Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Omega-3 fats, depression and mood disorders

Studies do show the potential benefits, and also evidence the good tolerability, of omega-3 fats in mood disorders. While these nutrients may not be a "cure" or even a drug-like treatment, their protective effects in these patient groups has been fairly well established: "Biological marker studies indicate deficits in omega-3 fatty acids in people with depressive disorders, while several treatment studies indicate therapeutic benefits from omega-3 supplementation. A similar contribution of omega-3 fatty acids to coronary artery disease may explain the well-described links between coronary artery disease and depression." Parker G, et al. Omega-3 fatty acids and mood disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2006 Jun;163(6):969-78. Review. Erratum in: Am J Psychiatry. 2006 Oct;163(10):1842. PMID: 16741195 "Five of six double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia, and four of six such trials in depression, have reported therapeutic benefit from omega-3 fatty acids in either the primary or secondary statistical analysis, particularly when EPA is added on to existing psychotropic medication. Individual clinical trials have suggested benefits of EPA treatment in borderline personality disorder and of combined omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The evidence to date supports the adjunctive use of omega-3 fatty acids in the management of treatment unresponsive depression and schizophrenia." Peet M, Stokes C. Omega-3 fatty acids in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Drugs. 2005;65(8):1051-9. Review. PMID: 15907142 "The preponderance of epidemiologic and tissue compositional studies supports a protective effect of omega-3 EFA intake, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), in mood disorders. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials demonstrate a statistically significant benefit in unipolar and bipolar depression (p = .02). The results were highly heterogeneous, indicating that it is important to examine the characteristics of each individual study to note the differences in design and execution. There is less evidence of benefit in schizophrenia. EPA and DHA appear to have negligible risks and some potential benefit in major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, but results remain inconclusive in most areas of interest in psychiatry...Health benefits of omega-3 EFA may be especially important in patients with psychiatric disorders, due to high prevalence rates of smoking and obesity and the metabolic side effects of some psychotropic medications." Freeman MP, et al. Omega-3 fatty acids: evidence basis for treatment and future research in psychiatry. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;67(12):1954-67. Review. PMID: 17194275

Monday, February 12, 2007

The Women’s Health Study and Vitamin E: Probable Benefits Lost in Study’s Conclusion

The Women’s Health Study and Vitamin E: Probable Benefits Lost in Study’s Conclusion In a new publication(1), researchers concluded that, “Long-term use of vitamin E supplements did not provide cognitive benefits among generally healthy older women.” Reading the details of the study, I find this conclusion to be a very inaccurate summation of the data. Vitamin E did show benefits in the women who were actually taking the vitamin, which many in the group who were supposed to be taking it failed to do. Including non-compliant study subjects in the data resulted in a misleading conclusion. The Women's Health Study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vitamin E supplementation (600 IU [ -tocopherol acetate], on alternate days) begun between 1992 and 1995 among 39,876 healthy US women. This study included about 5,000 women from the original Women's Health Study. Ignoring the complexity of the data and even the researchers’ own cautions about the robustness of their conclusions in order to produce a brief written or broadcast “sound bite” for a news report frequently results in over-simplistic and inaccurate reporting. It is also all too common that a careful analysis of the research data may even contradict a study’s main conclusions, making the ensuing media reports all the more misleading. This appears to be the case with this particular study. The researchers’ own data has elements that contradict the conclusion stated above. My concern about how the conclusion in this study may be sending the wrong message can be summed up in these contradictions to that conclusion (all quotations are from this study): · When results were adjusted to exclude non-compliant women (23-25% of the study population), there were benefits noted for those taking vitamin E: “…our secondary analyses including only compliant subjects suggested some potential cognitive benefits of vitamin E supplementation.” · Cognitive testing only was done for the last 4 years of a 9.6 year-long study, ignoring any possible improvements in the vitamin E group over the initial 5.6 year period: “Cognitive testing began a mean of 5.6 years after randomization; thus, we were unable to evaluate change in cognitive performance from randomization.” · Previous successful models were for mice given vitamin E from a young age, but not for mice given the vitamin only when elderly. Most women were in their 60’s when this trial began: “…in a transgenic mouse model of AD, a significant reduction in amyloid deposition in the brain was observed only when vitamin E supplementation was provided at young ages (5-13 months) but not at older ages (14-20 months).” · Previous successful human trials lasted over 10 years, but this study admittedly did not: “…2 observational studies of cognitive function both found that less than 10 years of vitamin E use was not strongly associated with better cognitive performance.” · There was a significantly lower risk of substantial decline in at least one cognitive measure for the people taking vitamin E: “For the verbal memory score, the vitamin E group had a borderline significant 15% lower risk of substantial decline compared with the placebo group (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.02).” · Women who eat less dietary vitamin E did have less cognitive decline if they were in the group taking it as a supplement: “We observed that the vitamin E group experienced less adverse cognitive change compared with the placebo group among women with dietary intake below the median of 6.1 mg/d.” · There was also a benefit shown for vitamin E among the women who did not exercise: “Also among women who exercised less than once per week, the vitamin E group experienced a more favorable cognitive change than did the placebo group: the difference in mean change in global score over time was 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.10).” · Another group that benefited from taking vitamin E was non-diabetic women: “We also observed that vitamin E treatment appeared beneficial among women without diabetes (mean difference, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.06) but not among women with diabetes (mean difference, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.31 to 0.01).” · The researchers admit that the dose used in this study is lower than was used in previous trials, making positive results more unlikely: “It is possible that the dose used in this study was not high enough.” · The authors also admit that other forms of vitamin E were not measured in this study, nor levels of other supporting antioxidants other than dietary vitamin E: “It has been suggested that tocopherols such as gamma-tocopherol that is found in foods rather than in supplements may be more important for delaying brain aging. Although alpha-tocopherol has stronger antioxidant properties, gamma-tocopherol has important additional anti-inflammatory effects that may enhance neuroprotection.” The researchers even caution against putting too much reliance on their own analysis: “However, these analyses themselves may be inherently biased and thus should be interpreted with caution.” It appears that the researchers were correct in cautioning that their conclusions may be questionable. It is dangerous to base health decisions on a one-line conclusion from a study without looking at the details of the study which may find benefits for specific populations, or without considering the admitted limitations of the study. In this particular case, the populations that benefited from taking vitamin E include non-diabetic women and women who eat diets low in the vitamin. Another section of the population also showed a benefit: those women who actually took the vitamin. That’s right, the data actually showed significant benefits for that portion of the study population that complied with the study protocol and properly took the vitamin, which about a quarter of the women failed to do. When non-compliant subjects were included in the total, vitamin E’s benefits as a whole were mostly insignificant; but if these subjects are excluded, the benefits become significant. If I were the researcher, my conclusion for this study would have reflected that taking vitamin E was shown to be protective to those women who took it; a far different conclusion than was written. People deserve more careful discussions and analysis of research data in order to be able to make informed health choices. Sadly, this study - and the subsequent reporting on the study - have failed to convey some useful and accurate information, and may even lead women away from taking an essential vitamin that showed evidence of being protective of mental function when taken as directed. REFERENCE: 1. Kang JH, et al. A Randomized Trial of Vitamin E Supplementation and Cognitive Function in Women. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:2462-2468.

Monday, February 05, 2007

My Low Glycemic Index Interview with Natural Products Marketplace mag

* What is the level of consumer understanding of glycemic index and the glycemic response? The Atkins and other low carb diets have certainly improved the awareness of the glycemic index, as have low-carb sports products, including bars. The awareness is probably fairly superficial, though, amounting mostly to alternative sweeteners and a general avoidance of grain products. And a lot of manufacturers used unapproved label claims, such as net carbs, that were not really well defined and probably confused a lot of people. I believe that the low carb category has quite properly morphed into the low glycemic category, something that Dr. Atkins foresaw and wrote about before his death and wrote about. * Is there greater understanding and/or interest among retailers? I would venture that our retailers are a lot like our customers: some are well educated, a lot have some good basic knowledge and some are more “entry level”. It would be hard to stock and sell low glycemic products on any large scale without some product knowledge to guide purchases and sales, but a small section of top sellers could sell in most stores even without knowledgeable salespeople driving the sales. The ones that really got into the low carb market probably have a good mental grasp of the glycemic index and how many common products roughly fit into it. * Who is the target consumer for low-GI foods: diabetics, dieters, health conscious? While diabetics are the classic market for low glycemic products, and rightly so, the market has some other notable segments. Dieters, of course. People under a lot of stress where excess levels of the adrenal hormone cortisol is a problem, contributing to insulin resistance, which is a situation where cells become resistant to insulin, leaving the insulin and sugar in the bloodstream and resulting in low energy and high levels of blood sugar. This is potentially a pre-diabetic condition, and anyone suffering from chronic stress could be at risk. Yet another target market is people who follow the Blood Type Diet, especially those with the O blood type. * How do low-GI foods fit an overall healthy lifestyle? While people need a certain amount of carbs for energy and brain fuel, the overabundance in the American diet is cause for concern. But look carefully at how the form of foods affects their glycemic index numbers. Foods containing fiber are lower on the scale than refined foods. Whole grains are lower on the index than even the same grain ground into flour, because the rate of digestion and passage through the digestive tract depends on the fineness of the food particle size and the presence of fibers that slow this passage, making the sugars from the food become, in effect, time released. Slower release of sugars into the bloodstream helps to control blood sugar levels and maintain a more desirable glycemic balance. Avoiding high sugar food is only part of the solution, as many vegetable starches also convert to sugars. That is why the presence or absence of fiber and the physical form of the food are also important factors in glycemic control. * What type(s) of foods are available in the low-GI category, and what sets them apart from existing offerings? It is important to note that this category should not be viewed simply as packaged products expressly created to be low GI, but rather that many of the staples health food stores have promoted for decades are, and always have been, low GI. These include several forms of fiber, such as guar gum, oat bran, rice bran, wheat bran, apple pectin, glucomannan, grapefruit pectin, and psyllium. These are not only low glycemic, but help other foods to become low glycemic by slowing digestive and transit times in the stomach and upper intestine. (Fibers also speed transit time through the large intestine.) Stores also sell gluten flour, containing far more protein and less starch (carbs) than ordinary wheat flour. We have soy powder and some of the smaller grains (for example, amaranth, flax, quinoa) that have a higher proportion of protein and fiber than larger grains. Textured soy protein can be added to foods to increase their protein content without adding carbs, a plus for many vegetarians who lack un-starchy protein sources. There is also dry roasted soybeans, too (soy nuts). Use a good variety of natural and organic nuts and seeds, which are good sources of protein and healthy fats, including almonds, brazil nuts, cashews, pecans, pine nuts, pistachios, sesame and sunflower seeds, walnuts. Nutritional oils are all low glycemic, containing no carbs. These include organic virgin coconut oil, organic virgin macadamia nut oil, extra virgin olive oil, almond oil and rice bran oil. In the alternative sweetener category are included low glycemic choices such as erythritol (substitutes for sugar in recipes, but not quite as sweet; non-laxative), sorbitol (one of the original sugar substitutes, can be laxative in servings over 20 grams), and xylitol (substitutes for sugar in both bulk and sweetness, but can be laxative at 30-50 grams). Stevia is a dietary supplement containing terpenes, which are compounds that are not technically classified as sweeteners. You cannot sell stevia as a sweetener, because the FDA approved it as a dietary supplement but denied a petition to approve it as a sweetener. Manufacturers do not offer substitution suggestions for using stevia in place of sugar, but several cookbooks do offer stevia recipes. Other plants containing terpenes are Lo Han and Licorice. Stevia is available in a variety of forms, including powdered, packets, tablets, liquids, etc. * How are formulators using cutting-edge ingredients to increase fiber levels and balance glycemic load? There are more concentrated fibers on the market now for use as ingredients in bars or supplements, though they are also more costly than plain fiber sources, such as various brans from grains. Beta glucans are perhaps the best known, and also have an approved FDA health claim. * How do you suggest retailers promote these products to best effect? I suggest that retailers be aware of their low carb/low glycemic products in order to successfully market them. A store section is appropriate for packaged goods, though some products may be better sellers in other sections, such as sweeteners. The market for products dealing with diet/stress/blood sugar should continue to grow, making this an important category for us. The key is education; an educated retailer will be able to stock and sell the products, meeting an unfulfilled need in uneducated consumers, who may be ignorant of that need without some outreach by retailers. Classes, lectures, copies of articles, in-store magazines and promotions targeting the need for controlling blood sugar are all viable options for retail merchants who want to contribute to both their customers’ health and their own bottom lines. This is also an ideal topic for retailers to write an article for a local paper educating readers about the issue and showcasing the expertise available in their store.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Mayo doctor errs on dietary supplements

The following Letter to the Editor of the Chicago Tribune was written by Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA Chicago Tribune To the editor In your paper on Sunday January 21 a medical column by the Mayo Clinic made some factual errors. Dr. Textor stated that, regarding supplementation with the amino acid L-arginine to reduce blood pressure and the subsequent risk of stroke, “there is no evidence that either of these outcomes actually occurs in humans”. Not true! The Journal of Nutrition published a review of the scientific literature, done by a researcher at the Evans Department of Medicine, Cardiology Section, and Whitaker Cardiovascular Institute, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, which stated, “Numerous studies, though not uniformly, demonstrate a beneficial effect of acute and chronic L-arginine supplementation on EDNO production and endothelial function, and L-arginine has been shown to reduce systemic blood pressure in some forms of experimental hypertension.” Alternative Medicine Review published another review, reporting that, “Supplementation with L-arginine has been shown to restore vascular function and to improve the clinical symptoms of various diseases associated with vascular dysfunction.” A study published in that journal concluded, “This is the first study showing a moderate dose of sustained-release L-arginine can improve endothelial function and blood pressure.” Regarding strokes, the journal Nitric Oxide reported, “We performed a systematic review of published controlled studies of L-arginine (the precursor for NO) and NO donors in experimental stroke,” and concluded, “L-Arginine and NO donors reduced total cerebral infarct volume in permanent and transient models of ischaemia. Drug administration increased cortical CBF in permanent but not transient models.” This indicates that L-arginine and similar nutrients may reduce the risk of stroke damage. While not conclusive, this is published human clinical data that arginine may be useful to help manage hypertension and reduce the risk of strokes if used under a physician’s care, which is quite different from there being “no evidence” of these possible outcomes. Dr. Textor also erred in giving his opinion that dietary supplements are unregulated, stating that, “Because they are not officially considered drugs, supplements are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so you don’t know what is actually contained in the products you’ve purchased.” As the agency’s name implies, the FDA does regulate foods – including dietary supplements as a specially regulated class of food – as well as regulating drugs and cosmetics. And the FDA has the statutory power to remove any adulterated or mislabeled drug, food or cosmetic from the marketplace. Check the FDA website and get a second opinion direct from the source. It is unfortunate that an otherwise fine medical column offering useful information about health strategies for hypertension was marred by the doctor giving inaccurate opinions about dietary supplements that are contradicted by information from scientific journals and government sources. Unfortunately, many people (including some health professionals and journalists) believe these myths about dietary supplements only because they are ignorant that a large body of evidence exists evidencing their regulation, safety and efficacy. Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA Board certified clinical nutritionist St. Charles, IL REFERENCES: Chicago Tribune, 1/21/07, From the Mayo Clinic: Don’t gamble on unproven blood pressure treatments, Section 13, page 8,1,4697775.story Gokce N. L-arginine and hypertension. J Nutr. 2004 Oct;134(10 Suppl):2807S-2811S; discussion 2818S-2819S. Review. PMID: 15465790 Boger RH, Ron ES. L-Arginine improves vascular function by overcoming deleterious effects of ADMA, a novel cardiovascular risk factor. Altern Med Rev. 2005 Mar;10(1):14-23. Review. PMID: 15771559 Miller AL. The effects of sustained-release-L-arginine formulation on blood pressure and vascular compliance in 29 healthy individuals. Altern Med Rev. 2006 Mar;11(1):23-9. PMID: 16597191 Willmot M, Gray L, Gibson C, Murphy S, Bath PM. A systematic review of nitric oxide donors and L-arginine in experimental stroke; effects on infarct size and cerebral blood flow. Nitric Oxide. 2005 May;12(3):141-9. Review. PMID: 15797842

Thursday, February 01, 2007

OCA Nutri-con Campaign Full of Errors

Dear OCA (Organic Consumers Association), I am personally concerned about the misleading and inaccurate statements made regarding the OCA’s Nutri-Con program ( The lack of accurate scientifically valid information and the application of misleading science within inappropriate examples will only serve to put the whole program in a questionable light. Don’t get me wrong, it is preferable to get nutrients from food. But as government studies have shown that up to 95% of the public suffer from deficiencies below RDA levels of vitamins and minerals (not the 99% stated in your article), it is important to have a cost-effective and simple means to correct nutrient deficiencies and enhance healthy homeostasis. Ten of thousands of scientific studies have shown that the common forms of nutrients used in today’s dietary supplements are safe, suitable and effective for this purpose. Your web page seems to promote specific brands, which calls the integrity of the information into question. For example, Neo-Life is touted as good and other brands seem to be bad. You post an article taking us to a commercial webpage ( Why are explicit commercial endorsements being made? Here are some specific problems with the accuracy of the information: Synthetic vitamins: This term is misleading unless you are speaking about vitamins with separate natural and synthetic forms, like alpha tocopherol (vitamin E). For most other vitamins the term is meaningless because most synthesized B vitamins (many are actually naturally grown by a fermentation process) are identical to the forms found in food. This is called a natural form or a nature-identical form. When a vitamin is synthesized, it is not called a synthetic form unless it is chemically/structurally different from the natural form. You will only cause confusion if you refuse to follow this important distinction that is essential to a common understanding of chemistry and biology. You simply should not just make up terms for nutrient forms that are confusing to scientists and laypersons alike. Your terminology should be true and accurate and not likely to confuse the reader; but so far, I fear that you have failed to accomplish this. The author claims that “synthetic” vitamins cause disease. Please provide some real proof. I have read hundreds of studies to the contrary and toxicology records also indicate a good margin of safety for conventional vitamins. To claim that a synthesized nature-identical B vitamin produced by fermentation will provoke the same immune reaction as an invasive organism is simply incredible (as in not credible). He also claims, “Certain studies on natural vs. synthetic vitamins have shown that synthetic vitamins are 50 to 70% less biologically active than natural vitamins,” without making it obvious that he is only referring to vitamin E, which is the only one that has a “dl” form, not to other vitamins. I see it as intellectually dishonest to falsely imply that all synthesized vitamins share this problem. Regarding beta carotene: Your statement: “It's no wonder that some of the testing done with the synthetic form of beta-carotene has produced mixed results, and in one study on smokers, produced a negative result.” In fact, the problems with beta carotene were largely the result of other confounding factors and poor science, not the synthetic production of the nature-identical pro-vitamin. I certainly prefer the complexes to the isolates, but the fact is that the beta carotene molecule itself is the same exact form and molecule, whether produced from food or by synthesis. It is actually the presence or absence of total antioxidants that is the determining factor for people’s health in these studies. Some years ago an antioxidant study in Finland was halted early because of a widely reported increase in cancer rates among male smokers taking beta-carotene. (1) Headlines associated this supplement with cancer risk. Despite objections that the study was flawed, beta-carotene use dropped. A later analysis published in July 2004 took another look at that exact same Finnish smokers' study data, but now taking into account total antioxidant intake, which cleared away the scientific controversy. The smokers’ risk of getting lung cancer was inversely associated with total antioxidants in the diet, with more total antioxidants meaning fewer cancers. (2) A composite antioxidant index was generated for each of the 27,000 men over 14 years. The calculated amounts of carotenoids, flavonoids, Vitamin E, selenium and Vitamin C were compared to actual lung cancer rates, with a clear result: the combination of antioxidants lowered lung cancer risk in male smokers. Another large study has noted that high beta carotene intake, confirmed by measures of blood levels, was associated with lower mortality rates among the elderly over a ten year period. (3) The dietary level of antioxidants is an independent predictor of plasma beta-carotene, especially in moderate alcohol drinkers. A more recent study reports, “This may explain, at least in part, the inverse relationship observed between plasma beta-carotene and risk of chronic diseases associated to high levels of oxidative stress (i.e., diabetes and CVD), as well as the failure of beta-carotene supplements alone in reducing such risk.” (4) Still, news reports continue to refer to beta-carotene as harmful, largely because of the original study reports. The “media myth” continues long after the science has moved on. Nutra-con seems to have bought into the myth. The same beta-carotene molecule is produced either synthetically or as a food extract, with the exact same optical rotation and measured by the exact same blood tests. Beta Carotene REFERENCES: 1. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med. 1994 Apr 14;330(15):1029-35. 2. Wright ME, et al. Development of a Comprehensive Dietary Antioxidant Index and Application to Lung Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Male Smokers. July 2004 American Journal of Epidemiology 3. Buijsse B, et al. Plasma carotene and alpha-tocopherol in relation to 10-y all-cause and cause-specific mortality in European elderly: The Survey in Europe on Nutrition and the Elderly, a Concerted Action (SENECA). Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:879–886. 4. Brighenti F. The total antioxidant capacity of the diet is an independent predictor of plasma beta-carotene. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2007) 61, 69–76. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602485; published online 12 July 2006. Supported by the European Community IST-2001–33204 'Healthy Market', the Italian Ministry of University and Research COFIN 2001 and the National Research Council CU01.00923.CT26 research projects. Regarding “Biological Activity Reduced 50%”: This is certainly true for vitamin E, but your website inaccurately implies that this is true for many other vitamins. In fact, it is only true for vitamin E, but it is also true that some vitamins and minerals are absorbed better from dietary supplements than from food. This is the case for non-heme iron from plant sources, which is poorly absorbed, while chelated iron supplements are relatively well absorbed. This is also the case for folic acid, which is demonstrably less well absorbed from food than from supplementation. REFERENCES Heme iron is absorbed better than nonheme iron, but most dietary iron is nonheme iron. [8]. Absorption of heme iron ranges from 15% to 35%, and is not significantly affected by diet [15]. In contrast, 2% to 20% of nonheme iron in plant foods such as rice, maize, black beans, soybeans and wheat is absorbed [16]. Nonheme iron absorption is significantly influenced by various food components [1,3,11-15]. Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Iron, Office of Dietary Supplements • NIH Clinical Center • National Institutes of Health Bioavailability of food folates is 80% of that of folic acid. RM Winkels, IA Brouwer, E Siebelink, MB Katan, and P Verhoef Am J Clin Nutr 2007 85 (2): p. 465 Regarding Polarized Light and Optical Rotation: The difference is certainly true for Vitamin E, but not at all true for B-Vitamins. Your article has falsely implied that this is true for all “synthetic” vitamins. Finally: This is just a sampling of data - not a complete list of all issues of sloppy or incorrect science - to show that OTC Nutri-con's program is not accurate in:

  • Implying that synthesized vitamins are all synthetic forms
  • Stating that all natural source supplements are better utilized than all synthesized nature-identical materials
  • Stating that synthesized material is less safe than natural material (in fact, the micro contamination from natural materials far exceeds that of synthesized ingredients)
OCA is not uniquely qualified to pass judgment on these matters after having produced such mixed-up nonsense as background material. Nutra-con seems to be a con job, in my opinion. I support OCA and do not understand why it would embark on a divisive campaign based on such highly questionable science that is so easily proven to be false or misleading. It is also questionable in promoting specific companies as providing better ingredients, even though they may not match the materials used in scientific studies that provide components that the public wants to use, in light of their proven safety and efficacy. Please allow me to ask you to reconsider your program, in the interest of truth in science. Your organization’s credibility will be challenged by the scientific community and will justifiably suffer if you proceed on this erroneous course of action in a field so far removed from your experience and expertise. This could be disastrous for OCA if all of your positions are dismissed by many people because of one seriously flawed program that could harm your reputation for integrity and scientific accuracy. It is one thing to promote naturally occurring nutrients from food sources, which is fine if the science is accurately presented. It is quite another to promote specific brands with poor scientific justification, as you seem to already be doing. This is just one man’s opinion, but I would hate to see OCA be isolated by pushing an untrue Truth campaign. I have spent a good part of my adult life defending the natural products industry, but there is no good defense for a misguided effort that misfires and winds up “shooting you in the foot”. Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA Certified clinical nutritionist with diplomate in advanced nutritional laboratory assessment Author of - or contributor to - many articles defending natural products:
  • Say No To GMOs
  • Bittter Harvest
  • Benefits of herbs
  • Cancer patients may very well tolerate the use of certain dietary supplements (CA: The Journal of the American Cancer Society)
  • Childhood Obesity (Vitamin Retailer magazine)
  • Europe Biotech
  • FDA Scientists Report Political Interference in Their Work
  • Green Foods (Whole Foods magazine)
  • Grocery Headquarters: Biotechnology still hasn’t lived up to its promises
  • Modified foods, modified truth
  • More evidence of vitamin E safety!
  • No appetite for biotech foods
  • Organic Spices (Organic Products Retailer magazine)
  • Raw Deal on Vitamins (Organic Style rebuttal)
  • Reducing Healthcare Costs Naturally
  • Sweeteners (Whole Foods magazine)
  • The Case for Multiple Vitamins
  • Who’s Afraid of GMO’s? –Me!
Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA Board Certified Clinical Nutritionist with Diplomate in Advanced Nutritional Laboratory Assessment