by David R. Seckman
Second
Thoughts on Dietary Supplement Safety?
Think Again
It is no secret
that the news media thrives
on covering the out-of-the-ordinary.
Commercial airplanes land without
incident nearly 100 percent of the time.1
But those rare instances when they don’t, dominate
the newsstands and airwaves. The
ensuing coverage is often sensationalized,
resulting in many Americans vowing not to fly
again, despite the fact that they are over 300
times more likely to drown in the bathtub2 in
their own home than to die in a plane crash.3
Similarly, the intense media spotlight on
relatively rare cases of certain dietary supplements
causing injury has resulted in harrowing
descriptions of how dangerous these products
can be and dire warnings to avoid supplements
altogether. The news media often describe
supplements as unregulated, which is not true,
and express shock that the federal government
would even allow these products to be sold
at all.
The truth is that dietary supplements are
far safer than most common foods and drugs
that consumers use without a second thought.
Thinking of taking a couple of ibuprofen for
that headache? It may surprise you that this
common pain reliever is responsible for more
than 17,000 deaths annually.4 Prescription
drugs, for all the testing they go through and
copious usage directions that are issued with
them, are estimated to be one of the top five
leading causes of death in the U.S. at more
than 106,000 annually.56 How long has that
egg-salad sandwich you’re considering
snacking on been in the refrigerator? Take a
chance and you could be one of the 5,000
Americans killed each year by food-borne
illnesses.6
One reason media fearmongering about
supplements is common is because few experts
can agree on accurate sources for statistical
information about their safety. Ironically,
when sources that are typically trusted, such as
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or
the American Association of Poison Control
Centers, do issue statistics on adverse reactions
connected with supplements, they are usually
dismissed as being unrealistically low. In fact,
the FDA has received so much criticism of its
collecting and reporting of adverse events on
supplements that it has suspended and is
revamping its entire system.
To assume that the reason incidents of adverse events connected to dietary supplements
are so low is because the reporting
system is imperfect, as many critics of dietary
supplements do, is flawed reasoning. A more
logical explanation is that the reason adverse
events connected to dietary supplements are so
low is because they are, well, low. How low?
According to the FDA, it received 1,214 reports
of adverse events regarding dietary supplements
in 20017 (the agency describes an
adverse event as being an undesirable experience
associated with the use of a product, but
not necessarily caused by using the product).
Comparatively, the FDA received more than
300,000 adverse reports about drugs.8 So using
the FDA ’s own data, adverse events related to
supplements represent less than half-of-one
percent of drug adverse events.
Is the higher safety profile for dietary supplements
unique to the FDA ’s data? No.
According to reports from poison control centers
throughout the United States, adverse
reactions to drugs are more than 800 percent
higher than dietary supplements.9
To its credit, the news media performs a
service when it makes the public aware of dangers
associated with certain behaviors or products.
But it’s a disservice to distort the truth or
omit important information that allows the
public to put the safety of a product in perspective.
If consumers are expected to make
informed decisions about the safety of dietary
supplements—or anything else—they deserve
to know all the facts. And the facts are that in
addition to providing undisputed health benefits
to millions of Americans, dietary supplements
are far safer to consume than drugs and
most foods.
David R. Seckman is executive director and
CEO of the National Nutritional Foods
Association.
References:
- National Transportation and Safety Board. Aviation Accident Statistics (2002) available (electronic version) at www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table1.htm.
- National Safety Council. “What are the Odds of Dying?” (1999). Electronic version available at http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm.
- Ibid. National Transportation and Safety Board.
- Wolfe, M. M., Lichtenstein, D. R., Singh, G. “Medical Progress: Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs,” New England Journal of Medicine (1999). Vol. 340 pp.1888–99.
- Lazarou, Jason, Pomeranz, Bruce H., Corey, Paul N. “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients: A Metaanalysis of Prospective Studies,” Journal of the American Medical Association (1998). Vol. 279 pp. 1200–5.
- Paul S. Mead, et al. “Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Sept./Oct. 1999). Electronic version available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/ mead.htm#Figure%201.
- U. S. Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Proposes Manufacturing and Labeling Standards for all Dietary Supplements,” backgrounder, March 7, 2003. Electronic version available at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/dietarysupp/ background.htm.
- U. S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Financial Management, “Human Drugs,” report (2002). Electronic version available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/oms/ofm/budget/2002/2002/HTML/CDER.htm#3/
- Toby L. Litovitz, et al. “2001 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System,” American Journal of Emergency Medicine, (2002). Vol. 20, no. 5. Electronic version available at www.aapcc.org/Annual%20Reports/01report/2001%20TESS%20Full%20Report.pdf.
|
|
