My response to Bill O’Reilly’s program “Suzanne Somers' 'No Spin' on Vitamins”

,On Friday, February 19, 2010, Bill O’Reilly discussed recent legislation introduced by Arizona Senator John McCain (the Dietary Supplement Safety Act; S.3002) to impose new regulations on dietary supplements (vitamins, etc.) with Suzanne Somers. He made several points that are quite reasonable: that there should be warnings on labels, that we should know what is in the products, that manufacturers should be registered with the FDA, that ingredients should be disclosed, and that the FDA should have recall authority. I heartily agree with these common sense statements but need to point out that these elements are already mandated by current federal regulations that simply may be inadequately enforced. As in other fields, a few shady operators ignore laws when profits can be made by cheating. The answer to the occasional scofflaw is strict enforcement of existing law; without enforcement, both current and new laws would be equally worthless. But Mr. McCain’s proposed new law will severely decimate law-abiding companies in a misguided effort to import an unpopular regulatory scheme from Canada that gives unelected government bureaucrats absolute power over already-regulated vitamin products. Canadians now cross the border to buy American vitamins because their own government arbitrarily delays entry of new products for years at a time, miserly approving only 42% of products that have been submitted with all the required safety and efficacy documentation. Current laws can accomplish Mr. O’Reilly’s goals, if they are enforced. Dietary supplement manufacturers are already registered with the government, are already required to submit label claims to the FDA, are already prohibited from making medical claims for dietary supplements, and are already required to identity-test and list all ingredients on product labels. Ingredients that have been on the market for many years are already pre-approved by the FDA and all new ingredients must be specially pre-approved before going to market. All mislabeled products are considered adulterated and subject to mandatory recall. A recent adverse event reporting law promptly lets the FDA know of virtually any problem requiring medical attention in order to trigger recalls and new label warnings, This does not sound like an unregulated industry, even if enforcement can be improved in some areas. What we don’t want is the FDA, an agency that is cozy with pharmaceutical interests, to have complete power over every new vitamin formula that is merely a variation of already-approved ingredients. That kind of permanent government takeover will strangle an important health industry that in a free market added jobs and exports during the recession. Vitamins help Americans meet basic nutritional needs in a cost-effective manner without government funding and may have actually decreased some Medicare spending, according to the conclusions of authoritative Lewin Group reports. Understand and enforce the current laws before proposing a virtual federal takeover of an industry that is law-abiding, has welcomed recent regulations that have empowered federal authority over it, and would suffer great harm from a huge increase in unnecessary government interference. Think about it: If you were driving on the highway at 55 miles per hour and occasionally some jerk speeds by at 90, would dropping the speed limit to 45 correct the problem? Of course not. It obviously makes more sense to station additional cops along that stretch of highway to enforce current traffic laws than to collectively punish all drivers. Why is enforcement of vitamin laws any different? Target the outlaws, not the innocent! Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA www.honestnutrition.com

NATURAL and ALTERNATIVE SWEETENERS

Some artificial sweeteners cannot be used in cooking; for example, aspartame. By contrast, natural sweeteners typically do not lose their sweetness when cooked. And studies have indicated that artificial sweeteners may backfire by shutting down the satiety signals that tell us when we’re full…in those studies the groups fed artificial sweeteners ate up to 3 times the calories as control groups. Sugar alcohols don’t raise blood sugar as rapidly as sugar does, yet they’re as bulky as sugar so they can be used “spoon - for - spoon” to replace sugar. But their level of sweetness may vary, with xylitol being the closest to sugar. Sugar alcohols have a range of sweetness and absorption; the amount that is absorbed from the GI tract affects the possibility of it being somewhat laxative at high levels, which can vary from person to person. Sorbitol may be laxative at moderate levels of 10 grams or more, mannitol at over 20 grams; xylitol at over 30 grams. Erythritol is virtually free of a laxative side affect even at higher levels, but is expensive. Also, sugar alcohols tend to have a cooling effect in the mouth and actually taste better when combined with a different type of sweetener. Sugar alcohols also boast an FDA-approved health claim: “Frequent between-meal consumption of foods high in sugars and starches promotes tooth decay. The sugar alcohols in [name of food] do not promote tooth decay.” A whole leaf, full spectrum extraction of Stevia should preserve the many phytonutrients naturally present in the plant. One study reported over 100 natural Stevia phytonutrients; the majority being polyphenols and other plant antioxidants. By contrast, there are about 9 steviosides. And the new Reb A fraction products being sold as food sweeteners are only a single chemical isolated from the stevia plant. There is a bitter aftertaste associated with traditional Stevia products. Some mix Stevia with sugar alcohols like erythritol in order for the sweetener to mask the bitter aftertaste. The recent crossover of a certain isolated fraction of Stevia (Reb A) as a mass market sweetener has some drawbacks: it doesn’t taste like either whole leaf or other traditional Stevia extracts, and is combined with both erythritol and natural flavors. Many stevia products are still only legal to sell as herbal dietary supplements, not as sweeteners. Some companies may think that all stevia products are now approved for use in foods, but that is not true. Retailers should take their cues from the packaging, and only carry reputable brands that strictly follow labeling laws. It is primarily the isolated “Reb A” fraction of stevia that can be used in foods. Most other stevias have not been approved for food use. There is a wide selection of natural/alternative sweeteners: Organic Agave Nectar, Barley Malt powder, Organic Brown Rice Syrup (some have no gluten [usually barley malt] added; some do), Beet Sugar (for those with cane allergies), Date Sugar (look for pure dried date pieces with no oat flour added), Dextrose, Fructose, Lactose, Organic Maple Syrup, Organic Sucanat®, and Organic Turbinado Sugar.

Boston Globe wrong on Vitamins, Supplements

Dietary Supplements Are Regulated In its Nov. 2 editorial, the Globe complained that the FDA is “powerless” to police dietary supplements and called for a repeal of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Health and Education Act of 1994. I suggest that the editors read the law and see what it is that they would lose by doing so. Mandatory Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) were authorized by this law. GMPs control the manufacturing of all supplements, requiring quality controls, identity and safety testing. Federal GMPs are currently being implemented. No one in their right mind wants this to go away right when it is just getting started. Federal pre-approval of all new dietary ingredients (NDIs) is also required by DSHEA. Isn’t that close to what the editors suggest when they want pre-market approval of all new supplements? Adulterated products are already banned by this law. And steroids and steroid precursors are specifically banned under another more recent law that was supported by the dietary supplement industry. DSHEA bans misbranded products, such as those containing hidden drugs, and offers them absolutely no protection. In fact, the misbranded products that the editors complained about are actually defined as unlabeled drugs by the FDA, not as dietary supplements, so technically DSHEA does not even apply to them. Let’s leave out the evildoers who deliberately hide illegal drugs in bottles misbranded as dietary supplements. What does that leave us with? The vast majority of dietary supplement companies responsibly follow the law and do not have poor quality products. There are rarely cases of serious injuries or deaths from dietary supplements when you take away the products that are really illegal drugs made by outlaws who don’t care about the law or their own customers’ health. Responsible brands follow the new FDA dietary supplement GMPs, checking all ingredients for identity and purity and looking for contaminants and known adulterants. They truthfully declare all ingredients and correct dosages on the labels. They monitor product usage for adverse events and report serious ones to the FDA when they occur. They are not the criminals counterfeiting illegal drugs disguised as dietary supplements. What part of this cries out for such severe regulation that pre-market approval of new formulas is needed? How will new laws stop lawbreakers when their actions are already clearly illegal? Pre-market approval in Canada is a joke; many ingredients and formulas are not available there even though American citizens freely enjoy their use without serious issues. Some American manufacturers have already pulled out of the Canadian market, while others offer only small selections of their lines because of the bureaucratic hoop jumping required for government approval. If DSHEA is repealed, many safe legal products providing much-needed nutrients will disappear while the lawbreakers continue to do business, with a net harm to public health. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/11/02/police_these_pills_and_powders/

How Nutrition Affects Swine Flu (Influenza) and Immunity

Why are the Public Health authorities silent on the role of nutrition to protect us during an official national health emergency? Do they not know, or simply not care? Is either answer acceptable to citizens concerned about their health and wanting to get practical/real/fair/impartial information that we can utilize to help protect our families? Here's what the experts are not telling us:

• Did you know that if you had the seasonal flu vaccine last year it may make you more vulnerable to the swine flu this year? Vaccines create antibodies that actually make you more susceptible to other organisms, like viruses and bacteria. (Four Canadian studies reported by CBC News, 9/23/09)
• Did you know that side effects of vaccines can be minimized if there are adequate levels of vitamin D in the person? (Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiol Infect. 2006 Dec;134(6):1129-40. Review.)
• Did you know that a lack of vitamin D makes people far more likely to have respiratory infections? (On the epidemiology of influenza. Virol J. 2008 Feb 25;5:29. Review.) Did you know that the virus itself can become less aggressive and less prone to mutating into more dangerous forms if a person has adequate levels of nutrients, especially antioxidants? (Host nutritional status: the neglected virulence factor. Trends Microbiol. 2004 Sep;12(9):417-23. Review.)
• Did you know that antioxidants, like selenium, not only reduce our vulnerability to getting influenza but also reduce the chances that it will progress into pneumonia! (Host nutritional status: the neglected virulence factor. Trends Microbiol. 2004 Sep;12(9):417-23. Review.)

Nutrition, Eye Health & Diseases of Aging Eyes

Glaucoma is pressure in the eyes and can be from different causes such as narrow/inflamed tear duct drainage or a type of high blood pressure type problem. Since synthetic prostaglandin eye drops (travatan, etc) are sometimes used to maintain normal pressure, it implies that natural prostaglandins (GLA, fish oil) might prevent certain forms of glaucoma. Cataracts and macular degeneration are caused by oxidative damage. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17478338?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Lutein is the key but not sole antioxidant. It does take about 5 grams of fat to absorb 10 milligrams of lutein (usually found in a complex also containing zeaxanthin), so lutein only absorbs well if taken with a meal. Eye formulas are also very good to supply multiple antioxidants and eye nutrients. These should also be taken with meals. Lutein is also the yellow pigment in egg whites, dark green leafy vegetables, yellow corn, orange peppers and squash. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9828775

Glutamine, MSG & excitotoxins, and protective nutrients

Clinicians giving several grams a day of pure L-Glutamine do not report excitotoxic reactions. The main one is for the synthetic chemical MSG. Sometimes people react to fermented foods, which indicates a problem in containment and nutritional status. Vitamin C removes glutamate from the neurons, which are additionally protected by antioxidants (tocotrienols, tocopherols, et al) and by magnesium. Branched-chain amino acids help to compartmentalize glutamates. Glutamine is fine with other aminos; the main competition is between the arginine pathway aminos (arginine, ornithine, and lysine); with another noted competition to get through the Blood Brain Barrier between the Large Neutral Amino Acids: aromatic aminos (tyrosine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan) and the BCAAs (leucine, isoleucine, and valine).

How are vitamins C, D and K in supplements made?

Almost all D’s on the market are nature-identical synthesized forms. D3 and D2 are both naturally occurring in foods, but in supplements the same forms are usually from synthesized sources. So D3 synthesized from sheep lanolin is no more natural than D2 from plants or fungi. In fact, the D3 made in the skin-liver-kidneys from cholesterol and sunlight is also literally synthesized. Either plant sterols or animal sterols (cholesterol in humans, lanolin from sheep) are irradiated with UV-B light to make D2 or D3, respectively. It is a synthetic process, either internally or to produce the supplemental form; in much the same way that vitamin C can be synthesized by most mammals (not humans) from blood glucose in a process that mirrors the commercially synthesized nature-identical form. By the way, Vitamin K is also synthesized as the exact same form found in green foods (K1). Fermented foods like cheese can also contain K2 (MK-4), which is synthesized by microbes like bacteria.