What most consumers do not know is that dietary supplements can lead to mild side effects or even life threatening problems and sometimes death. For example, some supplements that contain ingredients such as caffeine, ephedrine, or GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate) can lead to increased heart rate, splitting headaches, and increased chances of a heat stroke. Ephedrine is often sold as “herbal energy” products and promoted for weight loss and energy boosts. The downside is that ephedrine can have “serious side effects on the heart and central nervous system, as well as raising core body temperature and decreasing the body’s ability to cool.”

A dietary supplement is any product in “pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid form containing vitamins, minerals, herbs, or other botanicals, amino acids, or other known dietary substance that is intended as a supplement to the normal diet.”

So what does all that mean?

In layman’s terms, a dietary supplement is basically anything taken “intended to supplement the diet.” (This includes a vast array of products.)  The problem is that dietary supplements are not regulated under the same regulations as ordinary food and drug products.  The FDA regulates only “quality control and good manufacturing processes, but does not ensure standardization of the active ingredients or efficacy.”

Many people assume that these supplements are safe and effective for treating specific situations because they are natural and have been used as traditional medicinal purposes. However, the FDA does not require manufacturers of dietary supplements to prove safety or efficacy and most supplements have not been carefully studied. Further, lack of regulation and government monitoring also means that supplements are not monitored to ensure that they contain the ingredients or amount of active ingredient the manufacturer claims they contain.

Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed.” The DSHEA places dietary supplements in a special category under the general umbrella of “foods,” not drugs, and requires that every supplement be labeled a “dietary supplement.”

In some instances, dietary supplements may be linked to death. For example, in 2002, Douglas Page wrote on an article outlining the surge of the increasing heat stroke deaths among football players. Although supplements may not be the direct cause of death, Julian Bailes, M.D. and chair of neurosurgery at West Virginia University, states that heatstroke fatalities may, in part, be attributable or aggravated by the use of dietary supplements.

This post is not meant to bash supplements. In fact, I am a big fan of taking supplements because they can be used effectively to lose weight, gain energy, or improve health. However, like anything, is it crucial to understand the power of these supplements and to use them in moderation.  Education in the dangers of “over the counter” supplements and their misuse and potential side effects will curb certain individuals from unwanted effects, life threatening dehydration, and heatstroke.

As a consumer, especially of new products, it is crucial that you read the label and start with a small dose, especially if you are not used to taking similar products or have prior health problems. Dietary supplements can be great tools for improving one’s health and appearance as long as they are taken with care and caution.  

Resources

bastyrcenter.org/content/view/665/
www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/default.htm
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_05/b3969068.htm
home.earthlink.net/~douglaspage/id63.html
www.merck.com/mmpe/sec22/ch331/ch331a.html
www.fda.gov

To give you an understanding and background on my stance, I am an avid exercise enthusiast who is concerned about my health and eating habits. Although I realize some may not put much emphasis on their health, there are numerous reasons to do so besides physical appearance. My article is solely my opinion and an endeavor to advocate food safety and health awareness by persuading consumers to read labels; thus improving their health and way of life.

With the economy in a slump, one of the main concerns with obesity is the increasing annual health cost. A study showed that obese Americans cost the U.S. about $147 billion in weight related medical bills in 2008, double of what it was a decade ago. In fact, obesity was responsible for “9.1 percent of annual medical costs in 2006 compared with 6.5 percent in 1998.” Further, “people who are obese spent $1,429 (42 percent) more for medical care in 2006 than people with normal weight did.” The benefits of eating healthier not only help the consumer lose weight, but are also a cost-effective way for improving public health. A number of recommendations have been suggested to help decrease this number.

What’s ONE solution to decreasing obesity? According to a study by The Neilson Company, only 21 percent of U.S. consumers always check the nutritional information on food packaging. Further, research by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) illustrates few consumers actually understand how the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) fits in with their daily diet. The IFIC is making an impact by researching how to “effectively communicate science-based information on health, nutrition, and food safety for the public good.” Hopefully, this research will help bridge the “disconnect” between consumers and their awareness.

I submit that most nutrition labels are neither appealing nor motivating to read (albeit some intentionally). The IFIC’s study reveals that many factors and influences impact consumer food choices. Understanding these influences is extremely important in curbing obesity and improving consumer health. A few of the challenges the research found were:

1. Consumers find serving size information misleading;
2. Consumers do not consider their consumption of foods and beverages in the context of their daily intake; and 
3. Consumers do not realize information to help them interpret daily context exists on the current NFP (%DV, or percent Daily Value).

The IFIC’s research, along with my own proposals, suggest solutions to consumer challenges that would considerably help the consumer understand the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP). A few of these suggestions include:

• Companies should “clarify the service size.” To do this, producers could illustrate that serving size is not arbitrary and increases consumers’ ability to comprehend how serving size relates to the entire NFP. Include a government body, such as the FDA. This inclusion increases the perception of truth in the information provided, particularly in serving size.
• The second enhancement would be to call attention to daily intake. The Foundation suggests encouraging consumers to think about all the foods and nutrients that make up a balanced diet. 
• Move the location of calories into the main body of the NFP. This encourages greater use and visibility. 
• Finally, the Foundation suggests simplifying the Percentage (%) of Daily Value (DV). To do so, companies could move the %DV explanation footnote into a column next to %DV to encourage consumers to think about how serving size relates to teh entire NFP. Adding the %DV of calories helps consumers consider a product within the context of their daily diet.

Companies could make an inherent impact on consumer health by making the nutrition labels clear, readable, and more appealing to the reader. This can be achieved simply by adding color, bigger font, and highlighting different characteristics of the product’s ingredients. I realize this may be unpopular with some companies, however, from a consumer health standpoint, it would significantly facilitate the fight against obesity. A final suggestion is to encourage health awareness at an early age in schools. (Michelle Obama has made this a priority and seems to be making immense strides.)

Obesity is rising to epidemic proportions and can be a strain on consumers’ health and financial means. In order to lessen the health and economic burden of obesity, it is critical that consumers understand and take notice of Nutrition Fact Panels. Although this is by no means the cure to rising health costs, it can unquestionably reduce the economic burden and constraints placed on consumer health.

References

1.    http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=IFIC_Foundation_Food_Label_Consumer_Research_Project
2.    http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Research-finds-daily-value-amounts-poorly-understood
3.    http://www.marketingcharts.com/print/us-consumers-mostly-understand-nutrition-info-on-food-packaging-5643/
4.    http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/ConsumerInformation/ucm078889.htm
5.    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.php
6.    http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2009/r090727.htm

Deborah Whitman sheds some light on this subject and does an excellent job summarizing the issues involving GM foods in her article “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” Whitman presents numerous advantages and criticisms for GMOs.

In my opinion, the advantages of GMOs versus the cons are overwhelming.  Although some believe GM foods impinge on consumers’ health, I believe this is de minimis–so small or minimal in difference that it does not matter.  In order to understand my opinion on this issue, I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.

Although GMOs are often the subject of controversy, a number of people do not understand exactly what they are and why their use is debated.  GMOs are foods derived from genetically modified organisms. The term GMO is used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques.  These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content.  The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time-consuming and are often not very accurate.  However, genetic engineering can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy.

What are some advantages? Most advantages appear to be diminutive; however, they have an enormous impact on our society and food supply.  Some of the advantages include pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, disease resistance, cold tolerance, drought tolerance, nutrition, and pharmaceuticals.  These advantages are listed below in further detail:

• Pest resistance can be extremely costly, requiring farmers to spend a lot of time and money on pesticides.  Additionally, these pesticides bring about numerous hazards and can encroach on consumers’ health.  GMOs can help eliminate pesticides and reduce costs.  These advantages can mean reduced costs for farmers that are eventually passed along to consumers.  Further, crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries.
• Another important advantage of GMOs is the fact that biologists are working to create plants with genetically engineered resistance to plant viruses, fungi, and bacteria. This would also help farmers and others be more efficient and save money. 
• An antifreeze gene has been introduced into several plants, giving the plants the ability to tolerate colder temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings. 
• Researchers are working to create a strain of “golden” rice that contains several vitamins and nutrients. This is significant because it could improve the diet of populations dependent on rice while reducing malnutrition in countries that don’t have access to other crops.
• GMOs help lower costs for much needed medicines and vaccines that are too expensive for impoverished countries.

Although the advantages of GMOs seem to make the case for their use a “no brainer” at this point, there are several criticisms and concerns.  Critics often include environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations, and other scientists and government officials.  Their main concerns are comprised of a belief that private corporations are pursuing profits without concern for potential hazards and a belief that the government is failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight.  Whitman states that GM food concerns generally fall into three categories:  1) environmental hazards, 2) human health risks, and 3) economic concerns.

1. The environmental hazards consist of unintended harm to other organisms. For example, a study showed that pollen from Bt corn, corn bioengineered to resist the European corn borer, a crop pest which can cause significant damage to crops, caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Although the killing of insects may be the goal in pest resistance, it flows into other unintended species. Additionally, some populations of mosquitoes and other insects may become resistant to crops that have been genetically modified.
2. Human health risks are an enormous concern. The main argument against GMOs is that there are several possible unknown risks. Two main concerns are that introducing foreign genes into food plants COULD have a negative impact on human health by introducing a new allergen or that ingesting these foods could cause problems with consumers’ intestines. However, this is up for debate and critics claim that the concerns are not warranted. 
3. The economic concerns, and probably the most warranted, claim that the process of bringing a GMO to the market is a lengthy and costly process in which companies pursue a profitable return on their investment. The problem occurs when companies patent these new plants and raise the price of seeds.  

In conclusion, Genetically Modified foods have enormous potential to save money, eliminate poverty, reduce hunger and malnutrition, and promote innovative practices. Some individuals believe GM foods infringe on the environment and human health, however, I believe these concerns are de minimis and unwarranted.  Although we must proceed with much caution and detailed research, technology is constantly pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.  Consumers should weigh the positives with the negatives and embrace this innovative process to help rid the world of numerous problems.  

Additional references:

1. “GM corn poses little threat to monarch larvae” (Nature, Vol. 399, No 6733, p. 214, May 1999).
2. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” Deborah  B. Whitman, 2000.
Found at: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
3. FDA; Federal FD&C Act. See “http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115032.htm“
4. http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/genetically-engineered-foods.htm