THE CASE
Nutraceuticals are foodstuffs purporting to have health or medical benefits in addition to their normal nutritional value. They are often considered to be a subset of "functional foods" along with "medical foods" and good old fashioned "health foods", but the distinctions are blurry. The word itself, an etymologically horrible combination of "nutrition" (from Latin) and "pharmaceutical" (from Greek), is designed to give an air of scientific authority to a rather dark art.
The idea is that nutraceuticals can prevent, ameliorate or reverse disease states; in other words, food is being used as a drug. This type of therapy has great appeal for people who are suspicious of conventional medicine, or who cannot afford it, or who are in denial about their state of health or medical condition.
The January 2008 edition of Scientific American contained an excellent article "Getting to Know Nutraceuticals" that is well worth reading. The article concludes:
As I have written before, the marketers of nutritional products have done a remarkably good job in selling products there is no real need for. A good diet is all you need. Just because a small, naturally occurring, amount of a substance prevents (a deficiency related) disease, it does not mean that increasing the intake of said substance will cause good health. It just might, but there is no proof.
For example, a recent study found that vitamin C levels in the blood were a good predictor of whether or not that person was likely to have a stroke. This does not necessarily mean that vitamin C prevents strokes. It would be just as logical to conclude that strokes cause low levels of vitamin C. There is no evidence that either variable is a dependant of the other. They both may be results of a third, unknown factor.
Go to your pantry and read the claims of some nutriceutical products, you will find they tend to be very carefully worded to avoid being classified as "therapeutic goods". In Australia the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 states that "therapeutic goods" are normally items sold for a therapeutic use defined as follows:
Foods are specifically excluded, but once an item becomes a "therapeutic good" it stops being a food, and a different, more stringent, set of rules applies. Vegemite, pictured above, does not make any claims that would make it a "therapeutic good". Contrast this with the following claims of a product chosen at random on ebay. This product specifically says it is not a "therapeutic good" within the definition of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Act..... What do you think?
MY VERDICT
The manufacturers of nutraceuticals are saying on the one hand that their products are worth taking because of the wonderful health benefits. On the other hand they are claiming they should be considered as foods so that they can escape the regulations of the Therapeutic Goods Act.
In the United States both food and drugs are controlled by the same umbrella organisation The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Perhaps it is time that this model was considered in Australia. It would then be harder for products to be sold with specious claims.
Nutraceuticals are foodstuffs purporting to have health or medical benefits in addition to their normal nutritional value. They are often considered to be a subset of "functional foods" along with "medical foods" and good old fashioned "health foods", but the distinctions are blurry. The word itself, an etymologically horrible combination of "nutrition" (from Latin) and "pharmaceutical" (from Greek), is designed to give an air of scientific authority to a rather dark art.
The idea is that nutraceuticals can prevent, ameliorate or reverse disease states; in other words, food is being used as a drug. This type of therapy has great appeal for people who are suspicious of conventional medicine, or who cannot afford it, or who are in denial about their state of health or medical condition.
The January 2008 edition of Scientific American contained an excellent article "Getting to Know Nutraceuticals" that is well worth reading. The article concludes:
For many nutraceuticals, the most compelling evidence for efficacy remains anecdotal or, at best, based on hints of benefit from small or poorly controlled studies.
As I have written before, the marketers of nutritional products have done a remarkably good job in selling products there is no real need for. A good diet is all you need. Just because a small, naturally occurring, amount of a substance prevents (a deficiency related) disease, it does not mean that increasing the intake of said substance will cause good health. It just might, but there is no proof.
For example, a recent study found that vitamin C levels in the blood were a good predictor of whether or not that person was likely to have a stroke. This does not necessarily mean that vitamin C prevents strokes. It would be just as logical to conclude that strokes cause low levels of vitamin C. There is no evidence that either variable is a dependant of the other. They both may be results of a third, unknown factor.
Go to your pantry and read the claims of some nutriceutical products, you will find they tend to be very carefully worded to avoid being classified as "therapeutic goods". In Australia the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 states that "therapeutic goods" are normally items sold for a therapeutic use defined as follows:
(a.) preventing, diagnosing, curing or alleviating a disease, ailment, defect or injury in persons or animals
(b.) influencing, inhibiting or modifying a physiological process in persons or animals
(c.) testing the susceptibility of persons or animals to a disease or ailment
(d.) influencing, controlling or preventing conception in persons
(e.) testing for pregnancy in persons
(f.) the replacement or modification of parts of the anatomy in persons or animals.
Foods are specifically excluded, but once an item becomes a "therapeutic good" it stops being a food, and a different, more stringent, set of rules applies. Vegemite, pictured above, does not make any claims that would make it a "therapeutic good". Contrast this with the following claims of a product chosen at random on ebay. This product specifically says it is not a "therapeutic good" within the definition of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Act..... What do you think?
"Instant Myotrophic Hyperexpansion Growth KitIn my opinion this comes clearly into (b.) above. How do they get away with it? Probably because no-one has actually examined the advertising.
Massive Muscle Pumps
Increases Gains in Lean Muscle Mass, Strength and Stamina
Increased Vascularity Stimulates Glycogen Building in Skeletal Muscle
Maximum Vasodilation
Increased Uptake of Amino Acids and Other Nutrients
Increased Male Sexual Performance
Post Cycle Therapy Powerhouse"
MY VERDICT
The manufacturers of nutraceuticals are saying on the one hand that their products are worth taking because of the wonderful health benefits. On the other hand they are claiming they should be considered as foods so that they can escape the regulations of the Therapeutic Goods Act.
In the United States both food and drugs are controlled by the same umbrella organisation The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Perhaps it is time that this model was considered in Australia. It would then be harder for products to be sold with specious claims.
0 comments:
Post a Comment