Recommendations of the NCAHF Task Force
on Supplement Abuse (1987)

To Consumers:

• Be aware that supplements cannot change a poor diet into a good one; good nutrition involves more than supplements are apt to supply.
• Few people need to, supplement their diets with pills, but if you do choose to supplement, to assure safety do not exceed the Recommended Dietary Allowances for vitamins and minerals.
• To assure good nutrition apply the three principles of variety, balance and moderation; use the USDA Food Groups model and USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines.

To Health Practitioners:

• Include questions about supplementation practices when taking health histories and be alert to signs of adverse effects.
• Report adverse effects of supplementation to the FDA.
• Encourage patients to apply the USDA Four Food Groups model and USDA/HHS U.S. Dietary Guidelines rather than supplementation as the way to improve nutrition practices.
• Combat "trophophobia" (i.e., the fear of nutritious foods).

To Government:

• Put an end to the unwise "buyer beware" situation which now exists in the food supplement market by repealing the 1976 Proxmire Bill exempting food supplements from FDA regulation.
• Require food supplement to meet standards of safety and effectiveness.
• Require warning labels on potentially hazardous supplements. (i.e., Vitamins A, D, E, niacin, niacinamide, B6, folacin, C, calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, and selenium). [See over for rationale]
• Promote the adverse reactions reporting program aggressively.
• Use criminal prosecution against violators of consumer protection laws.
• Legislate minimal requirements for education in nutrition sciences for all students on the secondary level that will include all of the basic information in the National Academy of Sciences Recommended Dietary Allowances publication.

Rationale for Warning Labels

Warning labels should be required on potentially hazardous food supplements. NCAHF is aware that certain supplement trade associations are making it appear that such a requirement is unnecessary because the amount of known harm from supplementation is small. However, we argue that:

• The amount of harm from supplementation is largely unmeasured which means that knowledge of the extent of harm due to misguided supplementation is unknown making it impossible to state with confidence that the amount of harm is small.
• The basic dictum that should be followed is that nothing is safe until demonstrated to be with the burden of proof upon proponents.
• Applying the benefit/risk ratio approach reveals that the potential benefits of supplementing above the RDA without medical indication are far fewer than the potential for harm.
• The aggressive promotion of megadosing by orthomolecular zealots needs to be countered by warning labels on the very products they push.
• The widespread amount of irresponsible advertising vitamin companies ignoring possible drug-nutrient interactions, and nutrient imbalances needs to be offset.
• The failure of the supplement industry to regulate itself by keeping dosages low enough to discourage overdosing or provide consumer warnings on potentials for harm clearly shows that the industry needs this type of regulation.
• The human propensity to believe that if a little is good then more is better needs to be countered.
• Long term use of megadoses of some nutrients may decrease longevity (e.g., zinc appears to lower HDL possibly increasing the risk of coronary heart disease).

Given these factors the only responsible course to follow is to require warning labels.