From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Prof. Moon et al. on "vitamin" D
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:24:31 GMT

Here is a reference to a recent and interesting paper published
by Professor J. Moon et al. on "vitamin" D or calciferol..

     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 some of the concluding remarks from this scholarly 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 simple posting
of some conclusions from a published scientific paper,
permit me to state what should not need stating.

Again, please don't EVER take my, or anyone else's, word for it nor
should one rest content with just a few citations.  Go read for
yourself what is an interesting and possibly important paper.

I think we can all agree that we must always be wary 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.

What needs to be encouraged is our independent understanding
and judgement of things even as technical as nutrition.
After all, we all must bear some responsibly for our own
health care.  But more important, we need to read for ourselves
some of the literature.

			Have a Academic New Year Everyone  :-)
					
					Ted
 
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition