Press Release: Vitamin E meta-analysis misleads consumers

Dr Robert Verkerk, executive director of the Alliance for Natural Health, commented, “The Johns Hopkins study provides another interpretation of information that has been known for some time. However, it tells us nothing about the supplemental use of natural forms of Vitamin E and how people can use Vitamin E and other ingredients in food supplements to reduce their risk from chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer.”
The authors of the study make no mention of the good body of evidence that shows that synthetic forms of Vitamin E, or purified natural forms that are limited to a-tocopherol, have the ability to reduce the body’s absorption of other forms of Vitamin E (e.g. Handelman GJ et al, J Nutr 115; 807-13,1985; Burton GH et al, Am J Clin Nutr 67; 669-84, 1998; Huang HY, Appel LJ J Nutr 133; 3137-40, 2003) which are much more powerful antioxidants.
This, coupled with the possible pro-oxidant behaviour of a-tocopherol at high doses, considered by the Johns Hopkins authors as a possible mechanism explaining the apparent increased incidence of death shown in the meta-analysis, might at least partially explain the observed results.
In addition, there is recent evidence that many of the beneficial properties of Vitamin E may be related to non-antioxidant mechanisms involving specific molecular reactions with enzymes and proteins (see Munteanu A, et al J Cell Mol Med, 2004; 8(1): 59-76), so antioxidant-focused intervention trials may be limited in their ability to assess the full range of benefits of Vitamin E-containing supplements.
Dr Verkerk added, “The clinical trials used in the meta-analysis all use a classic, orthodox medicine intervention approach, where vitamins are used much in the same way as drugs, and are often delivered on their own in their synthetic form or in very limited combinations. There are as yet no studies which attempt to explore benefits of balanced combinations of nutrients, comparable to those that may be found in a theoretical, ultra-healthy diet. Most committed users of food supplements are aware that food-form supplements are desirable over synthetic forms, and that complex combinations of nutrients are required rather than single vitamins. The continuing development of nutritional therapy as a complementary healthcare approach would suggest that many thousands of people have experienced benefits from such ‘high dose’ nutrient therapies, often used in combination with healthy diets, exercise and other lifestyle changes.”
Negative implications of the study
Negative publicity about Vitamin E, spawned by misinterpretations of the science behind the Johns Hopkins study, could scare people unnecessarily and stop them using important food supplements. Food supplements are invaluable as a means of guaranteeing levels of key nutrients, such as natural Vitamin E, known to be depleted or deficient in today’s typical diets. Recommended Daily Allowances, although largely discredited by the scientific community and bearing no relationship to the levels required for optimum health, are still used by many governments as the yardstick by which to determine acceptable intakes of vitamins and minerals,
It is a very rich irony that the European Commission has seen fit to allow only the a-tocopherol form of Vitamin E in its new Food Supplement Directive, set to come in to force across Europe in August 2005 unless challenged successfully. The Directive bans the natural, food-forms of Vitamin E and some 300 forms of vitamin and mineral presently on the European market. In many cases these food forms have been shown to be considerably more beneficial to health. The Alliance for Natural Health is presently challenging the Directive in the European Court of Justice. The case is expected to be heard in early 2005.
Last week in Bonn, Germany, United Nations’ Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses finalised the text of an international guideline for vitamins and minerals. The next stage will be the development of guidelines for maximum dosages, which will use a so-called evidence-based risk assessment approach. In September, the Food & Agricultural Organisation and the World Health Organisation released a consultation document* for which comments must be received by 10 December. The timing of the release of the Johns Hopkins meta-analysis seems set to give the regulators justification to be excessively restrictive, particularly if the media can be relied on to exaggerate and distort the findings of the study.
Whatever levels are developed for the international Codex guidelines are then likely to filter back into national or regional legislative systems, including the Food Supplements Directive in Europe. There is no doubt that even the United States’ Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA), which has been viewed as the bastion of liberal natural healthcare legislation for some 10 years, is now deeply under threat.
[* Should this link not function properly, please go to the following website for further information regarding submissions:]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *