Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:52:51.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What is the research base for the use of dietary supplements?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Malden C Nesheim*
Affiliation:
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email MCN@Cornell.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The market for dietary supplements in the USA was estimated as about 11.8 billion dollars in 1997 with a growth rate of 10–14 % projected in the next 3 years. Data from the Food and Drug Administration collected in 1995 indicate that over 55 % of adults surveyed used some type of dietary supplement. The marketing of dietary supplements in the USA has been essentially deregulated by the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). This legislation defined dietary supplements, made manufacturers responsible for the safety of supplements and allowed certain statements of nutrition support to be made on supplement labels. The US Congress in passing the DSHEA indicated that supplements should be available on the market so that consumers could make decisions about their use for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, information about the research base for supplement claims is not readily accessible to health professionals and consumers. There is a need for authoritative reviews of the data underlying supplement claims to assist public health professionals in their role of providing advice to the public about dietary supplements.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 1999

References

1 Anonymous. Nutrition industry builds momentum. Nutri. Business J. 1997: 2: 15.Google Scholar
2Roe, BE, Derby, BM, Levy, AS. Demographic, lifestyle, and information use characteristics of dietary supplement user segments. 1997. Unpublished study cited in report of the Commission on Dietary Supplement Labels. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC.Google Scholar
3 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. 108 Stat. 4325. Public Law 103–417, United States Congress.Google Scholar
4 The Nutrition Education and Labeling Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 2353. Public Law 101–535, United States Congress.Google Scholar
5Report of the Commission on Dietary Supplement Labels. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC, 1997.Google Scholar
6Bass, IS, Young, AL. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act; a legislative history and analysis. The Food and Drug Law Institute, Washington DC, 1996.Google Scholar
7Medline, National Library of Medicine. US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
8Melchart, D, Linde, K, Worku, F, Bauer, R, Wagner, H. Immunomodulation with Echinacea – a systematic review of controlled clinical trials. Phytomedicine 1994; 1: 245–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Parnham, MJ. Benefit–risk assessment of the squeezed sap of the purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea) for long term oral immunostimulation. Phytomedicine 1996; 3: 95102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Recommended Dietary Allowances, tenth edition. National Research Council National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1989.Google Scholar
11USDA and HHS 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, fourth edition. Home and Garden Bulletin 232: USDA, Washington DC.Google Scholar
12Food and Nutrition Board 1997. Dietary Reference Intakes: calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D and fluoride. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Intakes. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
13Food and Nutrition Board 1998. Dietary Reference Intakes: thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, folate, vitamin B12, pantothenic acid, biotin, and choline. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Intakes. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar