From: starkid@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Lance Sanders)
Subject: Re: Vitamins and the FDA (Pt. 1 of 3): Viewpoint
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:35:49 GMT
Organization: EnviraForm


On Wed, 07 Oct 92 23:07:36 GMT, georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) 
writes:

>In article <BvrJyn.BEI@ddsw1.mcs.com> starkid@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Lance Sanders) 
>writes: 
>>>   The UCLA study concluded that: "Based on our analyses, the inverse 
>>>relation of total mortality to vitamin C intake is stronger and more 
>>>consistent in this population than the relation of total mortality to 
>>>serum cholesterol and dietary fat intake."
>>
>      much deleted
>>
>>   "The large drop in cardiovascular death rates since the late 1960's 
>>added validity to our findings. The decline in deaths from heart disease 
>>and heart attacks, a trend that has been particularly pronounced among men, 
>>coincided with large population-wide increases in the consumption of 
>>vitamin supplements containing vitamin C."
>>
>
>Claims that a large consumption of vitamin C can reduce risk of
>cardiovascular disease and other diseases are greatly exaggerated. 


   A couple of "flags on the play", George. :)

   First, and quite clearly, Dr. Enstrom's conclusions DID NOT speak of 
"large comsumption" (and by this I take it you meant large amounts) of 
vitamin C, but, as correctly quoted, "large _population-wide_ increases in 
the consumption OF". 

   Quite a difference in meaning; your inaccurate word reordering is 
suspect. 



>Misleading reports about the merits of vitamin C supplements are a
>consequence of laypersons like the editors of Time Magazine trying
>to interpret clinical data.

   The issue isn't solely vitamin C supplementation, but multivitamins in 
general.

   The quotes (conclusions reached) in my previous post were 
interpretations of the clinical data by _physicians_. 

   I notice Mr. Clark chose to delete the authors of the quotes in his 
response, which serves to weaken their impact. The comments are important 
and refute his "layperson" gambit, so I beg the groups' indulgence of their 
reinsertion: 


   Dr. Simin N. Meydani of the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at 
Tufts University in Boston:

   "We used to think about vitamins strictly in terms of what you needed to 
prevent short-term deficiencies. Now we're starting to think about what is 
the optimal level of vitamins for lifelong health and to prevent age-
associated diseases." 


   Dr. Ishwarial Jialal, of the U. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 
Dallas, who reported at a 01/92 meeting of the American Heart Association 
and in the Physicians Health Study that preliminary evidence in favor of 
antioxidant supplementation is building: 

   "It is still a bit early to recommend taking supplements, but a 
significant number of people have done so for years with no adverse 
effects."
 
[ In a 3/10/92 interview by the New York Times, "Vitamins Win Support as 
  Potent Agents of Health", Dr. Jialal admitted that "given his preliminary 
  results, and the relative harmlessness of effective levels of vitamin E,
  he himself planned to start a supplement of the nutrient daily." ]


   Dr. Richard Berkowitz, chairman of the Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynecology 
and Reproductive Health at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York:
   "We know of no downside to taking multivitamin supplements." 


   Dr. James Enstrom, author of the 10-year UCLA vitamin C study, and co-
authors Linda E. Kanim and Morton A. Klein:

   "The large drop in cardiovascular death rates since the late 1960's 
added validity to our findings. The decline in deaths from heart disease 
and heart attacks, a trend that has been particularly pronounced among men, 
coincided with large population-wide increases in the consumption of 
vitamin supplements containing vitamin C."


   Dr. Irwin Rosenberg, professor of medicine and nutrition, Tufts 
University:

   "I think this is going to be precedent-setting in respect to the whole 
business of health claims, supplements and fortification. Let's hope it 
comes out right."



   Dr. Kenneth J. Rothman, an epidemiologist at Boston University, in an 
editorial accompanying Dr. Enstrom's article in "Epidemiology":

   "While earlier studies were inconclusive about the value of supplements, 
the new data indicate those who take supplements containing vitamin C do 
better than those who simply have a reasonable dietary intake of the 
nutrient.
    It is unlikely that only vitamin C is protective, but rather, it is 
probably that a variety of antioxidents and other nutrients act in concert 
against a variety of different insults." 
   


George Clark continues:

>In reality, it (data) is proof that a low-fat, high fiber diet is 
>the cause of improved health, and an increase in dietary vitamin C is the 
>misleading association. 

   It's not that simple; a reduction of carcinogens associated with dietary 
fat reduction may be at least partially responsible for observed health 
improvements in a low-fat regimen.
   Pesticides and fungicides in fruit and vegetable waxes can limit 
beneficial effects. 
   Amounts of active factors (esp. vitamins) in fruits and vegetables vary 
geographically and by variety ( protease inhibitors and phytic acid in 
legumes; capsaicin in peppers; allicin and minerals such as selenium and 
germanium in garlic, etc. ). 

   Also, as an example of "other nutrients", and in accord with both Mr. 
Clark's dietary contentions and Dr. Rothman's conclusions, a brief look at 
some of the prophylatic aspects of the cruciferae family: 


   Cruciferae (bok choy, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, 
collard greens, horseradish, kale, kohlrabi, mustard, mustard greens, 
radishes, rutabaga, turnip, turnip greens, watercress...) contain the anti-
cancer agents beta-carotene, vitamin C, calcium and fiber, plus indoles, 
aromatic isothiocyanates and other related chemicals which may enhance the 
detoxification of active carcinogens. 


   Dr. Theresa B. Young, an assistant prof. of preventive medicine at the 
U. of Wisconsin Center for Health Sciences, in a study of more than 1,000 
Wisconsin residents, discovered that frequent childhood consumption of 
fresh cruciferous vegetables is associated with a reduced risk of 
developing colon cancer in later life.  She found that "the protective 
effect of cruciferous vegetables was almost shocking. The use of added 
fats, which include salad dressings may actually indicate a healthier diet, 
because lots of cruciferae are being eaten." 
[It is still unknown whether a switch later in life can FULLY compensate 
 for a poor diet in childhood.] 


   Dr. Eric Scholar, from the Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer and 
Allied Disease in Omaha, Neb., has performed a study which indicates that 
cruciferae not only help prevent cancer, but also help prevent the SPREAD 
of cancer. 
   Mice that had breast tumor cells injected into their tails were fed 
diets containing either 5 percent or 9 percent dried collards or savoy 
cabbage (that equals 3 to 5 cups of cooked collards or 2 to 4 cups of 
cooked cabbage per day for a human). 
   The cruciferae-eating mice developed fewer lung tumors than mice that 
had been fed a vegetable-free diet with an equal amount of fiber. 
   "Though its too early to extrapolate to humans, these studies agree with 
others that cruciferae have protective effect." 

   ...


   A fuller understanding of the biochemistry behind the protective effects 
of a low-fat/high-fiber diet serves both as impetus to begin and to stay on 
such a dietary course. 

  If, as Mr. Clark contends, the merits of vitamin supplementation are 
misleading because of "misinterpretation of data by the layman", I wonder 
if he would as eagerly apply his logic to the merits of a low-fat/high-
fiber diet? 


   I couldn't agree more that the true prophylatic synergy lies in an 
exploitation of a combination of factors (dietary, exercise and mental). 
But just as a single approach of supplementation is incorrect and naive, so 
is the single approach of a low-fat / high-fiber diet, especially without 
consideration of limiting factors. 

   As I pointed out in my original post, the anti-supplementation action by 
the FDA is not only being undertaken at a time of unprecedented biochemical 
degredation of our food and water supplies, but also in conjunction with 
plans to allow UNLABELED, genetically-altered foods into the marketplace 
(consumers would essentially be forced to buy the altered products; truly, 
"The Mother Of All Red Flags"), approval of irradiation for poultry, pork, 
vegetables and fruits, a lifting of the ban on foreign imports of ground 
meats, etc., and current indictments of FDA safety inspectors that trace 
routine bribery and illegal importation of foods back (so far) to 1984. 

   The FDA is rendering vitamin supplements impotent while simultaneously 
approving food technologies such as irradiation, which not only introduces 
trace carcinogens into the food supply (radiolytes such as benzene, etc.), 
but also reduces the vitamin content in foods, often by as much as 50% (and 
cooking would reduce nutrient levels even further). 
 
  [REQUEST: Vitamins and the FDA (Pt. 3 of 3): Food Degredation]


   An overview of the literature indicates that multivitamin 
supplementation is prudent.

  [REQUEST: Vitamins and the FDA (Pt. 2 of 3): Vitamin Research]


   Mr. Clark, the FDA and others can choose to dismiss (IMO, compelling) 
mainstream supplementation research; I have no problem with that. 

   However, it's my goal to help insure that they do so only at THEIR 
disadvantage. Not mine.

---------
Lance Sanders
starkid@ddsw1.MCS.COM                     STAND.
GE Mail: L.Sanders6
Vox: (312) 667-5958