An Open Letter to Consumer Reports: 10 Misinformation Hazards in Your “10 Surprising Dangers of Vitamins and Supplements” Article

By James J. Gormley

It is personally disappointing for me that Consumer Reports, the flagship of the respected marketplace-empowerment organization, Consumers Union, has once again seen fit to arm the American consumer with detrimental misinformation regarding safe, beneficial food supplements.

In the alarmist piece which appears in the September 2012 issue, the anti-supplement subtitle reads: “Don’t assume they’re safe because they’re all natural.”

Here are the “10 Surprising Dangers” along with some accurate information and perspective:

“1. Supplements are not risk free.”
With 3,000 deaths and 128,000 hospitalizations a year from food poisoning, it is clear that nothing in life is risk-free, but we already knew this. It would be of better service to do an expose on the dangers of properly prescribed pharmaceuticals, which injure over 1 million and kill over 100,00 Americans each year in hospitals alone. The subtitle on a prescription drugs-focused article could read: “Don’t assume they’re safe because they’re FDA-approved.”

The fact of the matter is that food supplements are inherently benign and pharmaceuticals are inherently dangerous; they are part of a completely different risk paradigm. With the millions of supplements sold and safely used every year, dietary supplements have an enviable consumer safety record.

Since the 1994 enactment of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), FDA has had the authority to remove any dietary supplement from the market if FDA shows that it presents "a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury" or that it contains "a poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health." In fact, the FDA can act immediately against any product that poses an "imminent hazard to public health or safety." With the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, the FDA’s mandatory recall authority was affirmed and expanded.

Recently released data from risk-management expert Ron Law confirmed that food supplements are by far the safest substances that people are exposed to daily (http://tinyurl.com/ron-law-data).

“2. Some supplements are really prescription drugs.”
Supplements are a class of food, not drugs, so drugs masquerading as supplements is a drug adulteration problem best handled by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), something which I and Citizens for Health have been calling for since early 2010 (http://tinyurl.com/dea-should-take-over), which is now being supported by industry as well (http://tinyurl.com/dea-and-steroids).

“3. You can overdose on vitamins and minerals.”
With only a few exceptions (e.g., iron, selenium, zinc, vitamin A), even with the dosages found in high-potency supplements there is a window of safety on supplements of several hundred percent; in fact, most supplements are so safe that no upper limit can even be determined. What we really have to worry about are the over 13,000 truly dangerous prescription drugs on the market with known side effects.

“4. You can’t depend on warning labels.”
True, but since dietary supplements are inherently benign with a margin of safety a mile wide, there is virtually nothing to warn consumers about. To be conservative, many products carry cautions relating to consumption by children and pregnant/breastfeeding women, but this is more to protect companies from actions stemming from gross misuse.

“5. None are proven to cure major diseases.”
The same can be said for prescription drugs. And even if they did, supplement manufacturers would not be allowed to tell consumers about it. Regardless, supplements are complements to the diet not substitutes for healthy food and physical activity.

“6. Buy with caution from botanicas.”
I would venture to say that apart from cities bordering Mexico, over 99.999% of herbal products are sold through mainstream channels of trade. We could also say “don’t buy prescription pain killers” on the black market or from peddlers in back alleys, but some level of common sense usually prevails.

“7. Heart and cancer protection: not proven.”
The American Heart Association recommends a diet rich in marine-based omega-3s, and the U.S. government has approved health claims for vitamin D and calcium supplementation. In 2005, Harvard researchers estimated that low intake of omega-3s in the U.S. diet accounted for 72,000 to 96,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease. There have been numerous animal studies showing direct cancer prevention with omega-3s and epidemiological studies associating high levels of dietary omega-3s with reduced rates of cancer.

“8. Choking.”
Now Consumer Reports is really reaching. Anybody who tries to dry-swallow any pill can experience a gag reflex, which is not a problem unique to any one class of products.

“9. Some natural products are anything but.”
Most dietary ingredients are analogues of natural extracts; technologists are not standing around with wooden mallets, mortars and pestles. There are only one or two cases where a true synthetic is not as efficacious as a natural source nutrient, and that is with vitamin E.

“10. You may not need supplements at all.”
But we need drugs? For decades the USDA has shown that most of us do not get anywhere near a basic level of vitamins and minerals from the standard American diet, so it would be a rare person indeed who would not stand to benefit from a multivitamin/multimineral supplement at the very least.

Although Consumers Union has a long, and illustrious, track record in advocating for consumers, Consumer Reports appears to have a bug in its bonnet regarding dietary supplements, either that or single-copy newsstand sales soar when “supplements are bad” stories are run.

This is unfortunate, since scare-mongering re safe, well-regulated and effective dietary supplements will, at best, only serve to unfairly cause consumers to wrongly distrust a beneficial class of products and, at worst, drive even more Americans away from responsible self-care into the welcoming arms of drug-happy conventional medicine.

That’s not what I call consumer advocacy.

Senate Vote Puts Net Neutrality Rules in Jeopardy

Consumers Union Urges Senators to Support an Open Internet
WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the Senate gears up to vote on a proposal to repeal the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet rules, Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, sent a letter to Capitol Hill yesterday urging lawmakers to reject the proposal and keep the Internet open for consumers.

“The FCC’s Open Internet rules simply make it harder for internet providers to play favorites by speeding up or slowing down content over their networks. Consumers expect and deserve to be able to freely surf the internet. To do away with these rules goes against the very nature of the Internet’s open marketplace,” said Parul P. Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union.

The Congressional Review Act before the Senate (S.J. Res. 6) would eliminate the current FCC rules and hobble the FCC when it comes to keeping the Internet open. President Obama yesterday announced that he would veto the Senate legislation, saying an open Internet is critical to job creation, economic growth, and global competitiveness.

Desai said, “The overwhelming majority of stakeholders -- consumers, small businesses, unions, religious organizations and minority groups -- agree that the Open Internet rules are needed and that the FCC has the authority to implement and enforce these rules. We urge the Senate to vote no on this proposal. Rejecting this measure would ensure consumers could continue to use the Internet equally.”

For a full copy of the letter, please contact David Butler or Kara Kelber of Consumers Union.

### Contact:
David Butler or Kara Kelber, 202-462-6262

America, Let's Tell the FCC That The Internet Must Stay Free

By James J. Gormley
Courtesy of American Chronicle

On August 23rd, Verizon's lobbyist Tom Tauke gave a speech at a trade forum sponsored by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) where he, according to Free Press, defended his company's recent net neutrality pact with Google.

According to FreePress.net, "Tauke claimed that the two companies proposal fulfills the president's campaign promise of non-discrimination and transparency on the Internet, but the pact," said Free Press, would exclude all wireless internet connections, and would even bar the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from "having any authority to make and enforce net neutrality rules, instead requiring it to defer to a third-party industry group."

"Verizon is simply dead wrong in claiming their farce of a framework would fulfill President Obama's net neutrality promises," said Free Press research director S. Derek Turner in a statement. "Verizon can't hide the fact that, if enacted, this pact would mark the end of the open Internet era."

"The Google-Verizon deal contains no protections for wireless access, which accounts for nearly one-third of all Internet connections, giving Verizon and other ISPs [internet service providers] the green light to block or degrade content on their wireless networks," added Turner. "In addition, it would allow internet service providers to discriminate online by offering private Internet services alongside those on the 'public' Internet. As a candidate, Obama himself opposed the two-tiered Internet this proposal would create."

"The simple fact is Verizon and Google cooked this scheme to carve up the Internet among themselves and other industry giants because they fear competition on the free and open internet," Turner said in conclusion. "It's up to [FCC] Chairman Genachowski and the FCC, not Verizon or Google, to fulfill President Obama's promises to preserve net neutrality."

Other groups criticized the new talks, as well. Instead of more industry discussions, the FCC should move to pass formal net neutrality rules, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director at the Media Access Project, in the August 24th edition of CIO in an article by Grant Gross. "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has pushed for formal net neutrality rules after an appeals court in April struck down the agency's attempt to enforce informal principles after Comcast (CMCSA) slowed customers' access to a peer-to-peer service," Gross wrote.

All somewhat puzzling given this statement by Google's Eric Schmidt way back in 2006:

"The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called 'net neutrality' – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom. In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the internet.[...]

"Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay."

It would be hard to disagree with what Google said in 2006, although consumer advocates are rightly concerned that in August 2010 Google and Verizon have just drafted a "new policy framework" on net neutrality that would support an "almost free" internet in which wired broadban would be free whereas wireless – the real future of the internet – would not be free.

According to Anthony Carranza in the Examiner.com, "Among those who strongly criticized this proposal was Senator Al Franken when he summed up that the maneuvers from these major corporations such as Google and Verizon are going to trample the first amendment of the constitution since it would oppress freedom of expression online."

Video from Sen. Franken's talk can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjYpz5TQSlE&feature=player_embedded

It is time for Americans who want net neutrality to speak up and tell the FCC what it needs, which is to support President Obama's vision of a truly free, not an almost free, internet.

On or before September 20, 2010, consumers can file comments on the FCC web site in reference to "WC Docket No. 09-197." According to the FCC, comments may be filed using the Commission´s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS.

And remember, those who wish to support a free internet should consider denying the request of internet wireless (i-wireless) to be exempt from (or to "forbear from") the net neutrality freedoms that the rest of the internet would have.

Those who wish an almost free internet, well you know what to do – just visit those corporate sites to find out.