What do the elections mean for dietary supplements?

If you like being able to buy your dietary supplements, or if you are at all concerned about the safety of the food that makes its way to your table, you should know that elections ... and your vote ... do have consequences.

At a recent conference on ingredients for dietary supplements, I heard a lot of concern about the impact this election might have on these things. Knowing who to vote for, though, is a bit tricky. From the perspective of natural products, it’s not just a Republican vs Democrat thing. Based on past experience, certain Senators and Congressmen are generally understood to be “friends” or “enemies” of the natural-products world.

Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin, both of whom were reelected, earned the “enemy” title when they cosponsored a bill way back in 2003 that would have required dietary-supplement companies to spend billions to test their products the same way big pharmaceutical companies do. Of course there are not nearly enough profits in the supplement industry to do this, so it would have effectively removed all your supplements, even things like vitamin C from the store shelves.

And if you were paying attention earlier this year, you saw Sen. John McCain introduce the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010, which would have done something similar. This was based on the publicity surrounding NFL players being found to have been doping with steroids and trying to pin the blame on adulterated dietary supplements, when the amounts of the banned substances in their systems were so high that they would have had to have been taking hundred of pills a day. However, when there is an opportunity for a politician to associate himself with anything that is brings him publicity, you can bet he’ll do it.

Fortunately, there were people like the powerful ... and reelected ... Sen. Orrin Hatch (a “friend”) to steer him away from this disastrous course. Such a bill would have deprived us all of natural products for health and killed an important industry. If he were to go, who would champion your vitamins? There were other shenanigans, as well.

Another person labeled an “enemy” is Henry Waxman, who snuck an amendment into the Consumer Protection Act of 2009 that would expand the powers of the Federal Trade Commission to write its own laws targeting dietary supplement companies. No Congressional oversight, just write and enforce the law in the FTC’s own courts. Insidious. Even now the FTC routinely targets supplement companies that are simply pointing people to scientific studies on the Web about the ingredient they are using in their supplements. Although Waxman remains in Congress, he will lose the chairmanship of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, and this could remove one threat the natural-products industry faced.

Food safety fears
One worry I heard expressed was "what will happen if a bunch of the Tea Party candidates get into office?" The general consensus is that, because they want to defund anything to do with government (“government is our enemy”), there is likely to be major defunding of food-safety oversight, something that is finally getting some overdue love from the Obama administration. Given the problems and recalls we’ve had in just this last year, de facto deregulation like underfunding would be a very bad direction for food safety in this nation.

"With additional authority unlikely to be granted by the new Congress," said Natural Products Association Executive Director and CEO John Gay, "NPA expects federal regulators to test the limits of their existing powers. We support their actions aimed at getting the bad actors out of the market,” said Gay, “but it is a problem if they target the legitimate industry, especially if they go beyond the current law to do so.”

Why Don't We Have More Omega-3s Added to Our Foods?

For all the amazing amount of confirmed health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids coming out of years of clinical research, you might think food manufacturers would be falling all over themselves to add it into food and drinks.

You would be wrong.

It is crystal clear that the lack of omega-3s in our diets are hurting us … badly. Because we don’t eat enough of the foods that contain omega-3s (cold-water fish, chia, flax seeds, walnuts, olive oil, etc.), we’re far more susceptible to everything from heart disease and stroke, to cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, even rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.

Most people are not going to be eating two big servings of salmon a week, which might just about bring them up to the minimum amount needed to be useful to their bodies. Fish oil and krill oil producers have for a long time now had technologies to make the omega-3s in their products tasteless, odorless and capable of being added to things like dairy and beverages and bread, so that people who aren’t able to afford supplements or don’t know about their importance could get a leg up on disease by simply ingesting fortified foods.

But North America food producers just haven’t been interested. One major figure among fish-oil producers, Robert Orr, chairman of Ocean Nutrition, puts it this way:

“Nutrition costs money, particularly in North America. Europe respects the nutritional value of food, but in North America we are addicted to food as energy. We’ve got the most efficient food distribution system on the planet … but what we’re eating the most of are things like high fructose corn syrup. Clearly the chronic disease situation is due to our food system.”

Forty years of advertising and buying food cheaply from outlets like WalMart and Costco have allowed us to think that cheaper is good – you can still buy a liter of Coca Cola for 99 cents, while a gallon of milk is about $3.50. If you’re watching your budget, the choice is an easy one, even if it is costly to your health.

The problem, according to those in the industry, is that food companies haven’t been any good at conveying a health message to consumers. When consumers began demanding better foods, the food companies focused on “lesser evil” marketing – reduced fat, reduced salt, more fiber, and so on. The problem, if you’re paying attention, is that many of these foods are processed and very high in carbohydrates, sugars, and worse. So consumers are being misled into thinking they are buying healthy products, when in fact they are simply buying health problems.

Unfortunately, it will likely be 4-5 years before we begin to see omega-3 fortified foods proliferate on grocery store shelves. Unless the American public begins demanding it from the food companies.

Trust the Food Marketers to Tell You the Truth?

Don’t put your trust in the government, either

At first blush, it looks like the government is stepping up its efforts to curb some of the most egregious false health claims being on products made by the big boys in the food world. However, it is beginning to look like recent reprimands are a mere slap on the wrist rather than serious action. Here’s the story:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently slammed theKellogg Company for the second time in a year for making unsubstantiated claims in advertising and on packaging. The first time was when Kellogg claimed that Frosted Mini-Wheats were “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20%.” The FTC reached a “settlement” with the company after telling them they had to shut down the campaign. Kellogg was not fined.

The second time, the company was claiming that Rice Krispies “now helps support your child’s immunity,” with “25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients – Vitamins A, B, C, and E.” The back of the cereal box said “Kellogg’s Rice Krispies has been improved to include antioxidants and nutrients that your family needs to help them stay healthy.”

Naughty, naughty the FTC told them. Commissioner Julie Brill and Chairman Jon Leibowitz sent a “dissenting letter” to Kellogg that said, in part, “What is particularly disconcerting to us is that at the same time that Kellogg was making promises to the Commission regarding Frosted Mini-Wheats, the company was preparing to make problematic claims about Rice Krispies.”

Bad company! Bad! Go to your rug! But did the FTC back up the scolding with a fine? Bet you know the answer. Put this together with the revelation that another of the government’s watchdog agencies, the Minerals and Management Service, was allowing oil companies such as BP to write their own regulations and environmental impact statements, and you begin to understand just how much influence big companies have over our governmental watchdogs.

Remember the “Smart Choices” labeling program that came out in 2009? This was a long project that involved giant food companies and nutrition scientists coming up with criteria for putting a nice seal on packaging that was supposed to help the consumer choose healthier products. So how did Froot Loops cereal end up with a Smart Choices seal, when it has 41 percent processed white sugar? Each serving holds 12 grams of the white stuff. And this in a nation that has an obesity epidemic!? And what about full-fat mayonnaise?

As always, it’s consumer beware! Educate yourself about health and nutrition. You simply cannot rely on the big food marketers to give you trustworthy information about what is good for you, nor the government to make sure they do.

We just have to be adults about this.

Trust the Food Marketers to Tell You the Truth?

Don’t put your trust in the government, either

At first blush, it looks like the government is stepping up its efforts to curb some of the most egregious false health claims being on products made by the big boys in the food world. However, it is beginning to look like recent reprimands are a mere slap on the wrist rather than serious action. Here’s the story:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently slammed the Kellogg Company for the second time in a year for making unsubstantiated claims in advertising and on packaging. The first time was when Kellogg claimed that Frosted Mini-Wheats were “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20%.” The FTC reached a “settlement” with the company after telling them they had to shut down the campaign. Kellogg was not fined.

The second time, the company was claiming that Rice Krispies “now helps support your child’s immunity,” with “25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients – Vitamins A, B, C, and E.” The back of the cereal box said “Kellogg’s Rice Krispies has been improved to include antioxidants and nutrients that your family needs to help them stay healthy.”

Naughty, naughty the FTC told them. Commissioner Julie Brill and Chairman Jon Leibowitz sent a “dissenting letter” to Kellogg that said, in part, “What is particularly disconcerting to us is that at the same time that Kellogg was making promises to the Commission regarding Frosted Mini-Wheats, the company was preparing to make problematic claims about Rice Krispies.”

Bad company! Bad! Go to your rug! But did the FTC back up the scolding with a fine? Bet you know the answer. Put this together with the revelation that another of the government’s watchdog agencies, the Minerals and Management Service, was allowing oil companies such as BP to write their own regulations and environmental impact statements, and you begin to understand just how much influence big companies have over our governmental watchdogs.

Remember the “Smart Choices” labeling program that came out in 2009? This was a long project that involved giant food companies and nutrition scientists coming up with criteria for putting a nice seal on packaging that was supposed to help the consumer choose healthier products. So how did Froot Loops cereal end up with a Smart Choices seal, when it has 41 percent processed white sugar? Each serving holds 12 grams of the white stuff. And this in a nation that has an obesity epidemic!? And what about full-fat mayonnaise?

As always, it’s consumer beware! Educate yourself about health and nutrition. You simply cannot rely on the big food marketers to give you trustworthy information about what is good for you, nor the government to make sure they do.

We just have to be adults about this.

Let’s Compare Krill Oil and Fish Oil

Is there really any difference?

You may have heard about krill oil by now. Krill are the tiny crustaceans being harvested in the Antarctic for fish food and for their oil, which is used in supplements for humans. People are beginning to wonder if oil is better for you than fish oil.

Krill oil is another rich source of omega-3s, beyond fish oil and vegetarian sources such as hemp and chia. Krill oil also contains phospholipids and astaxanthin, a powerful antioxidant. Antioxidants enter your blood and scavenge for DNA-damaging free radicals. Free radicals are formed when a molecule in your cells loses an electron. This can be triggered by the presence of environmental factors, such as pollution, radiation, herbicides or smoking (among many other agents). Free-radical activity can even be triggered by consumption of excessive calories, such as those found in simple sugars.

Free radicals are unstable and they try to steal their needed electron from another compound ­– a method used to gain stability. The compound from which the electron is stolen sometimes becomes another free radical, which can begin a chain reaction that will damage living cells, something that accumulates with age.

The phospholipids found in krill oil are the stuff of which our cell walls are made. The phospholipids found in krill oil are also rapidly absorbed into our bodies. Fatty acids bound to the phospholipids are fed into a complex signaling cascade known as the eicosanoid system, which regulates a bewildering array of the body’s functions.

So is krill oil any better than fish oil?

… or is krill oil any better for you than an algae-based (vegetarian) omega-3? It depends on what you want.

First, let’s explain some of the terms we’ll be using. Phospholipids are made up of two fatty acids, which are bound through a phosphate link to the essential nutrient choline. Choline is really important for your brain. The fatty acids from cold-water marine creatures like krill are often omega-3 fatty acids. Therefore, the phosphatidylcholine from krill has a unique benefit to structures like the brain, and can enhance attributes like mental sharpness.

Many of the fats we ingest from food, vegetable oils, and fish are in the form of triglycerides. Tri means “three,” and triglycerides have three fatty acids bound to a simple backbone. Triglycerides are a source of energy for our bodies, containing twice much energy as carbohydrates or proteins. However, triglycerides cannot pass through cell membranes freely. Special enzymes on the walls of blood vessels called lipoprotein lipases must break down triglycerides into free fatty acids and glycerol. High levels of triglycerides in the body are linked to atherosclerosis (vascular disease), heart disease, and stroke.

While there is some excellent information about sources of omega-3 fatty acids on the web, there is a great deal of writing that is focused on selling a specific brand of product. This makes it tough for us regular folks who are looking for all the promised benefits of taking omega-3 supplements to figure out what to spend our money on.

Perhaps the following chart will shed some light on the subject. Without endorsing any particular form of omega-3 supplements, let’s illustrate some simple comparisons between several of the forms in which omega-3s come – fish oil, algae oil and krill oil.

OMEGA-3S SOURCE COMPARISON
	Fish oil	Algae oil	Krill oil
CONTENTS
EPA	x	x	x
DHA	x	x	x
Choline			x
Phospholipids			x
Astaxanthin			x
Triglycerides	x	x

You are likely to read that a typical fish-oil capsule contains more DHA and EPA than a capsule of krill oil. This is true, but you are less likely to hear that the EPA and DHA in krill oil are bonded to phospholipids, which have unique attributes in human biology. There are several studies now underway that examine the potential bioavailability benefits of phospholipid-based omega-3 fatty acids.

As yet, the body of scientific research on krill oil is presently much smaller than the research on sources of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. But you can read the summaries of several such krill-oil studies here, here and here.

James Townsend is editor in chief of WellWise.org, a nonprofit organization for the dissemination of science-based information about supplements, nutrients and strategies for health.

How Credible is Whole Foods?

Think you’re always buying organic food if it says so on the label? You might want to think again. The leading organic retailer in the United States, Whole Foods Market, was recently caught with its proverbial pants down.

ABC Channel 7 (WJLA) in Washington, D.C. aired a report showing that many of Whole Foods’ frozen organic products under the “365 Organic” label actually came from China, even one product labeled “California Blend Vegetables.” The video, available on YouTube, does say that since the story was first reported, Whole Foods now gets its California Blend Vegetables from California. And if the buyer looks closely enough at the back of the package, “Made in China” can be found in small print.

Food sold in the U.S. as organic must be approved by the USDA before displaying the “organic” label. Whole Foods said it relies on a third-party certifier Quality Assurance International (QAI) to certify its products from China, but when QAI was asked, they admitted that they, in turn, use yet another third-party certifier in China. Whole Foods refused to give the name of that company. Experts say that it is difficult, if not impossible, to confirm that organic standards are being met in China.

The TV station managed to obtain a confidential document listing the country of origin for many of Whole Foods’ products, including organics. It shows that dozens of these products come from China. That document is available on the station’s website at the bottom of the story.

Since the beginning of 2010, the Food and Drug Administration has stopped at least 260 shipments of foods from China, the station reported, including strawberries contaminated with pesticides, bacteria or filth. An earlier ABC story by a station in Atlanta, Georgia, revealed that the majority of seafood consumed in this country is imported from developing countries. Up to 60 percent of seafood imported through Alabama has been rejected by that states’ agriculture inspectors for contamination.

Yet another set of reasons to always read labels closely.

Why is Whole Foods Pulling Krill Oil from Its Shelves?

Recently Whole Foods Market, a major retailer of natural and organic products, announced that it was removing krill-oil products from its stores. The official statement said, in part: “Declines of some predator populations in the areas where the krill fishery operates suggest that fishery management needs to better understand how to evaluate the prey requirements of other marine species in order to set sustainable catch levels for krill.”

I hope my readers realize that it can be tough to find factual, science-based information about krill oil, or just about any other supplement on the Internet. Krill oil is rich in omega-3s, phospholipids, asatxanthin and choline, all of which have lots of science-backed health benefits.

Most everything in cyberspace is marketing hype, some marketer’s attempt to sell his krill-oil product, or his competitor’s desire to sell a competing omega-3 product. Krill oil has suffered this image problem ever since coming onto the market, and this problem owes far more to endlessly repeated rumor and innuendo than to fact, as well as the fact that no one wants to take the food out of the mouths of whales and penguins.

I spoke with a PR company that represents Whole Foods in Colorado about the decision, but all I was told is that the “issue is under review.” I would hope so. I’m sure that whoever made the decision did so out of sincere motives and legitimate concerns for the Antarctic marine ecosystem. But it appears he or she did so without even an elementary knowledge of the rigorous management system in place to protect krill.

The truth about krill in the Antarctic
However, the truth is out there if one digs deeply enough … or asks the right person.
To find out, I turned to Dr. Simeon Hill, a senior scientific officer of at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) at Cambridge, England. BAS is one of the world's leading environmental research centers and is responsible for the UK's national scientific activities in Antarctica. It is an active participant in the international treaty organization called the Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) that formed back in 1982 specifically to manage Antarctic fisheries, protect the predators that depend on fished species, and protect the Antarctic krill fishery.

Dr. Hill said, "It seems likely that Whole Foods' decision is based on an appeal to emotions. However, they don't seem to be applying the same strict criteria on sustainability across their whole range of products. I would argue that sustainability is a far greater issue in many other fisheries than in the krill fishery.”

Well now, that certainly is a different perspective.

The “strict criteria” he may be referring to here is the fact that 95 percent or more of Antarctic krill is harvested for fish farms, including those for salmon. If Whole Foods was knowledgeable about this, it might more appropriately be concerned about selling farmed salmon rather than krill oil, which accounts for less than two percent of the harvest.

Science is key to managing the krill fishery

Counting living creatures in the sea is tough, but CCAMLR uses what it calls a “precautionary approach” to minimize the risks to krill and its predators. Firstly, CCAMLR scientists have determined that the total sustainable catch for krill is 3.47 million metric tons per year. Secondly, even further safeguards have been put into place, mandating that when the catch reaches a “trigger level” of just 620,000 metric tons the fishery must close for the season.

CCAMLR scientists determined this “trigger level” from historical records, which show no evidence of the krill fishery harming predators. Thirdly, there are restrictions on where the fishery can operate and how much of the “trigger level” it can catch in each area. Finally, current annual catches are around 200,000 metric tons, a third of the “trigger level” or a mere six percent of the sustainable catch.

Again, Dr. Hill: “The potential effect on predatory species is precisely why we’re taking such precautions in the fishery.”

There are just nine ships currently licensed to fish for krill in the Antarctic, and as of last year half of them are required to have scientific observers on board to ensure that the catch limits are not being surpassed.

“Good management recognizes and minimizes these dangers,” Dr. Hill says. “CCAMLR takes a very precautionary approach. The bottom line is that the fishery is only allowed to take a fifth of the sustainable catch and there are also spatial restrictions designed to protect predators.”

The truth, he says, is that “the krill fishery is managed much better that many other fisheries in the world.”