It’s Time to Stop Turning the Other Cheek

It’s Time to Stop Turning the Other Cheek
by William P. Arthur

Am I the only one who feels our industry is the new whipping boy for anyone who wants to score points in the media? When it comes to excoriating natural products, many critics are ready to vilify without being versed in the products or the science behind them. What’s worse, some experts seemingly interpret data in ways designed to keep their names in headlines.

The time has come for us, as an industry, to say “enough!” Too often, we have closed our eyes to criticism of an ingredient, resigning ourselves to an excruciating slump in sales, hoping that this, too, shall pass. Or, our knee-jerk reaction has been to summarily remove the ingredient from our products. But that tactic only hurts our credibility because manufacturers are forced to reformulate with ingredients that may not be as efficacious or about which less is known. As an industry, the last thing we need is a reputation for selling products that do not work—physically or financially.

Rather than sitting by passively or running scared every time a finger is pointed in our direction, we need to stand together and point to the science and evidence that support product safety and efficacy. Every time the denouncing of natural ingredients is used for personal, professional or political gain, we need to remind critics that our industry is vast, employs many people and provides alternative health solutions that consumers rely on every day. In fact, people have relied on natural products for thousands of years.

Right now, the U.S. nutrition business is a $68.6 billion industry. Of that, sports nutrition and weight-loss products account for about $15.6 billion and will climb to $22.8 billion by 2013.We are large enough to make a difference.We just need to work together to get the naysayers to listen.

It’s an uphill climb. The consumer media love to hype studies that show negative outcomes, regardless of whether there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Cases in point are the recent attacks on vitamin C, vitamin E and echinacea. Forget the scores of studies that show the benefits of these ingredients; it is the rare negative study that scoops the media spotlight. Sadly, many reporters are either too naive to dig into the research results, too lazy to look at prior research, or have their own axes to grind against the natural products industry. Worse, there are researchers who turn up positive results and then give them a negative spin to help garner attention for themselves. Negative headlines grab readers.

Bitter orange is a good example of how such misinformation can wreak havoc on the reputation of an ingredient. This example is close to my heart since my company played a strategic role in the launch and marketing of Nutratech’s patented bitter orange ingredient, Advantra Z®.

Because bitter orange is used in weight-loss and sports nutrition supplements and is chemically similar to the banned thermogenic ingredient ephedra, it was unfairly disparaged alongside ephedra. When a couple of prominent newspapers last year quoted an unnamed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) source who said there were numerous adverse event reports (AERs) associated with bitter orange, it became ingredient non grata almost overnight, and many manufacturers pulled it from their supplement formulas.

Thankfully, the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) stepped in to question FDA’s alleged AERs because something just didn’t mesh. It turns out there were virtually no AERs associated with bitter orange alone: most were ephedra AERs that FDA lumped in because they contained bitter orange as well as ephedra. Still, the damage was done, and we’ve been fighting to regain the good name of bitter orange ever since.

Interestingly, the science shows bitter orange does not work like ephedra. The two are chemically similar, but the same can be said for water and hydrogen peroxide (and you sure wouldn’t drink the latter). Chemical similarities are not the same as pharmacological similarities.

These subtle differences are important, but people who eschew our industry frequently overlook these nuances. So what can we do? I believe we can stave off some criticism by continually ensuring product quality, conducting credible research, loudly communicating the results and, above all, sticking together.

In the case of bitter orange, we know we are in for a long battle because FDA misstatements continue to pop up on Web sites and in mainstream articles a year after AHPA issued its findings about the misinformation and FDA made a retraction in The Tan Sheet for issuing the misinformation.

To help further the message that bitter orange is safe, Nutratech had Advantra Z tested by independent laboratory Chromadex, which proved that Advantra Z contains the stable pisomer of synephrine, not the m-isomer that is believed to potentially increase blood pressure in some users. Apparently, that was not good enough.

In September, we found ourselves in defensive mode again when Christine Haller, Ph.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, released a study that showed that in dosages found in dietary supplements on the market, Advantra Z had no impact on blood pressure and only a negligible and transient increase in heart rate, which was seen hours after ingestion even in the placebo group, probably because the test subjects were fed. These results were great news for bitter orange. But the university’s press release headline screamed that ephedra-free dietary supplements pose potential health risks. At best, that conclusion is highly questionable. At worst, it is a gross misrepresentation of the research findings.

There are many ways to help right these wrongs. First, we must insist reporters and others research the facts of the study, not just reiterate the headlines. And, when headlines don’t match the facts, perhaps they should question the researcher’s motives. Second, let’s implore researchers to study products in their intended dosages and uses. Many natural products take a beating because tests are conducted using dosages that far exceed or are far lower than those found in any dietary supplement. Third, let’s point out when research is not applicable. For instance, we often take heat for studies done with intravenously or subcutaneously injected versions of ingredients that are only used in an oral dosage form in our industry.

And finally, when the results show that the products are safe when used properly, let’s get the word out. I’m not advocating hype, but we must give consumers the facts they and their health care providers need to make informed decisions about the products they choose to use. By educating consumers about safety and efficacy, we can regain their confidence and build credibility.

Companies like Nutratech and other ingredient suppliers know that in rare cases—whether through carelessness, negative interactions with other products, poor health or other reasons— some natural ingredients may not be suitable for every individual. That’s why our industry advocates manufacturers include warnings on their labels and consumers check with their health care providers before beginning any supplement regimen.

Nearly any ingredient, food, prescription or over-the-counter medication—natural or otherwise—has the possibility of being problematic for some individuals. Still, our industry has an exceptional track record for safety. So let’s do a better job of standing behind our products and sticking up for those ingredients that work and have the science to support their efficacy before we end up selling useless placebos. It’s time for the natural products industry to stop turning the other cheek.

Share this article: Email, Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Yahoo!MyWeb, Windows Live Favorites, Furl
Add this article feed to: RSS, My Yahoo, Newsgator, Bloglines