1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
|
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.75 [en] (Win98; U) [Netscape]">
<meta name="Author" content="Bill Sardi">
<meta name="Description" content="Will it soon be easier to by a handgun than a bottle of vitamins? Protect dietary supplements from overregulation before it is too late.">
<meta name="KeyWords" content="Sardi, Hammell, IAHF, supplement, vitamin, CODEX, international, restriction, health, FDA, NAS, RDA">
<title>DoctorYourself.com - Supplement Dose Limits</title>
<!-- ADD style1 ===================== -->
<style type="text/css">
#TFlag
{
float:right;
font-size:105%;
line-height:105%;
padding:.15 em;
margin:.15 em;
}
img.top
{
vertical-align:text-top;
}
</style>
<!-- END ADD style1 ===================== -->
</head>
<body background="images/architek0H.gif">
<!-- ADD TFlag ===================== -->
<span id ="TFlag">
<a href="#translator_block">
Click here to translate this page.
<img class="top" SRC="images/TranslateFlag.jpg" alt="translate gadget at page bottom" height=36>
</a>
</span>
<!-- END ADD TFlag ===================== -->
<table CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 >
<tr>
<td WIDTH="132"><img SRC="images/logo1.GIF" height=105 width=117></td>
<td WIDTH="16"></td>
<td><img SRC="images/dystitle2.JPG" height=60 width=365>
<br><img SRC="images/dysaut.JPG" height=20 width=365></td>
<td><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=+1>Will International Laws
Restrict Your Supplements? </font></font></b></td>
</tr>
</table>
<hr WIDTH="100%">
<table BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 >
<tr>
<td VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="132"><font color="#FF0000">Law vs Supplements</font>
<br><a href="index.html">Home</a></td>
<td WIDTH="18"></td>
<td VALIGN=TOP><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica">THE PERILS AND PITFALLS
OF "HARMONIZED" FOOD SUPPLEMENTS </font></b>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica">A Statement Regarding the Establishment
of Tolerable Upper Limits and Dosage Harmonization of Food Supplements </font>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica">by Bill Sardi <a href="mailto:BSardi@aol.com">BSardi@aol.com</a></font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">The dietary supplements sector-working
group of the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), composed of manufacturers
of nutritional supplements, has agreed to "harmonize the regulatory framework
for vitamin and mineral food supplements on both sides of the Atlantic."
(Statement from the <a href="http://www.crnusa.org">http://www.crnusa.org</a>
website) The fact that the food-supplement industry has embraced the idea
of "maximum levels" for food supplements is of serious concern to every
health-conscious consumer. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">There are a number of concerns regarding
the establishment of "maximum levels" for nutritional supplements. These
are: </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">1. The establishment of "tolerable upper
limits" may assume there are no health benefits, and only undesirable side
effects, beyond a certain point of consumption. No mention is made of a
therapeutic range. For example, some heart disease patients take 3200 units
of vitamin E, which exceeds current maximum recommendations. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">2. The establishment of "tolerable upper
limits" for developed Atlantic nations is likely to be adopted as a world
standard, since consumers in many undeveloped countries consider western-made
products to be superior. However, the nutritional needs of human populations
vary. Factors such as age, sex, geography, skin pigmentation, season, health
habits (tobacco and alcohol consumption), nutrient soil levels, cultural
dietary practices, dependence upon processed foods, prescription drug usage,
individual health status and other factors may not be encompassed by a
one-size fits all "upper limits" standard. For example, the safe range
for vitamin D consumption is not likely to be sufficient to prevent immune
system dysfunction among Blacks living in northern climates in winter months
(dark skin pigmentation reduces natural vitamin D production). Likewise,
the safe upper limit may not accommodate the! need for folic acid by fertile
Caucasian females living in equatorial climates (solar ultraviolet radiation
significantly reduces folic acid levels among light-skinned individuals). </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">3. There is concern that "tolerable upper
limits" will be intentionally set at levels that will be below therapeutic
dosages. Consumers are fully aware that pervasive pharmaceutical interests,
which exert influence through corporate ownership or material supply, may
sway "upper tolerable limits" in food supplements so as not to compete
with prescription drugs. The public is aware that the biological action
of virtually every prescription drug can be duplicated with nutritional
supplements and that the therapeutic effect of many nutrients depends upon
dosage. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">4. The fact that a profit-minded group
of manufacturers is entrusted with the establishment of such an important
standard is questionable on its face. Manufacturers may not represent the
interests of consumers who desire to use food supplements as part of a
health maintenance regimen. The validity of an "upper limits" standard
may later be called into question should the public not have a voice in
their formation. For example, a court recently threw out the well-publicized
food pyramid when its authors were found to have conflicts of interest
with food suppliers. Without notice or ample opportunity for public comment,
the National Academy of Sciences recently introduced tolerable upper limits
for antioxidant vitamins. These maximal limits were apparently established
without scientific consensus (see the report below on vitamin C). </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">5. The establishment of "tolerable upper
limits" is likely to be based upon outdated or inaccurate information.
Recently published scientific studies indicate the daily dosage levels
for vitamin B12, vitamin D, iron, calcium, folic acid, and other nutrients
may need to be re-evaluated. There is concern that the latest science may
not be included in the development of the maximum nutrient levels. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">For example, much of the information provided
in nutritional textbooks, regarding vitamins A and D is outdated. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Consumers are mistakenly warned by the
US Food and Drug Administration that excessive vitamin A supplementation
can produce a toxic liver buildup. However, an estimated 30-60 cases of
vitamin A overdose are reported annually, while over a million older Americans
report symptoms of night vision problems due to a lack of vitamin A. Cases
of liver/vitamin A toxicity often involve alcoholics and others who have
liver disease. Vitamin A toxicity is completely reversible. The US FDA
has only chosen to warn doctors and consumers of the potential for vitamin
A overdose without a balanced reporting on vitamin A deficiencies. The
only reported case of mortality from vitamin A toxicity involved a hunter
in Canada who consumed bear liver, which provided over 1 million units
of vitamin A. There is concern over birth defects with high-dose vitamin
A supplementation, but conflicting studies are still a puzzlement. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Due to the potential risk of liver buildup,
the US FDA restricts vitamin supplements to no more than 1000 international
units of vitamin D per pill. However, blood levels of vitamin D do not
even rise till 5000 units is consumed, and the full-body skin exposure
to midday sunlight in a mid-equatorial zone in the summer would produce
10,000 units of vitamin D, which completely confounds any notion that vitamin
D is toxic. Toxicity from vitamin D does not begin till 40,000 units of
vitamin D are consumed daily for an extended period of time. [<i>American
Journal Clinical Nutrition</i> 69: 842-56, 1999] Doctors used to inject
50,000 units of vitamin D for therapeutic purposes. Vitamin D3 is the proper
form of vitamin D for human nutrition. The inferior form of vitamin D,
vitamin D2, is provided in milk. [Am Journal Clinical Nutrition 68: 854-88,
1998] </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">6. The exclusion of certain nutrients from
the "maximum level" list may unfairly infer that they are not necessary
for human nutrition. There is evidence that certain nutrients should be
added to the list of essential life factors. This list may include nutrients
such as lutein, sulfur, phytic acid/inositol hexaphosphate (IP6), essential
fatty acids, and others. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">There is no daily requirement established
for essential omega-3 fatty acids, even though 8 in 10 Americans do not
consume adequate amounts of these fats. Omega-3s are required for maintenance
of the nervous system (myelin sheath), production of hormones, reduction
of inflammation, lining of the retinal photoreceptors, control of triglycerides
and regulation of immune system. An estimated 20 percent of Americans do
not exhibit detectable levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their tissues.
Essential omega-3 fats have been removed from eggs, meat, grain and even
fish. This is largely a result of the use of feeding pens for domesticated
animals. Chickens, turkeys, hogs and steers are all fed corn meal rather
than foraging in the wild for foods that are a source of omega-3 fatty
acids. Grass-fed animal meat will provide a significant amount of omega-3
fatty acids, whereas animals sent to the feeding pen two weeks prior to
slaughter will provide little or no omega-3 fatty acids and plentiful amounts
of saturated fat. [http://www.eatwild.com] </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">The widespread use of processed grains
also eliminates omega-3s from the human food chain. Cereals and grains
are engineered for storage, not human nutrition. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Finally, the practice of fish farming prevents
fish from acquiring the phytoplanktons that are the source of omega-3s
for waterborne animals. The result is an omega-3 nutritional deficiency
that is of epidemic proportion. Nearly every human being now must supplement
their diet to acquire maintenance levels of omega-3 fatty acids. For health
officials to ignore this nutritional deficiency is akin to ignoring outbreaks
of pellagra and beri beri over a century ago. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">The need for omega-3 fats is particularly
critical among newborns, even more so among preemies. Currently, infant
formulas do not provide these essential fats, though the Food & Drug
Administration is soon due to make a statement regarding the provision
of omega-3 fats in infant formulas. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">There is also no daily requirement for
sulfur, a mineral required for the production of glutathione, the major
antioxidant produced within all living cells (plants, insects, animals,
humans). Glutathione consumption from foods ranges from 25-125 milligrams
per day. With the provision of sufficient amounts of sulfur, the liver
will produce far more glutathione (up to 14,000 milligrams per day) than
what the diet provides. Sulfur-rich foods (garlic, eggs, asparagus, onions)
may be lacking in various diets and the provision of sulfur in food supplements
(sulfur-bearing amino acids like N-acetyl cysteine, taurine, and lipoic
acid) or glutathione itself, may be advantageous. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">There is now ample evidence that lutein,
a cousin of beta carotene, is essential for maintenance of the human visual
system. Lutein requirements increase dramatically among blue-eyed individuals
who have far less of this antioxidant pigment at the back of their eyes
than brown-eyed individuals and are at a 2000% increased risk of developing
loss of central vision (macular degeneration) in their lifetime. Lutein
is not currently considered an essential nutrient. It is unlikely that
the at-risk population will consume the 3-5 weekly servings of spinach
or kale (equivalent to 6 milligrams of daily lutein), required to prevent
ocular disease. [<i>Journal Am Medical Assn </i>272: 1413-20, 1994] Lutein
food supplements appear to be practical and economical. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">When husks (bran) were separated from rice,
the B vitamins were removed, which led to deficiency diseases of pellagra
and beri beri. However, in addition to B vitamins, these rice polishings
(bran) provided phytic acid (IP6), also called inositol hexaphosphate,
an important mineral binder and antioxidant. [<i>Free Radical Biology Medicine</i>
8: 61-69, 1990; <i>J Biological Chemistry</i> 262: 11647-50, 1987] IP6
is found in every living cell in the body and is also an important second
messenger for the nervous system. The low consumption of whole grains has
led to reduced consumption of IP6 and the development of iron, copper and
calcium overload diseases (hemochromatosis, Wilson's disease, kidney stones,
mitral valve, calcium cataracts) and other iron-overload sequelae such
as hypertension, atherosclerosis, brain disorders, liver disease, colon
cancer and other maladies. IP6-phytic acid has been mistakenly branded
as an anti-nutrient because it interferes with mineral absorption among
growing children. Nutritionists fail to recognize that most of the anemia
in developing countries is caused by intestinal parasites, not the lack
of iron, and that nature favors iron anemia over iron overload, since iron
is a major growth factor for bacteria, viruses, fungi and tumor cells.
Bran has never been fully restored to the food supply, and the world is
still suffering from deficiency diseases. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">7. There is concern that the establishment
of "tolerable upper limits" would cause some consumers to needlessly seek
the counsel of a physician or other health professional when high-dose
vitamin usage is in question. Doctors are solely oriented to prescribe
prescription drugs and are notoriously known to harbor prejudices against
food supplements. Despite their theoretical widespread application in disease
prevention and treatment, less than 1 percent of all doctors' prescriptions
are for nutritional supplements. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">8. There is concern that high-dose pills
would only be available via a doctor's prescription, which would raise
costs to consumers. <b>Nutritional supplements that are sold without prescription
in the USA are only available through a doctor's prescription in many other
countries.</b> If employed in the USA, this practice would serve to drive
up consumer costs and stunt the practice of self care and preventive care. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">9. There is concern that the establishment
of a "tolerable upper limit," without accompanying information regarding
the type, severity and reversibility of any side effects, would induce
undue alarm among consumers. For example, if a consumer is only informed
of a maximum level of consumption and no further information is provided,
then the consumer may be misled into thinking potential side effects are
of a serious, or even lethal, nature. Specifically, if an upper limit of
consumption is established for magnesium, and excessive dosage may produce
known symptoms of "loose stool," then this fact should be provided to consumers
with the notation that the remedy is to reduce the dosage and that this
symptom is completely reversible. Similarly, excessive consumption of vitamin
C may produce temporary symptoms of diarrhea, a symptom that is completely
reversible with discontinuance or reduced dosage. Other examples
of reversible side effects are neuropathy from high-dose vitamin
B6 (pyridoxine), nausea from high-dose iron, facial flushing from high-dose
niacin, and headaches and breast tenderness from high-dose vitamin E. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">10. There is concern that once maximal
limits are established, and the concept has been adopted, it will be easy
to arbitrarily change the numbers. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">11. There is concern that health care consumers
have no unbiased governing bodies to turn to in regards to accessibility
to food supplements. As stated above, physicians have inherent conflicts
of interest since nutritional supplements currently do not require their
prescription. There has been continued reluctance by the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, the Food & Drug Administration,
and other governmental health offices, to endorse habitual use of food
supplements. Dietary practices (fruits and vegetables) and food fortification
are favored over supplementation. <b><i>The new standard is likely to stop
short of supplementation in favor of dietary consumption at the low end,
and will stop short of therapeutic action at the top range. </i></b></font>
<p><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica">The cost of non-supplementation </font></b>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Only recently did the US Food & Drug
Administration concede to demands for more folic acid via food fortification.
Foot dragging on folic acid led to many more babies being born with birth
defects. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">After spending millions of dollars, the
Five-A-Day program, promoted by the National Institutes of Health, is a
failure. Repeated studies indicate only a minority of the population consumes
the recommended five servings of fresh fruits and vegetables on a daily
basis. After repeated public information campaigns aimed at increasing
the consumption of fruits and vegetables, the proportion of adults who
actually say they consume 5 servings of plant foods a day only increased
from 19 to 23 percent from 1990 to 1996. [<i>Am Journal Public Health </i>90:
777-81, 2000] Nutritional supplementation may be a practical and economic
way of filling nutritional gaps in the population at large. </font>
<p><b><i><font face="Arial,Helvetica">The reluctance of the US health authorities
to endorse food supplements in favor of plant-food diets and food fortification
is costing the US health care system dearly. </font></i></b>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">The<i> Western Journal of Medicine</i>
reports that the provision of folic acid and zinc containing multivitamins
by all women of childbearing age, and daily supplementation of vitamin
E for adults over age 50, would reduce hospital charges by $20 billion
annually. [<i>Western Journal Medicine</i> 166: 306-12, 1997] If all at-risk
Americans took the recommended amounts of vitamin supplements, the managed
care industry would save approximately $5.5 billion. [<i>Managed Care Interface</i>
11: 95-99, 1998] The National Defense Council Foundation indicates the
provision of food supplements to active and retired military personnel
would reduce health care costs by $6.3 billion annually. [Press Release
May 22, 1997] </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">While pharmaceutical companies lure retirees
into lobbying for a national prescription drug program, they are never
told that nutritional supplements will do far more to promote health, without
the side effects and costs of prescription drugs. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">12. There is concern that maximal upper
limits may not accommodate the nutritional needs of specific organs in
the body. Nutritional authorities have given too much attention to achieving
minimal and maximal blood levels of nutrients, which may not be an adequate
measure of nutrients in specific tissues. For example, it has been stated
that the blood circulation becomes saturated with vitamin C at about 240
milligrams. Even when saturation has been achieved in the blood plasma,
the provision of 2000 milligrams of vitamin C further increases the levels
of vitamin C in the aqueous fluid of the human eye by 35 percent. Higher
levels of vitamin C are required in the aqueous fluid of the eye than in
the blood circulation because the human eye is transparent and is prone
to harm by products of oxidation (hydrogen peroxide) emanating from exposure
to solar ultraviolet radiation. Much higher levels of vitamin C are required
to prevent cataracts than to prevent scurvy. The daily amount of vitamin
C required to prevent cataracts is in the range of 300-2000 milligrams
(the equivalent of 6-30 oranges), which exceeds the best dietary consumption
(about 200-250 milligrams from consumption of five servings of fruits and
vegetables). The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) now considers 2000
milligrams of vitamin C as "toxic." [See my addendum regarding the issuance
of new recommendations for antioxidants by the NAS below.] The human eye
has greater need for vitamin C, lutein, vitamin E, glutathione and vitamin
A, than most other tissues in the body. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">13. There is concern that food fortification
may be offered as an option to the establishment of higher therapeutic
doses of supplemental vitamins and minerals. However, food fortification
may not be adequate in all instances. The National Academy of Sciences
recently reported that Americans fall short of magnesium requirements by
about 200 milligrams per day. It is difficult to fortify food with this
bulky mineral, and it is not easily incorporated into flour and bread.
Only bottled water provides a medium for the delivery of magnesium in the
diet. Thus supplementation rather than food fortification may be required
to meet human needs. Furthermore, where foods are heated prior to consumption,
nutrient values may be diminished. Consider that flour and cereals are
now being fortified with higher levels of folic acid, a B vitamin known
to prevent birth defects among newborns (spina bifida). But folic acid,
as well as all B vitamins, is easily destroyed by heat from baking or toasting.
Food fortification is a success, but it may </font>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica">not prevent all nutritional shortages. </font>
<p><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Why no opposition to "harmonization"? </font></b>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Why has there been no opposition to the
harmonization of dietary supplements? The dietary supplements sector working
group of the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue, Citizens for Health, the
Council for Responsible Nutrition, the National Nutritional Foods Association,
and other organizations, have not voiced serious objection to the establishment
of tolerable upper limits of nutritional supplements. This goes unexplained.
Either ignorance or conflicts of interest within these organizations, has
resulted in inaction and a lock-step movement towards the establishment
of "tolerable upper limits." Vital health freedoms are about to be swept
under the bus in the name of harmonization. </font>
<p><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Conclusion</font></b>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Centuries ago mankind could only dream
of finding remedies that would prevent infections, eradicate blinding cataracts,
avert heart stoppage, hinder tumors, and forestall aging. Now that mankind
has discovered that these health benefits are achieved through the provision
of concentrated nutritional factors, the idea to establish harmonized dosages
runs contrary to the progress of western civilization. Consumer access
to high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements may save the economies of
western civilizations. </font>
<p><b><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Addendum </font></b>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica">(Previously published in <i>Whole Foods
Magazine</i>)</font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Recently the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) issued dietary antioxidant recommendations. The new recommendations
call for 90 mg. for vitamin C for healthy adults, up from 60 mg per day
under the previous standard. Yet the government keeps preaching five servings
of fresh fruits and vegetables, which supplies more than 200 mg. of vitamin
C. [<i>Am J Clin Nut</i> 62: 1347-56S, 1995] These two figures don't correlate.
Just months before the 90 mg vitamin C recommendation was issued, various
government scientists were calling for 120-200 mg per day in published
reports. [<i>Proc Natl Acad Sci</i> 93: 3704-09, 1996; <i>Nutrition Reviews</i>
57: 222-24, 1999; <i>Am J Clin Nut</i> 69: 1086-1107, 1999] One researcher
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory of Human Nutrition,
using a technique called saturation kinetics, suggested that even the 200-mg
level was not adequate to meet individual vitamin! C needs by as much as
2-3 fold. [<i>Proc Natl Acad Sci</i> 93: 14344,48, 1996] </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">While the Food & Nutrition Board suggested
adding another 35 mg of vitamin C for smokers (125 mg total), researchers
at the Medical College of Wisconsin found that it takes 200 mg of vitamin
C before smokers achieve the same serum levels of ascorbic acid as non-smokers.
[<i>Am J Clin Nut</i> 53: 1466-70, 1991] Other investigators have called
for 200-mg daily consumption of vitamin C for smokers. [<i>Ann NY Acad
Sci</i> 686: 335-46, 1993] Swedish investigators demonstrated that a single
2000 mg dose of vitamin C can completely abolish the typical reduction
in blood circulation that occurs while smoking a cigarette. A 1000 mg dose
had no effect. [<i>Microvascular Res</i> 58: 305-11, 1999] </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">What happened to these recommendations?
<b>The
NAS recommendations conveniently stopped short of recommending levels of
vitamin C that would require supplementation.</b> The Academy of Sciences
set the tolerable upper limit at 2000 mg, but a recent review indicated
doses of vitamin C up to 4000 mg. are well tolerated. [<i>Nut Rev</i> 57:
71-77, 1999] Eight placebo-controlled, double-blind studies and six non-placebo
clinical trials in which up to 10,000 mg of vitamin C was consumed daily
for up to 3 years confirm the safety of vitamin C in high doses. [<i>J
Am Coll Nut </i>14: 124-36, 1995] Yet the headline in the press release
from the National Academy of Sciences concerning antioxidants read "huge
doses considered risky." </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Furthermore, Maret Traber PhD, a member
of the NAS panel, says there is "no evidence that proves antioxidant supplements
will help people live better longer." [Whole Foods Magazine, August 2000]
Really? There was a UCLA study, which showed that greater than 300 mg of
daily vitamin C increases the male life span by six years, a report that
was widely reported in Newsweek and other periodicals. [<i>Epidemiology</i>
3: 194-202, 1992] A recent study confirms that finding. [<i>Epidemiology</i>
11: 440-45, 2000] </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Furthermore, one study shows that about
294 mg of vitamin C significantly decreases the risk of cataracts compared
to 77 mg. per day (about the level set by the Academy of Sciences). [<i>Clin
Chem</i> 39: 1305, 1993] To get that much vitamin C a person would have
to consume 5 oranges per day. Daily consumption of vitamin C supplements
for 10 years or more results in a 77-83 percent reduction in the prevalence
of cataracts. [<i>Am J Clin Nut</i> 66: 911-16, 1997] </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">One of the fallacies of current vitamin
C research is the use of blood serum levels as the gold standard for establishing
recommended daily consumption levels. A 1991 study, conducted at the USDA
Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, found that
there were "striking differences" in ocular levels of vitamin C among older
adults who consume 148 mg of vitamin C from their daily diet (which is
2.5 times the old 60 mg RDA and 1.6 times the current 90 mg recommendation)
compared to adults who took 2000 mg daily from supplements. The level of
vitamin C in the focusing lens and aqueous fluid of the eye increased by
22-32 percent with consumption of 2000 mg of daily vitamin C supplementation,
which affords protection against cataracts. Thus the idea that vitamin
C levels reach a saturation point at about 240 mg in the blood serum, and
that additional vitamin C is worthless and only washes out in the urine,
is dispelled by this research. [<i>Current Eye Research</i> 8: 751-59,
1991] This is the same level of vitamin C that the National Academy of
Sciences now considers "risky." [NAS press release April 10, 2000] </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">The message the National Academy of Sciences
sends is always the same, regardless of the evidence, which is that you
can get all the nutrients you need from your diet, not pills. But this
recommendation comes with asterisks. The fine print reads that the NAS
recommendation is only for healthy individuals, and it only spells out
"the minimum amount of a nutrient that has beneficial health effects."
The NAS says the effects of antioxidants are "promising but unproven." </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">How much evidence is enough? The answers
provided by the NAS Food and Nutrition Board members amount to doublespeak.
The discussion becomes almost unintelligible with all the talk about daily
value, Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA), USRDA, daily reference intake
(DRI) and tolerable upper level. Which consumer, let alone rocket scientist,
can decipher these standards so they can make an intelligent health decision? </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">One assumption is that people don't need
antioxidant supplement until they become unhealthy. But the <b>Journal
of the American Medical Association admits the destructive process of oxidation
is involved in virtually every disease. </b>[J Am Med Assn 271: 1148-49,
1994] Aging, disease and antioxidant status often parallel each other.
Living tissues slowly age or wear out, they don't become ill overnight.
For example, the focusing lens of the human eye loses about 1 percent of
its clarity for every year of life. Cataract formation is universal and
slowly progressive with advancing age. By age 60 only about 35 percent
of light reaches the retina. By age 85 a person needs a 250-watt light
bulb to see what they saw with a 60-watt light bulb when they were 20 years
old. The level of vitamin C in the lens <i>of the eye has been correlated
with severity of cataract. Internatl J Vitamin Nutr Res</i> 68: 309-15,
1998] If an individual consumes the minimum amount of vitamin C that produces
healthful benefits (90 mg. per day by the NAS standards), and waits till
they develop a cataract to take more vitamin C, it will probably be too
late to reverse a cataract. About 300-2000 mg per day of vitamin C would
be required to prevent cataracts, according to the data at hand. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">NAS panel member Maret Traber, Ph.D., says
"it was disappointing that the news media focused on the 'new' upper limits
for vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium, rather than the 'new requirements'."
But it was the NAS themselves who chose to issue a press release that carried
the headline "Antioxidants' role in chronic disease prevention still uncertain;
huge doses considered risky." Their own press release didn't emphasize
the fact that their report called for an increase in the daily intake of
vitamins C and E. The NAS can't entirely shift the blame onto the news
media. While these experts admit that the news media mistakenly emphasized
the tolerable-upper limits issued by the NAS panel of experts, the panel
members apparently did nothing to correct the problem either. They could
have written to the news media. Apparently none did. </font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><b>Email your Senators and Congressperson
today! </b><a href="http://congress.org/">http://congress.org/</a></font>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica">.
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Article copyright 2000 Knowledge of Health,
Inc. Reprinted with permission of the author.</font>
<br><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=-1>You may circulate this document
on the Internet. But it is not to be re-produced or distributed for commercial
purposes or posted on the Internet without permission. </font></font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">(The opinions expressed on this page are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of DoctorYourself.com)</font>
<p><font face="Arial,Helvetica">Notes below by John Hammell, of International
Advocates for Health Freedom (<a href="http://www.iahf.com">http://www.iahf.com</a>),
whom I thank for first bringing Mr. Sardi's article to my attention:</font>
<p><i><font face="Arial,Helvetica">"Bill Sardi (<a href="mailto:BSardi@aol.com">BSardi@aol.com</a>)
is one of the unsung heros, and he has really come through for the vitamin
consumers of the world with this well researched, well written, well documented
report. </font></i>
<p><i><font face="Arial,Helvetica">"Sardi asks a very good question at
the end of his article: he wants to know why there has been NO EFFORT on
the part of supposed "Health Freedom Organizations" world wide to bring
the information contained within his article to light? </font></i>
<p><i><font face="Arial,Helvetica">"Is our health freedom being hijacked?
In another 5 months, unless massive grass roots opposition can be mustered
within the EU, all 15 EU countries will soon walk in lockstep with Germany
and France, and the USA could be set up like a bowling pin at CODEX in
2002. </font></i>
<p><i><font face="Arial,Helvetica">"You think your access to dietary supplements
is secure here in the USA or anywhere else in the world? Better think again!
Jeanne Grimmett of the Congressional Research Service published an article
titled "Dispute Settlement" which documents the fact that NONE of our (US)
domestic laws is safe from harmonization to rapidly emerging international
standards, most of which go diametrically against the environment and against
the public health. </font></i>
<p><i><font face="Arial,Helvetica"></font></i>
<br><i><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><a href="http://www.iahf.com">http://www.iahf.com</a>
Telephone Toll-Free 1-800-333-2553" </font></i>
<p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<center><a href="contact.html"><img SRC="images/e-mail.gif" BORDER=0 height=60 width=55></a>
<br><a href="contact.html">Andrew Saul, PhD</a></center>
</td>
<td></td>
<td>
<hr WIDTH="100%"><font size=-2>AN IMPORTANT NOTE: This page is not
in any way offered as prescription, diagnosis nor treatment for any disease,
illness, infirmity or physical condition. Any form of self-treatment
or alternative health program necessarily must involve an individual's
acceptance of some risk, and no one should assume otherwise. Persons
needing medical care should obtain it from a physician. Consult your
doctor before making any health decision. </font>
<p><font size=-2>Neither the author nor the webmaster has authorized the
use of their names or the use of any material contained within in connection
with the sale, promotion or advertising of any product or apparatus. Single-copy
reproduction for individual, non-commercial use is permitted providing
no alterations of content are made, and credit is given.</font>
<br>
<hr WIDTH="100%"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>
<center><font face="Arial,Helvetica"><font size=-1>| <a href="index.html">Home</a>
| <a href="order.html">Order my Books</a> | <a href="aboutme.html">About
the Author</a> | <a href="contact.html">Contact Us</a> | <a href="webmaster.html">Webmaster</a>
|</font></font></center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- ADD TBlock1 ===================== -->
<a name="translator_block"></a>
<br>
<div id="MicrosoftTranslatorWidget" style="width: 200px; min-height: 0px; border-color: #3A5770; background-color: #78ADD0;">
<noscript>
<a href="http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.doctoryourself.com%2f">
Translate this page
</a>
<br />
Powered by
<a href="http://www.microsofttranslator.com">
Microsoft® Translator
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
/* <![CDATA[ */
setTimeout(function()
{ var s = document.createElement("script");
s.type = "text/javascript"; s.charset = "UTF-8";
s.src = "http://www.microsofttranslator.com/Ajax/V2/Widget.aspx?mode=manual&from=en&layout=ts";
var p = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.documentElement;
p.insertBefore(s, p.firstChild); }, 0);
/* ]]> */
</script>
<br>
<!-- ===================== -->
<!-- Use this block only in a REPLACE statement : it contains extra characters ! -->
<!-- ===================== -->
<!-- Note: -must- "escape" the "</body>" in the s.src line on find-and-replace ===================== -->
<!-- END ADD TBlock1 ===================== -->
</body>
</html>
|
