Riboflavin (Vitamin B2)	1.2 mg	1.7 mg	-30%
Niacin (Vitamin B3)	15 mg	20 mg	-25%
Pyridoxine (Vitamin B6)	1.3 mg	2.0 mg	-35%
Folic acid (Vitamin B9)	400 mcg	400 mcg	No change
Cobalamin (Vitamin B12)	2.0 mcg	6.0 mcg	-66%
Vitamin A	550 mcg (1833 IU)	1500 mcg (5000 IU)	-64%
Vitamin C	45 mg	60 mg	-25%
Vitamin D	200 IU (5 mcg)	400 IU (10 mcg)	-50%
Calcium	1000 mg	1000 mg	No change
Iodine	150 mcg	150 mcg	No change
Iron	14 mg	18 mg	-22%
Magnesium	240 mg	400   mg	-40%
Zinc	12 mg	15 mg	-20%
IU = international units Mg = milligrams Mcg = micrograms	Source: CODEX NRVs CCNFSDU PWG Discussion Paper	RDI -Reference Daily Intake Source: Nutribase.com

          Minneapolis, Minnesota will be the hosting city for Codex Alimentarius’ next Committee meeting on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (August 24-30, 2013). NHF will be there participating not only at the plenary session but also at the working group session on the Guidelines on Risk Management Recommendations for Residues of Veterinary Drugs, with the intent and goal of keeping as many drug residues out of our foods as possible.

Anticaking ingredients may help to degrade, not stabilise, powdered nutrients, suggests research

I have thought this to be an issue for years

Anticaking ingredients may help to degrade, not stabilise, powdered nutrients, suggests research

Discussing FDA Current Attack on Supplements

This is from a colleague of mine who is known as the "Vitamin Lawyer".

LEF, Citizen's for Health and other groups already have action established to contact CONgress to make sure this latest round of insanity and Big PhRMA's attack on your supplemnts is stopped.

Remember that currently the FDA is telling you that wlanuts are 'drugs'.

The amount of documentation and safety information that the Food and Drug administration (FDA) now says it requires to prove new ingredients in supplements are safe goes well beyond what Congress envisaged when it ratified the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994 and now establishes a process “ominously like the one for new food additives,” according to the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN).

CRN chief executive Steve Mister, in commenting on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) long-awaited draft guidance on New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) notifications, said that the new NDI process now ‘sounds an awful lot like the food additive petition process.’

The Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act was enacted in overwhelmingly negative consumer and industry response to 1993 Congressional efforts to medicalize the supplements industry. It requires firms filing NDI notifications to establish a ‘reasonable expectation’ of safety, whereas those filing petitions for new food additives were required to demonstrate ‘reasonable certainty’ that no harm will result from use of the new food additive.

But if you look at the section on safety requirements in the new NDI guidelines and all of the studies that are now required, it now sounds an awful lot like the food additives petition process, which is exactly what Congress was trying to avoid.

“It is terribly disheartening to see the FDA going in this direction. They had a chance to create a workable system that would incentivize more companies to follow the law, use the NDI notification process and draw a line between responsible companies and those ignoring the whole process completely. “But instead they have come up with a document that stifles innovation and will deny consumers access to new products. We are terribly disappointed,” Mister added.

As to what now constitutes an NDI, the fact that changes to the manufacturing process, new solvents or new extraction methods could turn scores of old dietary ingredients, which were assumed to have been ‘grandfathered in’ under DSHEA into new NDIs was alarming enough. Ironically, the new requirements could force the industry to revert to extraction processes used nearly 20 years ago.

However, the fact that separate NDI notifications for supplements containing the same NDI are required if the supplement is reformulated in any way, and that notifications are required for finished products, not just ingredients, means that the FDA would be “flooded” with NDI submissions if the guidance were not revised.

‘Absolute nonsense with no basis in science’

A section in the new FDA guidelines claims that a synthetic copy of a constituent or extract of a herb or botanical is not a dietary ingredient at all – even if it is chemically identical to its ‘natural’ counterpart – as in the case of a number of higher dose vitamins, is particularly troubling, although not wholly unexpected.

The FDA recently argued that the synthetic organic compound, homotaurine, which was being investigated as a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease, was not a dietary ingredient even though it is chemically identical to homotaurine from red algae extract. “Again, the FDA is defining incredibly narrowly what constitutes a dietary ingredient, but very broadly what is a ‘new’ dietary ingredient.”

Marc Ullman, with the New York law firm, Ullman, Shapiro & Ullman, which represents companies in the supplements industry, said he was particularly frustrated by this aspect of the guidance: “It really is preposterous, absolute nonsense, with no basis in science. If we’re talking about something that is chemically identical to a botanical extract, but is synthesized, there really is no rational basis for taking the position that it is not a dietary ingredient.”

from Natural Health News

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2011/07/save-your-supplements.html

SAVE YOUR SUPPLEMENTS

NEWS RELEASE


SAVE YOUR SUPPLEMENTS


Write the FDA Now - Here's Why & How


By Scott Tips
July 19, 2011

Everyone with even an ounce of common sense has grave concerns about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recently released Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues. This Agency sprang this trap on both industry and consumers without seeking any prior input from us at all. It had almost 17 years to seek our opinion before coming out with this document, and now they are giving us a miserly 90 days to respond with our comments. Why is this issue so important?


The Erosion of Our Health Rights


When the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) was passed, contrary to what the mainstream media falsely reports, the law did not remove dietary supplements from the regulatory oversight of the FDA. What it did do is to remove the FDA’s arbitrary powers of life and death over supplements so that they could be treated more like foods rather than as drugs. The innovative tidal wave that was unleashed as a result of this breakout from regulatory prison resulted in some 1,000 new products a year in this market. What an incredible difference DSHEA made, and we all benefitted from the prison break. Oh, wait, the FDA’s drug-industry bosom-buddies did not benefit. And that is something they have never forgotten and have been fuming over ever since.

Not without their cohorts in U.S. Congress, the drug industry’s lobbyists have been pushing for years to hamstring DSHEA and its freedoms. For more than a decade, they have failed. But for the last several years, they have succeeded with sausage-slicing tactics that have gradually eroded DSHEA. First, there was the Adverse Event Reporting law, then the law mandating “Good Manufacturing Practices,” and after that came the so-called FDA “Modernization” Act – each one designed to ratchet up the pressure on supplements, to drive out the smaller supplement manufacturers who could not keep up with the increasing regulatory costs demanded of them by these laws that were touted as making already-safe supplements “safe,” and to gradually eliminate individual supplements. Were these laws ever truly designed to protect consumers? No, these laws had only one purpose in mind: To make supplements more expensive, less available, and to drive the consumer back into the filthy arms of the drug pushers.


This latest nonsense is straight out of the warped minds of the FDA’s Berchtesgaden nest of anti-health thugs. They could care less about good health, certainly care less about you or me. This has been proven so many, countless times over the decades of the Agency’s existence that there can no longer be even a shred of doubt. The revolving door between the drug industry and the FDA is a never-stopping one. Just witness its recent hiring of Johnson & Johnson’s executive Spielberg who was tapped by FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, as the latest deputy commissioner within the Office of the Commissioner to oversee the Agency’s drug and device centers. This is not an exception, this is the rule.


The Compromise


Unfortunately, when DSHEA was passed, a compromise was reached in order to get unanimous passage. The parties agreed that all dietary supplements not marketed as of the date of DSHEA’s passage (October 15, 1994) would be “new dietary ingredients” (NDIs) for which notification would be sent to the FDA. At the time, some did not think much was wrong with this compromise. After all, most supplements had already been discovered. But, now, almost 17 years later, the health-food market is awash with these new dietary ingredients, such as resveratrol, ubiquinol, GABA, curcumin, and bioperine. Notifications to the FDA have been made for many, but what is to happen to them now, with the FDA changing the law, all on its own?

Fantasy Land
This draft Guidance is a step into fantasy land. One night the FDA went to sleep and had a wonderful dream, a dream about a land where bureaucrats reigned supreme and the common citizen answered to every edict that flowed from the lovely bureaucrats’ mouths. If the bureaucrat said jump, then the citizen would jump; if the bureaucrat said roll over, then the citizen would roll over. It was a wonderful place, this bureau-paradise. But then the FDA woke up, and the non-dream reality was not nearly that perfect, yet the urge to make it bureau-perfect remained. Hence, these constant bureaucratic attempts to whittle down our freedoms until we can only jump to the tune of some unknown functionary sitting in some unknown office thinking that he or she knows better for us than we do.

This draft Guidance is just such an attempt. It turns the law on its head by changing a very basic notification system into an approval system subject to the arbitrary whims of the FDA. It requires very safe NDIs to go through unnecessary, expensive tests so that they can meet drug-like safety requirements. In essence, this Guidance ignores the incredible, proven safety record of supplements, both new and old. The FDA can produce no dead bodies whatsoever coming from the use of these new dietary ingredients.

Yet the FDA, ignoring the many tens of thousands of actual dead bodies coming from its expensive drug-approval regulatory regime, wants to imprint that badly flawed drug-approval regime upon the dietary-supplement market. In doing so, it ignores the clear intent of Congress when passing DSHEA that “the Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers” and that “the right of access of consumers to safe dietary supplements is necessary in order to promote wellness.”

Flood Them with Letters
The Guidance document is not law, but it is a clear expression of how the FDA intends to enforce its interpretation of the law. This interpretation is badly flawed. And its implementation will result in unnecessary high costs, arbitrary discrimination against small- and medium-sized businesses that will put thousands of people out of work by destroying jobs in a time of economic decline, and the loss of many useful and healthful supplements.


The FDA must withdraw this Guidance document at once, consult with industry and consumers on a longer-term basis than this miserly 90-day period, and come out with a new Guidance that better reflects the realities of the marketplace and the safe track record of supplements, including those with NDIs. The FDA’s proposed document is unauthorized under Law and will guarantee a backlash of legislative action the likes of which have not been seen in this legislative arena since the passage of DSHEA in 1994. The NHF suggests that the cut-off date for NDIs either be eliminated entirely or else pushed forward to a date 15 years after 1994.


Please mail, fax, or e-mail your protest letter ( Click Here for Sample Letter) to the FDA as soon as possible, but in no event later than October 1st of this year. They need to be awakened from dreamland.


********************


Click here for the permanent link to this news release, use this link to inform others.
********************

National Health Federation: Established in 1955, the National Health Federation is a consumer-education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy food, take supplements and use alternative therapies without unnecessary government restrictions. The NHF is the only such organization with recognized observer-delegate status at Codex meetings.

********************
FIND US ON FACEBOOK!

P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, CA 91017 USA ~ 1 (626) 357-2181 ~ Fax 1 (626) 303-0642
Website: www.thenhf.com E-mail: contact-us@thenhf.com

More Americans Using Supplements

A report published in the February, 2011 issue of the Journal of Nutrition reveals widespread use of dietary supplements among Americans, particularly among older individuals.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements and the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Maryland utilized data obtained from 18,758 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2006. Infants under the age of one were excluded from the current analysis.

Forty-four percent of males and 53 percent of females reported using supplements, which is an increase from the percentages reported in earlier NHANES surveys beginning in 1971. For those aged 71 and older, supplement use was reported by 70 percent. Multivitamin/mineral formulas were the most common form of supplementation. Twenty-eight to 30 percent of those surveyed used supplements containing vitamins A, B6, B12, C and E; 18 to 19 percent used chromium, iron and selenium, and 26-27 percent used magnesium and zinc. Herbs were used by 20 percent of adults and were more commonly used by older adults.

While 56 percent of those of normal weight were supplement users, this number declined to 48 percent among those who were obese, a finding that is consistent with that of other analyses. Non-Hispanic whites were more likely to use supplements compared to Hispanics and non-whites and higher education was associated with greater use of supplements compared to having a high school diploma or less education.

"About one-half of the US population and 70% of adults ≥ 71 years use dietary supplements; one-third use multivitamin-multimineral dietary supplements," the authors conclude. "Given the widespread use of supplements, data should be included with nutrient intakes from foods to correctly determine total nutrient exposure."

More About Natural Cancer Treatments

from Krista Peterson in response to our post about supplements

More on immune system health

Natural Cancer Treatments

Traditional cancer treatments work by targeting the tumor with toxic chemicals or radiation, killing off the malignant cells – but also damaging healthy cells in the process.  For this reason, chemotherapy and radiation are extremely difficult on the body, causing side effects ranging from hair loss to nausea and vomiting to anemia.  Some of the most lethal cancers, such as mesothelioma, are not diagnosed until the late stages. Mesothelioma treatment generally includes traditional therapies like radiation, chemotherapy, and – more rarely – surgery, but these treatments are often of limited effectiveness by the time the cancer is diagnosed.

As a result, many cancer patients turn to alternative treatment as a method of alleviating symptoms or fighting the cancer itself.  There are many natural alternative remedies available, though most are used in conjunction with traditional therapies rather than replacements for them.  The reason these treatments are not part of standard medical care is that most have not been proven to show significant positive effects in clinical trials.  However, when even conventional medical treatment offers little chance of recovery, it is only natural to search for natural alternatives with fewer harsh side effects.

Vitamin C – an important nutrient found in citrus and other fruits and vegetables, given intravenously in large doses.  This therapy is based on a 1976 study that suggested the vitamin may increase survival time for terminal cancer patients.  However, other scientists have not been able to reproduce the results of this study.

Mushroom extract – the use of mushrooms for medicinal purposes.  Compounds called beta-glucans found in some mushrooms are thought to boost the body’s immune responses, allowing it to better fight the cancer.

Cat’s claw – the common name for Uncaria tormentosa, a vine found in the tropics of Central and South America.  The inner bark and root are used by indigenous cultures to treat intestinal ailments, and there has been some indication that it may also have a stimulating effect on the immune system in cancer patients.

Iscador – an extract of the mistletoe plant, especially popular as a cancer therapy in Europe.  Though the National Cancer Institute does not list it as an approved treatment, some tests have been promising and the extract is currently undergoing clinical trials.

Quercetin – an anti-oxidant flavonoid found in some fruits and vegetables.  Some in vitro studies have shown quercetin to suppress malignant cancer cells, and the National Cancer Institute highly recommends a diet rich in fruits and vegetables for cancer prevention as well as during treatment.

Macrobiotic diet – a diet that consists primarily of whole grains, vegetables, and beans while avoiding refined or processed foods.  Practitioners claim this diet is linked to the traditions of Chinese, Japanese, or Incan cultures and is based on the principle of balance in food and in life.

An Important Note

If you are receiving medical treatment for cancer or other serious illness, it is imperative that you speak to your doctor before beginning any alternative therapies to prevent possibly dangerous interactions or side effects.  Any changes in diet should also be discussed with a medical professional, since chemotherapy or radiation may change the way your body takes in nutrients and malnutrition can be a serious risk.

References

http://www.mesotheliomatreatment.net/

http://www.mesotheliomatreatment.net/alternative-therapies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC431183/?tool=pmcentrez

http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2011/01/supplements-and-cancer-what-works.html

Supplements and Cancer: What Works

What Really Works? Part One

Sunday, 09 January 2011, from Ralph Moss, PhD

Coriolus versicolor (Turkey tail) mushroom One of the hardest questions to answer is which, out of the many supplements really benefits cancer patients? There are many self-interested statements of benefit, but an inadequate amount of objective research on what is effective and what is not. I therefore want to call your attention to an interesting article from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). It compared the following seven botanical extracts and fractions: (1) H-48 (a Chinese mixture of herbs) (2) Coriolus vesicolor,  or its derivatives: purified polysaccharide-K (PSK) or purified polysaccharide-peptide (PSP) (3) Maitake mushroom extract (4) Echinacea (5) Astragalus root (6) The yellow spice turmeric; and (7) β-glucan derived from yeast. All of these are popular supplements used by cancer patients. The MSKCC authors looked at the ability of these substances to induce immune reactions in laboratory mice. Specifics on these products, and how they were tested, are given in the reference below. (The full paper is available for free, and readers should consult that text for details). The bottom line of the study was this: Consistently significant activity was seen with four of the preparations: (1) Coriolus mushroom extracts (especially PSK); (2) Alcohol extract of astragalus ; (3) yeast β-glucan; and (to a lesser extent) (4) Maitake mushrooms. Little or no adjuvant activity was demonstrated with H48, Echinacea extracts or a water-based extract of astragalus. The results with turmeric were mixed (but the New Chapter brand of turmeric was active.) Coriolus versicolor (also called Trametes versicolor or Turkey tail mushroom) is available from a number of sources. I will have more to say about Astragalus in a future blog entry.

To Those Who Are On The Attack Against Supplements

I was looking for an image to use in an article  I am working on earlier today and literally stumbled upon an article against supplements with a very trendy, techy type chart.  

At the same time I literally stumbled upon a good article from an MDs magazine about using homeopathy for trigeminal neuralgia.

Resource 1
Resource 2

After perusing the homeopathic articles I went back to the chart and played around with it a little and discovered something quite interesting: The links go to articles that are limited in information toward supplements.

Hardly accurate, and hardly fair, at least in my book.  What a way to dis-inform people while using something beguiling to lure them in to a limited way of thinking about their health and what can improve it!

You have to be the judge, but my money will always be on the side of supplements for promoting and maintaining good health... 

Many of the supplements at the lower part of the chart have been used effectively over decades for positive health results.  It is difficult to overlay the biased type of studies relied on in mainstream medicine to show less than the already known benefits of vitamins, minerals, and herbs for health.  

If all these things were of no use or no benefit how is it that other than US cultures have relied on them for thousands of years, and even the medical system of pharmaceuticals in the US is based on these very things.


Take this as a jumping off point to learn about what you can do to protect and maintain your health.

And that's a fact, or my name isn't Edith Ann...

EU Moves to Block Natural Health Care

As the European Union (EU) moves to limit right of choice and access to supplements, while turning over this industry to Big PhRMA, the plan there will have an impact in the US and other countries.

If you read Natural Health News you are aware of the shift in ownership of supplement firms to PhRMA, and you know too that PhRMA is boosting sales by promoting engineered supplement type Rx drugs.

Here's what's ahead in the EU - "From What Doctors Don't Tell You" - email news Aug. 2010.

How Big Pharma plans to kill off alternative medicine
Within two years, nutritional medicine - as a viable alternative therapy to conventional medicine and pharmaceuticals - will be a shadow of its current self in Europe. By then, four laws will be fully implemented throughout the European Union, and they will effectively remove consumer choice. In 2012, the only show in town - in terms of genuine therapy - will be prescription drugs. This bleak landscape - and what we all can still do about it before it's too late.

From 2012: High-dose vitamins will be barred, and will be available only by prescription from your doctor, who may be less than sympathetic.
a.. sales of health products will start to slow as manufacturers will be barred from making even the most obvious claim for their product
b.. Chinese and ayurvedic herbs will start disappearing from the shelves
c.. Herbal practitioners in the UK may be going out of business unless they can get themselves registered to a standard acceptable to the EU. They have until April next year to do this.
If you care about nutritional and alternative medicine - and if it's an important part of your life - you need to know what's happening now.  - 'The assault on natural medicine'.

No matter where you are, if this issue is important to you, tell your Member of Congress that you want freedom of choice and right of access, and coverage under health insurance for supplements.

Natural Medicine was cut from health insurance reform.

Most doctors are not sympathetic nor do they know about nutrition or therapeutic use of supplements.

What Health Stores are Permitted to Tell You

There was a news report earlier today about problems with supplements.  I was laughing pretty loudly when the noon news interviewed one of the study's authors about colloidal silver.  She said it makes you turn blue, and this couldn't be further from the truth.

This information just arrived in another newsletter I receive, and it certainly is timely.

While ficused for those who own and operate health food stores, I think the consumer surely has a right to the information.  It can help you be a better and more informed natural health advocate and shopper.

By Charles J. Raubicheck, Esq., Sidley & Austin
Given the many DSHEA-related legal and regulatory developments over the past several years, natural products retailers often ask: "What can I say when selling supplements and not break the law?" To update retailers who sell dietary supplements as to what health-related information about their products they can properly give their customers, this guide is was created by Natural Products Association and Natural Products Foundation general counsel, Sidley Austin.
Verbal communications from retailer to customer about the health benefits of dietary supplements should be based on reliable information from suppliers and other sources. Typically, this information is documented in one or more of the written forms described below. Further, a retailer can convey product health benefits by providing access to, or by distributing, these written materials themselves.
Label and Package
The primary source of health information about dietary supplements is the list of claims made on the product label (including the package). Under DSHEA, suppliers of dietary supplements are permitted to make claims about their products called "statements of nutritional support" (which must be substantiated by data maintained by the supplier). These statements include claims about:

(a) a benefit relating to a classic nutrient deficiency disease;

(b) how a product affects any part of the structure of the human body, (e.g., "Glucosamine helps promote connective tissue"), or any function of the human body (e.g.,"Echinacea helps support the immune system");

(c) the mechanism of action by which a product acts to maintain body structure or function;

(d) general well being.

The most prevalent of these types of claims in the current marketplace are structure/function claims [(b)]. As a starting point, a retailer can use the body structure or function claims made on the label and package when telling customers about product benefits.
However, explicit claims about how a given dietary supplement may play a role in preventing or treating a particular disease condition are not permitted by the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Hence, structure/function claims are often vague, or not sufficiently specific for some consumers. The quandary often faced by the retailer is how to help this type of customer. Certain disease-specific information may be imparted to the customer, but only under the conditions explained in sections 3 through 6 below.

Promotional Literature
Structure/function claims can also be made in promotional materials for supplements e.g., brochures, booklets, flyers). These materials are allowed to be displayed and offered to consumers in retail stores. They are usually placed adjacent to the producton the shelf, in a product information section, or on a counter near a cash register.
Often, a supplier will make one or more structure/function claims in a promotional piece that is not made on the label or package. It therefore pays the retailer to be familiar with the promotional literature provided by suppliers.
Third Party Literature
Under DSHEA, publications written by third parties about the health benefits of dietary supplements may be distributed to consumers in connection with the sale of supplement products. This is so-called "third party literature."
Significantly, third party literature can lawfully discuss the role of dietary supplements in preventing or treating diseases, without subjecting the supplements to regulation by the FDA as drugs. To do so, the publication involved must satisfy all of the following conditions:

(i) it must be a reprint of an entire article authored by someone other than the supplier or retailer;
(ii) it must be physically separate in a store from the product it describes;
(iii) it must present a balanced view of available scientific information about the supplement and its health benefits;
(iv) it cannot mention the name of a manufacturer or the brand name of a product; and
(v) it cannot have any sticker or other information attached to it.

The obvious advantage to third party literature is that it can present health benefit information beyond structure/function claims, particularly statements about how a given dietary supplement can be useful in the prevention or treatment of some disease condition. Congress intentionally meant for consumers to have this type of information when it enacted the third party literature section of DSHEA. Many retailers may not be aware of this provision, or how to use it effectively.
To get the most advantage from third party literature, retailers should keep abreast of scientific studies or articles about particular dietary supplements, or request suppliers to supply them with third party literature pieces. Such pieces can be distributed by retailers directly to customers in retail stores (and can even be mailed with store catalogues). It is important, however, that these publications not mention particular companies or brands, or be displayed in a store in immediate physical proximity to the actual dietary supplements which are mentioned in the article.
Of notable importance, the piece should present a balanced view of available scientific information on the supplement being discussed. While neither Congress nor the FDA has defined "balanced" in the third party literature section of DSHEA, from other contexts this term can be construed to mean reporting or discussing negative or inconclusive studies as well as positive data, and not exaggerating benefits over known risks of taking a product.
To what extent can retailers talk to their customers about the information in a third party literature piece? This issue has not yet been addressed by the FDA or decided by the courts. While two recent court cases (Pearson and Washington Legal Foundation) suggest that some verbal communications about third party literature may be protected by the First Amendment, state laws governing the practice of medicine or pharmacy will have to be considered as well. Therefore, at this time, it is advisable to let third party literature pieces speak for themselves.
Software
Certain software programs that supply health benefit information about dietary supplements are available, and are intended for use in the retail sale context. The programs are designed to qualify as third party literature (note that DSHEA does not restrict the term "publication" to a published journal article). As such, specific diseases that supplements may help to prevent or treat are covered. These programs are offered for viewing by the consumer at kiosks or other discrete places, physically apart from supplement products, in a number of retail establishments.
Retailers should not verbally answer questions about, or summarize, software program information, for the reasons noted in section 3 above. They may tell consumers that they stock a particular type of dietary supplement, and where to find it in the store, but they should not mention particular companies or brands.
Book Section
DSHEA has an additional section whereby Congress explicitly recognizes the right of retailers to have separate sections in their stores (where no products are sold) in which they sell books and similar publications on dietary supplements. These books and publications can include information about disease prevention or treatment benefits of dietary supplements. They do not have to qualify as third party literature to do so.
Nonetheless, retailers should be careful about verbally summarizing books to customers; the publications are often lengthy, and may not always have balanced presentations about product-disease relationships. Again, the advisable course is to allow the books to speak for themselves.
Health Claims
Under the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, the FDA has approved some health benefit claims (called "health claims") for dietary supplements. Health claims communicate the message that particular supplements play a role in reducing the risk of the occurrence of particular disease conditions. The permitted claims for supplements include the benefit of calcium in reducing the risk of developing osteoporosis, and the benefit of folic acid taken during pregnancy in preventing neural tube birth defects. There are other health claims permitted for particular foods (e.g., the benefit of low fat foods in reducing the risk of developing cancer; the benefit of soy protein in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease).
Health claims can be made on labels, packages and promotional literature. Retailers can use these sources to deliver the pertinent health benefit messages for the products involved.
Nutritional Benefits
The nutritional benefits provided by many dietary supplements, which can be gleaned from the Supplement Facts box on the product label, statements of nutritional support, third party literature, and books and other publications on particular supplements, can also be verbally communicated by retailers to consumers.
One caveat in this regard: a number of states have enacted dietitians' laws, which define "nutritional information" and state or imply that only licensed dietitians have the right to provide it. There have been a few states where the right of dietary supplement retailers to give nutritional information to their customers has been challenged by dietitians. NPA has consistently opposed these efforts, taking the position that DSHEA and the First Amendment permit retailers to verbally supply nutritional information that is supported by truthful and non-misleading labeling and other publications. To date, NPA has been successful in protecting retailers in this regard. However, individual retailers should check their own state laws and if any questions arise, should contact NPA.

SOURCE: http://naturalproductsfoundation.org/index.php?cid=203479&src=gendocs&ref=DSHEA_Quiz&category=FoundationPrograms&curlid=124

Industry Friendly Pros and Cons

UPDATE 4 August: Following ABC World News story regarding supplements last evening I wrote to them stating my concern about thier bad journalism and their reporter's failure to interview any one directly related to the suplpement industry or qualified, such as myself, in the field of herbalism. 

The Nutrition Business Journal is a publication I receive regularly.  Today, based on the Diane Sawyer's news story on Consumer Reports most recent attack on supplements, they issued this response:

A Response to Consumer Reports’ Scary Supplements

Marc Brush August 3rd, 2010

There is a very clear takeaway from the cover story in September’s Consumer Reports (CR): Modern media thrives on fear. Modern media thrives on any number of heightened human emotional responses, but fear is one of the biggies. Add in a health scare, and you can (presumably) sell lots of magazines. In a piece titled, “The 12 Most Dangerous Supplements,” CR profiles several adverse outcomes from consumers of supplements who ingested tainted or overhyped products that sent their bodies into dramatic disarray. One man in Signal Mountain, Tenn. took a general health supplement overloaded with selenium and his fingernails fell off. A woman in Bartlesville, Okla. took colloidal silver to fight Lyme disease and her skin turned blue. A man in Janesville, Wis. took Hydroxycut to lose five pounds and developed acute hepatitis. These are tragic outcomes, worthy of spotlight, and certainly worthy of a healthy dose of fearmongering to prevent repeat occurrences.

What seems less worthy is the prominence of this coverage, and the sure-to-become-viral nature of its impact. My father just emailed me a link to the story this morning, and the issue has barely hit the stands. Watch the nightly news this week, and you’ll have to fight back an impulse to clear out your medicine cabinet.

From my perspective, what’s most newsworthy about the news from CR is the immateriality of the supplements in question, a so-called “dirty dozen.” Colloidal silver? Kava? Coltsfoot? These are not mainstream supplement products. This is, yet again, a bright spotlight choosing to shine on the dark alleys and niche markets of the industry.

Here at NBJ, we thrive on research and quantitative results to fundamentally drive our colorful, insightful and qualitative commentary. In fact, CR cites our sizing of the overall supplement market ($26+ billion in 2009) in the first paragraph of the story. Here are a few more stats:

Top 3 Supplements by 2009 Sales Volume
Multivitamins, $4.8 billion
Sports powders & formulas, $2.5 billion
B vitamins, $1.2 billion

Dirty Dozen Supplements by 2009 Sales Volume
Kava, $20 million
Bitter orange, $20 million
Yohimbe, $10 million

The other nine are too small to track independently, so we lump them into an Other Herbs & Botanicals bucket.

To its credit, CR has a serious and important mission to protect consumers from the likes of colloidal silver and other supplements with dangerously inaccurate label claims. I do not mean to disparage CR’s right and duty to report a story like this. What I do want to suggest, for CR and the rest of the modern mainstream media to hear with wide-open ears, is this: The supplement industry is too big and too nuanced now to paint with one coarse brush. There is earnest and important research happening around the 12 least dangerous supplements, whatever those might be, and reporting of that nature might be more useful, though less frightening, to a population of consumers looking to stay healthy in a broken health care system.

Let’s talk more about the $2.5 billion market for sports supplements, which CR rightly highlights as more prone than others to adulteration. And let’s talk more about the supplements CR profiles as popular and “likely” safe. There are some material sales levels at play here, so I’ll close with a few more stats:

CR’s 11 Supplements to Consider by 2009 Sales Volume
Calcium, $1.2 billion
Cranberry, $78 million
Fish oil, $976 million*
Glucosamine sulfate, $803 million**
Probiotics, $527 million***
Psyllium, $89 million
Pygeum, $7 million
SAMe, $123 million
St. John’s wort, $57 million
Vitamin D, $425 million

*NBJ tracks a collective fish/animal oil.
**NBJ tracks glucosamine with chondroitin.
***CR lists lactase and lactobacillus, which NBJ does not track independently.

As always, NBJ welcomes your comments.
Related NBJ links:

‘09 Sales Growth Sputters in Every Nutrition Category as Economy Takes its Toll
2010 Nutrition Industry Overview Web Seminar
Supplement Research

 http://blog.nutritionbusinessjournal.com/nbj/2010/08/03/a-response-to-consumer-reports-scary-supplements/

ORIGINAL POST: I find it very interesting when I see a major - and often global - corporation influencing Congress to achieve industry friendly legislation and big tax breaks.

For a very longtime, maybe more than twenty years now, these same influence-peddling, handout-seeking businesses are in bed with DC agencies, and many of their staff attorneys are writing the legislation that gets forced down the throats of the people.

A couple of items are on this list for me, one being the cellular industry, and a second being supplements.

We know the telecommunication giants wrote the recent telecommunications bill and for this reason alone you can point your finger at these folks for blocking health as an issue to prohibit putting up cell towers and proliferating antennas in your neighborhood or at your child's school. 

The flash point is that the cellular folks do know that these EMF generating devices do harm your health.  You can find the data in their patent applications.

At the same time your health is under attack by Big Corp, your right of access to health care of your choice and your right to use supplements for health is attacked.  These attacks are ramping up as Big PhRMA moves in to take over this lucrative market, and the companies that have made them for decades.

Examples are Nature's Way that was taken over probably 30 years ago now.  And the buyouts haven't stopped.

Following on this move, Big PhRMA tries to limit competition by patenting vitamins and selected constituents of  natural substances that have maintained health for centuries.

The next move comes in the marketing of expensive prescription supplements like the newly advertised Lovaza.


And all the while they try to undermine your thinking by telling you supplements are bad and they all are contaminated -

U.S. dietary supplements often contaminated

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor   Tue Aug 3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Many popular dietary supplements contain ingredients that may cause cancer, heart problems, liver or kidney damage, but U.S. stores sell them anyway and Americans spend millions on them, according to Consumer Reports.
The consumer magazine published a report on Tuesday highlighting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's lack of power to regulate such supplements, and said the agency rarely uses what little power it does have.
The report from the influential group urged Congress to speed up small moves toward giving the agency more clout, especially in regulating supplements.
Despite the "natural" labels carried by many of the supplements, many are contaminated.
Yet Americans flock to take them, according to the magazine, citing the Nutrition Business Journal as saying the market was worth $26.7 billion in 2009. Read more...

I've been using supplements since the 1950s.  I know what the health food market place was like long before the current state of affairs.  I often shudder at what and where people buy product, but for the most part the mass public is less than properly informed.

Their education isn't helped by ignorant health practitioners, government agencies in bed with the corporations, or biased media articles.

Yes, some supplements (herbs as mentioned mostly in this article) are questionable.  Relying on China for your products can be dicey, yet we have so little choice since Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA and GATT.

ADM profits are up and they corner the soy and canola market, mostly GMO, and they are dumping these ingredients in "plant sterol" hyped items that are supposed to heal you of everything.

The list goes on and the media, especially AP, play right into the propaganda machine.  Yes, they do want to limit your access to supplements in case you didn't know.

The gist is, you really have got to start learning more about what's in your supplements, why you use them, and the best forms of products to use to achieve the end result you seek. 

You can't learn this from Mike Adams!

Older Adults Need More Vitamin D

Not only do older people require more vitamin D, but so do people of color, people who do not go in the sun, those wearing clothing that fully covers the body from head to toe, but those dealing with obesity (this group may need up to 5x greater doses).

Find our many articles on Vitamin D using the search box.  You can also order the vitamin D test and your quality vitamin D supplements to help support Natural Health News.

By Mike Stones, 18-May-2010

Older adults suffering vitamin D deficiency need higher remedial doses than younger adults, according to a new research review.

The study, Correcting poor vitamin D status: Do older adults need higher repletion doses of vitamin D3 than younger adults?, concluded that: “The doses and total time for repleting older adults with vitamin D3 appeared to be greater than for younger adults, in part due to the lower starting baseline vitamin D status.”

Oral supplementation

To ensure almost all patients receive sufficient vitamin D, a daily dose of 125 mcg (5000 IU) is required for older people, aged 65 and above, while for younger patients, below the age of 65, a rate above 50 mcg (2000 IU) was sufficient.

The results applied whether Vitamin D was taken daily or as a bolus oral supplementation. Adults classed as deficient were those with levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D less than 75 nmol/L.

The researchers further concluded that several regimens, such as loading with a high dose (12500 mcg) of vitamin D3 and then giving 1250 mcg monthly, provide enough vitamin D3 for most patients to achieve and maintain 25(OH)D levels at or above 75 nmol/L.

According to the research review, a promising loading regimen is to provide calcidiol (25(OH)D) itself.

Since information on repletion with vitamin D2 has been published recently, the researchers decided to focus on the use of vitamin D3 from dietary supplements, prescriptions for large oral doses, and bolus dosing or injections.

Most published dosing regimens failed to achieve 75 nmol/L in almost all subjects, whether young adults (below 65 years) or older adults (above 65 years).

The authors, Susan Whiting, College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Mona Calvo, US Food and Drug Administration, noted many differences among studies, including baseline levels, endpoints, study duration, and compliance.

Adverse effects

All the studies reviewed reported that subjects were free of adverse effects, indicating that the vitamin D3 protocols were safe during the observed dosing periods.

Meanwhile, the researchers noted that: “Vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency is at epidemic proportions worldwide. In temperate countries more than half of the population is at risk and worldwide, even in tropical countries, vitamin D deficiency is a very serious concern due to changes in living and working conditions.”

Vitamin D has been shown convincingly to have many functions beyond its role in calcium and bone health, they added.

In addition to maintaining normal blood levels of calcium and phosphorus, Vitamin D aids in the absorption of calcium, helping to form and maintain strong bones. Recently, research also suggests vitamin D may provide protection from osteoporosis, hypertension, cancer, and several autoimmune diseases.

Source: Molecular Nutrition and Food Research -

Title: Correcting poor vitamin D status: Do older adults need higher repletion doses of vitamin D3 than younger adults? Authors: S. Whiting, M.Calvo

Older adults need higher remedial doses of vitamin D deficiency: Study: "Older adults suffering vitamin D deficiency need higher remedial doses than younger adults, according to a new research review."

Cardiologists, dermatologists and orthopods: They're Using Supplements

Score one for the good guys like me who have been educating doctors (and the public) in the safe and effective use of supplements for many decades!

This is great ammunition for our argument that supplements are effective and they do not cause deaths.

And the statistics are very good.

Health Practitioners Increasingly Turning to Supplements12/11/2008
WASHINGTON—Cardiologists, dermatologists and orthopedic specialists are taking dietary supplements for their own well-being, and recommending them to their patients for overall wellness and for reasons related to their specialties, according to new data from the “Life...supplemented” Healthcare Professionals (HCP) Impact Study. In addition, the practitioners surveyed generally believe usage of dietary supplements by consumers is more popular than it was just five years ago.

“We learned from the 2007 HCP Impact Study that physicians and nurses are taking supplements as part of a proactive wellness regimen that also includes healthy diet and regular exercise,” said Judy Blatman, senior vice president of communications at the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), which manages the campaign. “With the second year of this study, we were able to dive into specific specialties and find similar trends, further demonstrating the important role for doctors in incorporating dietary supplements as an integral part of wellness.”

Some of the specific highlights from the 2008 study:

Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of orthopedic specialists use dietary supplements for reasons including general wellness (43 percent), joint health (29 percent), heart health (26 percent), bone health (25 percent) and flu/colds (22 percent).

94 percent of orthopedic specialists who take dietary supplements recommend them to their patients, as do 82 percent of those who don’t take supplements. The primary reasons: bone health (75 percent), joint health (73 percent) and musculoskeletal pain (53 percent).

Among cardiologists, 57 percent use dietary supplements, 86 percent of whom recommend supplements for their patients. Cardiologists are using dietary supplements for general wellness (32 percent), heart health (29 percent) and lower cholesterol (20 percent); for their patients, supplements are recommended for lower cholesterol (58 percent), heart health (55 percent) and maintaining healthy cholesterol (36 percent).

A full three-quarters of dermatologists are using dietary supplements for reasons such as overall wellness (42 percent), bone health (24 percent), skin/hair/nails (16 percent) and heart health (15 percent).

While 79 percent of dermatologists who take supplements recommend them to their patients, only 28 percent of those who don’t take supplements do so. Top reasons for recommending supplements: hair/skin/nails (81 percent) and overall health (30 percent).

Council for Responsible Nutrition (www.CRNusa.org).

And Now for the Rest of the Story

Just this past Sunday (9 November, 2008) I posted this article on Natural Health News: Boosting Drug Sales with Studies.

I added one follow-up article earlier today, and now I am happy to give you something to think about in terms of why sound nutrition is a better option than wholesale use of drugs. Supplements certainly do edge out the pharmaceuticals in this study.

You'll also see how it is totally possible to fool a lot of the people a lot of the time -

Why treat nutritional deficiency with drugs?
(OMNS, November 13, 2008) A recent study suggested that statins might be used to avoid the effects of nutritional deficiency. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Jupiter group described a study of statin drugs in people with high C-reactive protein and low cholesterol. (1) High C-reactive protein levels are associated with inflammation and heart disease/stroke. The authors concluded that, in apparently healthy persons with elevated C-reactive protein levels, rosuvastatin (Crestor) significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events.

Their much-publicized claim, that this statin lowers the risk of heart attack by approximately one half, is technically correct though highly misleading. The reported annual incidence of coronary events was 37 people in 10,000 (controls) and 17 people in 10,000 (treated). Similar results were reported for risk of stroke. When expressed as a proportion, a 46% improvement (17/37) sounds large. However, an improvement of 20 events (37-17) in 10,000 people known to be at risk is less impressive. Such an improvement means that 500 people (10,000/20) with this increased risk would need to take the tablet daily for a year, to prevent one person suffering an event.

The paper does not explicitly report deaths. One reason for this may be that if a person on statins suffered a heart attack, that person was about three times more likely to die than a control who was not on statins.

The cost of rosuvastatin per person is approximately $1000 per year. So, treating enough people to prevent one heart attack costs $500,000 per year. Since about 70% of the heart attacks were not fatal, prevention of a single death from heart attack would cost even more, approximately $1,700,000. Giving the benefit of the doubt, we may allow for a similar reduction in stroke and say that "only" $250,000 is needed to protect one person from a stroke or heart attack. It is hardly surprising that Astra Zeneca's share price increased by $1.3 billion dollars on release of this paper and the corresponding media hype. (2)

The media suggested millions of healthy people could cut their risk of heart disease by taking statins. (3) They also claimed that statins could cut the risk of heart attack for "everyone". (4) This is inaccurate and incorrect. The study did not include normal healthy people, only a sample of a relatively small number of people, suffering from inflammation (increased C-reactive protein) - a known cause of heart disease and stroke. Out of 89,890 people considered for inclusion, 17,802 people (19.8%) met the specific criteria of poor health for the study. Widespread prescription of statins to healthy people is not supported by these findings.

The fact that statins produce a modest improvement is unsurprising, since they are known to lower inflammation, as do many nutritional supplements. It has pointed out that Crestor lowered C-reactive protein by 37%, but vitamin E lowers it (C Reactive Protein) by 32%, (5) and vitamin C by 25.3%. (6,7) These effects are similar to those of statins and would be expected to provide comparable benefits, without side effects and at a lower cost.

Crestor and other statin drugs have serious side effects. The incidence of established side-effects, such as rhabdomyolysis (0.3 per 10,000 per year), myopathy (1.1 per 10,000) and peripheral neuropathy (1.2 per 10,000 per year) seems low, (8) but may be underestimated as it takes time to establish long-term side-effects. (The depletion of coenzyme Q10 by statins is a particular concern.) The figures imply that for every ten people who avoid a cardiovascular event, at least one previously healthy person will suffer a non-trivial side effect of the statin drug.

The doctors reported a statistically significant increase (270) in diabetes in the statin group compared to the placebo group (216). Over the course of the study, this corresponds to an increased risk of approximately 61 in 10,000 people. So, the number of people on statins reported to become diabetic was greater than the number that avoided a heart attack! These people might have shorter lives and be at greater risk of heart disease in the long term.

Notably, the Jupiter study was stopped early, which the authors admit prevents assessment of how side-effects might outweigh reported benefits in the longer term. The study was to last 3-5 years and the criteria for stopping were not included in the original published design. (9) The paper claims that when the study was stopped "these [diabetic] events were not adjudicated by the end-point committee". The committee either knew about the diabetes in which case it was considered, or it did not and the committee was not doing its job properly.

The Jupiter name stands for Justification for the Use of statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin; the reader might think this "justification" sounds more like a marketing plan than a scientific endeavor. The researchers did not address the underlying cause of the inflammation and increased C-reactive protein: they simply treated the condition with drugs. In many cases, raised C-reactive protein is a result of nutritional deficiency. (10)

It is worth mentioning that several nutritional supplements inhibit inflammation and lower C-reactive protein, without causing known side effects. Deficiency in vitamins A, (11) B6, C, E, A, folate, carotenoids and lycopene, (12) and selenium (for example) is associated with raised C-reactive protein. (13,14,15) We suggest that the $250,000 cost of preventing a single cardiovascular event with rosuvastatin might be better spent funding a study of such inexpensive alternatives the deficiency of which may be the cause of the problem.

The people at risk could be encouraged to supplement their diet and restore their health without using these expensive drugs to conceal their underlying sickness.

Stick with the supplements!

References:

(1) Ridker P.M. Danielson E. Fonseca F.A.H. Genest J. Gotto A.M. Kastelein J.J.P. Koenig W. Libby P. Lorenzatti A.J. MacFadyen J.G. Nordestgaard B.G. Shepherd J. Willerson J.T. Glynn R.J. for the JUPITER Study Group (2008) Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein, NEJM, 359(21), 2195-2207.

(2) Mail Online (2008) Crestor news helps AstraZeneca market value leap by more than £1.3bn, 9:25 PM, 10th Nov.

(3) Smith R. (2008) Millions could cut heart attack risk by taking statins, study finds, telegraph.co.uk, 7:55AM GMT, 10 Nov.

(4) Hope J. (2008) The new statin drug that cuts the risk of heart attacks and strokes for EVERYONE, Daily Mail, 11th Nov.

(5) Devaraj S. Tang R. Adams-Huet B. Harris A. Seenivasan T. de Lemos J.A. Jialal I. (2007) Effect of high-dose alpha-tocopherol supplementation on biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation and carotid atherosclerosis in patients with coronary artery disease, Am J Clin Nutr, 86(5), 1392-1398.

(6) Block G. Jensen C.D. Dalvi T.B. Norkus E.P. Hudes M. Crawford P.B. Holland N. Fung E.B. Schumacher L. Harmatz P. (2008) Vitamin C treatment reduces elevated C-reactive protein, Free Radic Biol Med, Oct 10. [Epub]

(7) Sardi B. (2008) The Headline You Should Be Reading: Statin Drugs Don't Save Lives And May Increase Your Risk For Diabetes, Knowledge of Health Report, Nov 11.

(8) Law M. Rudnicka A.R. Statin Safety: A Systematic Review, The American Journal of Cardiology, 97(8), Suppl 1, S52-S60.

(9) Ridker P.M. JUPITER Study Group (2003) Rosuvastatin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease among patients with low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: rationale and design of the JUPITER trial, Circulation, 108(19), 2292-2297.

(10) Ford E.S. Liu S. Mannino D.M. Giles W.H. Smith S.J. (2003) C-reactive protein concentration and concentrations of blood vitamins, carotenoids, and selenium among United States adults, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 57, 1157-1163.

(11) Root M.M. Hu J. Stephenson L.S. Parker R.S. Campbell T.C. (1999) Determinants of plasma retinol concentrations of middle-aged women in rural China. Nutrition 15, 101-107.

(12) Boosalis M.G. Snowdon D.A. Tully C.L. Gross M.D. (1996): Acute phase response and plasma carotenoid concentrations in older women: findings from the nun study, Nutrition, 12, 475-478.

(13) Friso S. Jacques P.F. Wilson P.W. Rosenberg I.H. Selhub J.(2001) Low circulating vitamin B(6) is associated with elevation of the inflammation marker C-reactive protein independently of plasma homocysteine levels, Circulation, 103(23), 2788-2791.

(14) Devaraja S. Jialal I. (2000) Alpha tocopherol supplementation decreases serum C-reactive protein and monocyte interleukin-6 levels in normal volunteers and type 2 diabetic patients, Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 29(8), 790-792.

(15) Upritchard J.E. Sutherland W.H. Mann J.I. (2000): Effect of supplementation with tomato juice, vitamin E, and vitamin C on LDL oxidation and products of inflammatory activity in type 2 diabetes, Diabetes Care, 23, 733-738.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine