A flurry of research indicating that vitamin D may have an array of health benefits has reignited an intense debate over whether federal guidelines for the “sunshine vitamin” are outdated, leaving millions unnecessarily vulnerable to cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other ailments, according to a report by Rob Stein for the Washington Post.

The studies have produced evidence that low levels of vitamin D make men more likely to have heart attacks, breast and colon cancer victims less likely to survive, kidney disease victims more likely to die, and children more likely to develop diabetes. Two other studies suggested that higher vitamin D levels reduce the risk of dying prematurely from any cause.

In response to these and earlier findings, several medical societies are considering new recommendations for a minimum daily vitamin D intake, the American Medical Association recently called for the government to update its guidelines, and federal officials are planning to launch that effort.

But many leading experts caution that it remains premature for people to start taking large doses of vitamin D. While the new research is provocative, experts argue that the benefits remain far from proven. Vitamin D can be toxic at high doses and some studies suggest it could increase the risk for some health problems, according to experts.

The clash is the latest in a long, often unusually bitter debate. Some skeptics question whether funding by the tanning, milk and vitamin industries is biasing some advocates. Frustrated proponents accuse skeptics of clinging to outdated medical dogma.

Scientists have long known that vitamin D is a vital nutrient the skin produces when hit by ultraviolet light from sunlight and other sources. The amount of vitamin D produced varies, depending on where the person lives, skin pigment, age and other factors. African Americans and other dark-skinned people, and anyone living in northern latitudes, make far less than other groups.

With people spending more time indoors surfing the Web, watching television, working at desk jobs, and covering up and using sunblock when they do venture outdoors, the amount of vitamin D that people create in their bodies has been falling. Milk and a few other foods are fortified with vitamin D, and it occurs naturally in others, such as fatty fish, but most people get very little through their diets.

Studies have found that deficiencies may be common, with perhaps half of adults and children having what some consider inadequate levels. Federal guidelines call for people to get 200-600 international units a day, depending on age and other factors. But those recommendations were last updated in 1997, and were aimed primarily at preventing bone diseases, such as rickets in children and osteoporosis in the elderly.

Since then, studies have indicated that vitamin D offers a plethora of health benefits, possibly protecting against heart disease, many forms of cancer, immune system disorders such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and the flu, and perhaps mental illnesses including schizophrenia and depression.

On January 9, 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent numerous pharmacies an order to stop using estriol (one of the three main estrogens produced by the human body) as well as banning the use of the term “bio-identical.” Citizens for Health (Minneapolis, MN) is calling this an “unprecedented attack on compounders, patients and physicians” because until then no compounded drug component with a USP monograph had been withdrawn from circulation unless there had been evidence of harm to patients.

Congress has taken a first step toward reining in the FDA’s actions. Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), together with other members of the House of Representatives, has introduced House Resolution 342. This Resolution calls upon the FDA to reverse the change in its policy that would restrict women’s access to prescriptions containing estriol.

House Resolution 342 also calls on the FDA to respect the physician-patient relationship and states that doctors, not the FDA, are in the best position to determine which medications are appropriate for their patients.

The FDA has never taken any compound off the market unless there were reports of serious adverse health events. According to Citizens for Health, the FDA itself has admitted that there have been no adverse events reported for any use of estriol in medications. A motivation for its restriction of estriol is a citizen's petition filed by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in 2005, intended to undermine women's access to BHRT, according to Citizens for Health.

For more information, visit www.citizens.org or call (612) 879-7585.

Stryka Botanics has filed papers with the US District Court to remove the suit filed by Certified Natural Laboratories, a supplement manufacturer based in Wichita, KS.

Stryka’s action is in direct response to the lawsuit filed in state court in Sedgwick, KS, late last month. Certified Natural Laboratories sued NJ-based Stryka Botanics for $75,000 in losses and other damages, after a $40,000 shipment was not in fact hoodia gordonii but some other material, according to the company.

Stryka’s lead counsel, Marc J. Gross, said he is confident that the lawsuit, “won’t have legs to stand on once the federal courts have had an opportunity to review Stryka’s response” and that Stryka will “be aggressively pursuing redress in the courts” if Certified or any company or individual interferes with or otherwise defames Stryka through false allegations.

Stryka president Brian McNally said, “Contrary to Certified’s allegations, Stryka had an independent analysis performed on the customer’s hoodia shipment. This confirmed its authenticity. It was unquestionably, according to the independent laboratory results, authentic hoodia gordonii. It is our policy to test and certify shipments of raw material to ensure the highest quality product to our customers. I stand behind our product and the quality of our testing.”

For more information visit www.stryka.com or call (908) 281-5577.

Food and nutrition policy consultancy EAS will release its latest publication in August—an easy-to-follow regulatory guide to help companies launch nutritional products in 10 Asian markets.

Developed by scientific and regulatory experts at EAS, the first edition of the guide, Marketing Health Supplements, Fortified and Functional Foods in Asia: Practice 2008/2009, has been developed to help nutritional product manufacturers navigate Asia’s regulatory maze and to support the development of new product strategies.

The guide gives an up-to-date analysis of national rules relating to health supplements, fortified and functional foods; the addition of vitamins and minerals to food and food supplements; herbs and other functional ingredients; and health claims in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore and Brunei.

In addition to detailing the regulatory requirements across the selected Asian countries, the guide gives an explanation of the current regulatory environment in Asia, including labeling, claims and novel food requirements; an overview of the health harmonization process within the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN); and insight into the activities of Codex Alimentarius.

For more information visit www.eas.asia or e-mail info@eas.asia.

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) filed a legal complaint on June 30 against Ohio's Department of Agriculture, challenging as unconstitutional an “emergency” rule seeking to prevent labeling that tells a consumer whether the cows were treated with rBST, the synthetic growth hormone manufactured and sold by Monsanto under the brand Posilac®.

“The OTA firmly believes that consumers have a right to know, and want to know, about the products they purchase, and organic farmers and processors have a right to communicate with their consumers regarding federally regulated organic production practices,” stated Caren Wilcox, former executive director for the OTA.

In issuing its rule prohibiting organic products from being labeled “produced with milk from cows that have not been treated with synthetic growth hormones,” the State of Ohio, however, has essentially chosen not to recognize the federal Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA).

For those farmers who have chosen to not use rBST on their cows, and who were finding new and growing markets by marketing their milk as no-rBST or organic, Ohio has passed an “emergency” rule which will hurt farmers' abilities to convey to consumers how they produce their milk.

The new rule:
• Prohibits labels that communicate agricultural production practices required by law under the OFPA, which OTA's members already follow;
• Prohibits labels that are either expressly permitted in a number of states or not prohibited in other states;
• Dictates not only the words but also the form, size, location and even color of the language that must be used on all dairy product labels; and
• Requires that dairy processors who are alleged to have violated those provisions to be subjected to a range of penalties, including criminal prosecution.

According to Wilcox, consumers in Ohio have voiced their concern over these new regulations and have written over 1,600 letters in opposition to of the regulations to Director Boggs and Governor Strickland.

For more information visit www.ota.org.

A coalition of 44 environmental, sustainable farming and health advocacy organizations called on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to reverse its plan to eliminate its pesticide reporting program in 2008. Elimination of the USDA’s objective data will open the door to serious misinformation on pesticide use, charge the groups. The USDA claims it lacks funding to continue the program.
 
The program, which is run by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), has already been dramatically scaled back. Pesticide use on the most chemical-intensive crops—corn, soybeans and cotton—was surveyed every year in the 1990s, but only every two years through most of this decade. Data for pesticide use on corn has not been reported since 2005. The May 2007 report covered chemicals applied to just two crops—cotton and apples (including separate surveys on conventional and organic apples). According to NASS’ website, there will not be a new agricultural chemical usage publications until 2010. However, under a cooperative agreement with the USDA Economic Research Service, NASS plans to collect wheat nutrient and pesticide data as part of the 2009 Agricultural Resource Management Survey and plans to publish this data in May 2010, according to NASS.
  
“Without the USDA’s data, we will no longer be able to reliably track trends in pesticide use, such as the substantial spike in the use of herbicides over the past six years,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety.

For more information call (800) 727-9540 or visit www.nass.usda.gov.