From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: So-Called Vitamin D (update)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:35:16 GMT

      Here is an update to some information I posted earlier from 
what was then a forthcoming paper by Professor Moon .  Well, the 
paper has now been published and it is indeed being well reviewed
from the letters that Dr. Moon has so far received.  The
reference is:

     Moon, J. et al. 1992.  "Etiology of Atherosclerosis and
          Osteoporosis: Are Imbalances in the Calciferol
          Endocrine System Implicated?"  JOURNAL OF THE
          AMERICAN COLLEGE OF NUTRITION, 11(5):567-583.

Here are the concluding remarks of this paper:

     In 1983 Fraser stated,
          The oral route as a means of supplying vitamin D
          is ineffective, unnatural, and potentially
          dangerous.  Yet, to achieve adequate exposure to
          the sun of whole populations such as those in
          large cities may well prove impractical.  Human
          ingenuity might therefore have to devise another
          way of providing vitamin D -- one which takes into
          account the natural physiology of its formation
          and processing in the human body.
     Data accumulated since that time add support to this
     observation.  Thus, the 10 edition of the US RDAs
     concludes:
          Since the toxic level of vitamin D may in some
          cases be only 5 times the RDA, and there is
          evidence that sunlight-stimulated production of the
          vitamin active throughout the warm months, dietary
          supplements may be detrimental for the normal
          child or adult who drinks at least two glasses of
          vitamin D-fortified milk per day.

     In as much as vitamin D is not an essential dietary
     component fro the vast majority of people, and
     relatively small excesses may be toxic in the long
     term, we concur with the recommendation of Peng &
     Taylor [       ] that "reclassification as a potent,
     carefully controlled hormone should be seriously
     considered." We similarly agree with recommendation of
     Holmes and Kummerow [ ]:
          "that fortification of foods with vitamin D should
          be curtailed, preferably abolished, that excessive
          fortification of animal foods be reduced to the
          level required, and that the use of dietary
          supplements be restricted."
     We further recommend that, to avoid confusion that might
     lead to excessive self-administration, the more correct
     hormone name, "calciferol", rather than the common
     name, "vitamin D,", be used for labelling purposes.
     Calciferol should be available, on the advice of a
     physician, for those infants or others at risk of a
     deficiency, but should not be administered to the
     general, calciferol-sufficient population.

[Note: for brevity, I've omitted the references Moon et
al. cite in the above passage]

Lest we again see some flames concerning this posting,
permit me to state what should not need stating.

Again, please don't EVER take my word for it or rest
content with just a few citations.  Go read for yourself
what I think to be an interesting and important paper.

I think we can all agree that we must always beware and
leery of those PSEUDO-EXPERTS who would merely make his or
her assertions `ex-cathedra', who would resort to a
patronizing tone or even insults, and ultimately would
disrespect your independent intelligence.  The truly
informed have no need to belittle others and are quite
willing to patiently explain and provide substantiation or
references for their crucial points.

Now, I don't purport to be an expert in nutrition but I do
think that I can at least recognized good methodologies from
bad, good argumentation from the specious.  Of course, I may
and do get some of my medical terminology wrong, and I am
hopelessly lost when it comes to biochemistry.  :-(   Hence,
all that I can do is share what I judge to be some
interesting readings.  I could well be wrong, so therefore I
hope you would check it out for yourself.  Don't ever take
my word for it, or anyone else's for that matter.  Hence, it
is important, I think, to make that extra effort to provide
references and sources in one's messages on the net.

Hopefully, some of you will find what I make reference to,
to be of interest and even importance for your own living as
to how you might wish to choose what you eat.

Now, for those who have not seen that earlier posting which
prompted such a rude response from a couple of individuals
here on r.f.v., I'll repost it now for your benefit.  ;-)

                          ted