Deceptive Marketing Of Dietary Supplements
July 17, 2010 - 6:00 am
Steven SalzbergBio |
Dr. Steven Salzberg is the Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology and the Horvitz Professor of Computer Science at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Without any fanfare, Congress held a hearing recently on how supplements are marketed to the elderly. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study of 40 different herbal supplements, looking at what the supplements actually contained as well as how they were being sold, both in stores and online. Not surprisingly, the GAO found that companies have been making deceptive, inaccurate claims about many of the most popular supplements sold in the U.S. (I’m shocked, shocked!)
As reported in last week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, the report was requested by Senator Herb Kohl. The report states that some of the companies involved have been referred to the FDA and FTC for appropriate action. The GAO also found potentially hazardous contaminants in most of the supplements, including lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium though none were in an amount considered to pose an acute toxicity hazard to humans. Out of 40 supplements, 37 tested positive for trace amounts of lead, 32 contained mercury, 28 contained cadmium, 21 contained arsenic, and 18 contained residues from at least one pesticide. The FDA stated that 16 of the 40 supplements would be considered in violation of U.S. pesticide tolerances if the results were confirmed.
But for some mysterious reason, the GAO report fails to provide any specific information about who these snake-oil purveyors are. That’s right: not a single company or website is named. Why not?
I don't know which companies are selling supplements with contaminants or which companies have been referred to the FDA . But thanks to the Internet, I can name a few supplement marketers that are making the same or similar claims to those the GAO deemed inaccurate - keep reading.
1. Ginkgo biloba. The GAO report says:
"Product labeling states it `Effectively treats Alzheimer’s Disease, depression, impotence, memory … and more.'" Not true: “Several NIH studies have shown ginkgo to be ineffective at reducing the risk of Alzheimer’s, or otherwise enhancing memory.”
Who is making claims like this? Supplement marketer Zooscape, for one. You can find their ginkgo biloba claim (which matches the GAO report verbatim) here.
2. Ginseng. The GAO report says:
"Product labeling states that it possesses a `Powerful Anti-cancer Function' and can prevent diabetes, among other questionable claims."
Nope. The NIH states that there is no clear evidence to support the claim that ginseng can prevent cancer or cardiovascular diseases. As far as diabetes claims, the NIH recommends that patients should instead use more proven therapies.
Who made this claim? Several supplement sellers, including Green Cross, and sellers on Alibaba.com, both selling the same product.
3. Garlic. The GAO report says:
"Product labeling states that `Hundreds of scientific studies have proven [this product] to be number one, working to enhance the body’s immune function, protect cells from free radical damage, and reduce cardiovascular risk factors, including issues with blood pressure, cholesterol …' "
Wrong again. According to the GAO report,
“While this herb may help with certain conditions, enhancement of the body’s immune function is not a recognized benefit…. Further, the seller does not disclose details about the `hundreds of scientific studies' cited in the product labeling.”
Who makes this claim? I found it reproduced verbatim at several natural foods stores, such as here and here. The product itself - called only "this product" by the GAO - appears to be Kyolic Aged Garlic Extract, manufactured by Wakanaga Nutritional Supplements.
The GAO report describes many other cases of deceptive marketing, including bogus claims to treat Alzheimer’s disease. This is especially disturbing claim in light of the fact that the GAO study specifically looked at marketing to elderly customers, who might be desperate for any such treatment.
Nice! So what are these doing on the market? Well, unfortunately, the FDA cannot regulate dietary supplements, thanks to a bill passed in 1994 as a big sloppy wet kiss to the supplements industry. As the GAO report says: “Under DSHEA [Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994], dietary supplements are broadly presumed safe, and FDA does not have the authority to require them to be approved for safety and efficacy before they enter the market. But the FDA can step in if supplement retailers claim that their products can treat, prevent, or cure disease.
All of the sites marketing the products contain disclaimers saying their product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease; and that the health statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not close to enough. DSHEA is a disaster, as this latest report illustrates, and as Orac has discussed at length over at Respectful Insolence. It's time for some oversight of this snake-oil industry.
