The folklore and superstition of cultures throughout history have
attributed healing or harmful properties to certain foods. This
tendency has not disappeared with the advent of the sciences of
nutrition and medicine. Food folklore continues today, although in many
instances it is inconsistent with scientific evidence.
Nutrition fraud is a comprehensive term used by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to describe the abuses that occur as a result of
the misleading claims for traditional foods, dietary supplements, and
dietary products and of the deceptive promotion of other food
substances, processes, and devices.
Food faddism is a dietary practice based upon an exaggerated belief in the effects of food or nutrition on health and disease.
Food fads derive from three beliefs:
Food faddists are those who follow a particular nutritional practice
with zeal and whose claims for its benefits are substantially more than
science has substantiated.
Until Einstein's equation, E=mc?, which may also be written
Calories=mc? is invalidated the only way to reduce weight (m) is to
reduce the amount of calories consumed (E). In other words, to lose
weight it is necessary to eat less calories each day than you burn up,
and the only way to gain weight is to eat each day more calories than
you use. [Herbert, J., (Chief Hematology & Nutr. Lab. Bronx VA Medical Center) : Nutrition Cultism - Facts & Fictions. 1981.]
Food quackery, which involves the exploitive, entrepreneurial
aspects of food faddism, is the promotion for profit of special foods,
products, processes, or appliances with false or misleading health or
therapeutic claims. A food quack is one who pretends to have medical or
nutritional knowledge and who promotes special foods, products, or
appliances with false or misleading claims, usually for personal
financial gain.
Nutrition fraud flourishes today because of the diversity of
cultures, the historical tradition of concern for health and the use of
natural remedies, and the introduction of advanced communication
technologies.
Food faddism has its roots in Great Britain, where patent medicines
were advertised and sold by everyone from hawkers to goldsmiths. In the
colonies, legal protection of consumers against fraudulent claims was
first recorded in Massachusetts Bayin 1630. Nicholas Knopp, was whipped
and fined five pounds for selling a cure for scurvy that had "no worth
nor value" and was "solde att a very deare rate". [Young, J.H. The toadstool millionaires: a social history of patent medicines in America before federal regulation. 1961.]
One of the earliest nutrition faddists was Sylvester Graham, a "back
to nature" reformer who was suspicious of any food altered from its
"natural" condition, such as white flour. His legacy continues among
those who question whether processed food of any type can provide
adequate nutrition.
Although, it must be noted that processed foods should not
necessarily be eliminated from a persons diet because of this belief,
it is true that without fortification the more a food is processed and
thus differs from its natural form the less nutrient dense it will be.
Some groups such as fruitarians actually go a step further, they
don't eat processed or cooked foods. The reason being that when a food
is cooked it is not able to be digested and becomes toxic. There is no
scientific evidence to back this argument to its fullest extent.
Popular interest in nutrition, coupled with concern about food
shortages during World War I, was fostered by the increasing promotion
of the health properties of foods in the early 20th century. Vitamins,
by the very nature of their discovery, became associated with the
prevention or cure of disease and were soon promoted as curative agents.
Today the travelling patent medical man has been largely replaced by
the highly skilled and organized use of electronic means to promote
fraudulent marketing - computers, customized mailing lists, national
advertisements, and other mass media. The medium and the details have
changed, but the message and the goals remain. It is difficult for
consumers to evaluate the validity of the health claims perpetrated by
quacks and faddists.
Purveyors of nutrition fraud capitalize on people's desire to be
healthy and on the lack of certainty in many areas of nutrition and
health. No writer for a lay audience has any special insights into
nutrition which are not known by a substantial part of the scientific
community. Magic and sensational diets are nothing more than
exaggerations of one facet of nutrition at the expense of another,
often to the detriment of the willing victims.
Regulation of Nutrition Fraud
The first Federal legislation, the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906,
made it unlawful to manufacture or introduce into interstate commerce
adulterated or misbranded food or drug products.
Currently, numerous Government, medical and consumer-oriented
organizations are responsible for preventing and controlling fraud.
These agencies work cooperatively, and their antifraud activities have
become more visible in recent years.
Private agencies and organizations such as the American Dietetic
Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical
Association, the National Council Against Health Fraud, and other
health professional groups are also active against food fraud.
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act empowers the FDA to prohibit
the introduction of any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is
adulterated or misbranded. Only factual and nonmisleading information
is allowed on food labels. Most false promotional claims, therefore,
are not made on labels. Instead, they appear in books, lectures, and
mass media that are protected by constitutional rights. The FDA has the
authority to use its food additive and drug approval processes to
control food products allowed on the market and to remove fraudulent
products.
Most fraudulent food products are classified as foods, but when
therapeutic claims are made for them, they are also considered to be
drugs. If a food product is also classified as a drug and is considered
by the FDA to be ineffective for its claimed use, it will not have an
approved New Drug Application. For example, if it is promoted for
treating a disease that is not amenable to lay diagnosis, it cannot
have adequate directions for use and will not be approved.
Health Consequences of Fraud
Nutrition fraud may lead to deleterious health consequences, caused
by the failure to seek legitimate medical care, by potentially toxic
components of foods and products, by nutrient toxicities and
deficiencies, by diversion of monies from essential treatments, and by
interference with sound nutrition education.
Public health and safety can be jeopardized by false promises that
divert or deter individuals from pursuing sound forms of medical
treatment or that encourage them to abandon beneficial therapy for a
disease. Fraud may encourage people to reject legitimate medical advice
and to practice inappropriate self-medication that is less likely to be
helpful, and more likely to be directly harmful, than the medical
technology based on a sound understanding of human biology and
nutrition.
The FDAs annual reports document numerous instances of fraud-induced
failure to obtain appropriate health care. Because early detection and
treatment improve prognosis for many illnesses, unproven "nutritional"
therapies may unnecessarily delay beneficial intervention. Some diet
regimens recommended by health faddists to treat cancer, for example,
are so nutritionally deficient or toxic that adherence to them has
caused death or serious illness.
Public injury can occur when foods and unproven remedies are toxic.
Just because a substance occurs naturally in food does not mean that it
is necessarily safe. Many of the chemicals known to be present in herbs
have never been tested for safety. Some plant foods contain potentially
unsafe pharmacologically active ingredients such as aflatoxin, one of
the most potent carcinogens known.
There has been a substantial increase in the use of herbal products
that contain pharmacologically active ingredients that can possibly
produce undesirable effects such as an increase in blood pressure.
Occasional poisonings and clinical intoxications are reported after the
use of herbal tea products. Ginseng, one of the most popular herbs, has
been reported to produce oestro-like effects in some people. From
present evidence, it cannot be concluded that all herbal products can
be consumed safely over extended periods of time. [Larkin, T. Herbs are often more toxic than magical. FDA Consumer: 4-11, October, 1983.]
Potentially harmful ingredients have been identified in samples of
other food supplements, such as an oestroic hormone in commercial
alfalfa tablets, arsenic in kelp tablets, and cadmium in dolomite have
caused the FDA to caution against use of these products, particularly
by pregnant women and children.
Frauds and fads may induce nutrient toxicities or deficiencies. Many
people take vitamins as self-medication for the prevention or treatment
of health problems. The use of these products varies with such
demographic factors as geographic region, education, income, and race.
Women are more frequent consumers than men. Intakes range widely,
extending up to 50 times the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for
individual nutrients.
Nutrient supplements are usually safe in amounts corresponding to the RDA,
but the RDA's are already set to provide maximum benefit consistent
with safety. Thus, there is no reason to think that larger doses will
improve health in already healthy people, and excess intake can be
harmful. Mega-dose intakes can have seriously harmful effects. The
toxicity of high dosages of vitamin A and D is well established.
Because the margin is narrow between a safe and a toxic dose of most
trace elements, excessive supplementation with these substances may be
particularly hazardous.
Excessively restrictive dietary practices can also induce serious
medical problems or even death. Popular weight reduction products often
provide very low calorie intakes. Because such products have been
associated with the deaths of some young women, the FDA now requires
warnings on labels to alert consumers of such products.
Many popular diets are potentially harmful because they eliminate
food groups or severely limit food variety. Examples include those that
drastically reduce carbohydrate intake, or advocate excessive fruit
consumption, and those that claim that a person cannot digest protein
and carbohydrates at the same time. This is not true, as can be seen in
the Chapter - The Digestive System,
different parts of the digestive tract deal with different nutrients
and will absorb those nutrients, besides most foods usually contain
both protein and carbohydrates (eg. legumes which are often 50% protein
and 50% carbohydrate).
Fad diets seldom produce long-lasting weight control. Highly
restricted diets, such as the more extreme forms of Zen macrobiotics,
have led to nutritional deficiencies, starvation, and even death in a
few individuals. [Council on Foods and Nutrition, Journal American Medical Association. Zen macrobiotic diets. 218:397, 1971.]
Such diets have also been associated with retarded fetal development
and childhood growth or other nutritional problems in young children.
Commercial interests have capitalized on a heightened public
awareness of nutrition and health issues, but much of the public cannot
evaluate the validity of available weight reduction schemes,
supplements, and services. Self-appointed health and nutrition advisors
have expressed distrust of proven public health measures such as
fluoridation and pasteurization and, instead, have promoted treatment
alternatives that are not supported by accepted medical practice. The
public also may be misled by extravagant claims of health benefits from
the use of certain foods or nutrient supplements.
Economic Consequences of Fraud
People experience economic injury when purported remedies and cures
do not work, are untrue, or are greatly exaggerated or when purchased
products are not needed. Fraudulent products are known to be extremely
profitable to those who sell them. Quackery has become big business and
costs the deluded consumers in excess of $10 billion a year!
Most fraudulent products and services can be very costly yet are
promoted as having nutritional or health benefits that have not been
substantiated in scientific literature. [The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health,1988.]
A vast array of substances are available for a variety of different
purposes. some of them may even appear to work owing to the power of
the placebo effect - if you expect product X will make you feel better,
then it probably will. But these supplements must not be dismissed as
placebos in the sense of being inert pieces of chalk. These substances
are what they say they are, and many of them have powerful
pharmacological effects (though not necessarily those claimed for
them). The dangers of hypervitaminosis is an obvious example. The
effects of excess quantities of isolated amino acid supplements,
minerals such asselenium and substances such as ginseng have never been
fully explored and may be no less hazardous.
Even if consumed at a level which is not harmful, their use is still
undesirable. In most instances they are unnecessary; either providing
nutrients which are surplus to requirements or supposed nutrients which
are probably not needed at all. Furthermore, those who are most
susceptible to health food claims are perhaps those who can least
afford to be. [Health Foods and Fad Diets, Manual of Dietetic Practice, British Dietetic Association. Pg 229. 1989.]
Table 2.6 Health food supplements and remedies
| Product | Reason for use | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| VitaminsMineralsAmino AcidsKelpSpirulinaAloe vera | To correct dietary deficiencies | Surplus to requirements in most cases. Considerable dangers with over-use |
| Vitamins - B13, B15, B17FlavonoidsInositolSeleniumLecithin | To supply "nutrients" deficient in a normal diet | No evidence that supplements of these are necessary. B17 (laetrile) has now been banned from sale in the U.K. |
| GinsengHoneyKelpPollenBee's royal-jellySpirulina | To restore vigour, induce feelings of well-being | Ginseng has certain pharmacologic effects although these are variable and unpredictable. Extremely expensive. Problems with over-use have been reported. May provide traces of vitamins and minerals (at a price) but little in the way of magic |
| DNA and RNA | Rejuvenation and retard ageing | The body makes all the DNA and RNA it needs. Dietary excess can cause hyper-uricaea |
| Cider vinegarGarlic | To "cleanse" the body of toxins | In the absence of severe liver or renal disease, the body is quite capable of doing this for itself |
| Enzymes | To aid digestion or metabolism | Cannot possibly act in this way. Are denatured on reaching the stomach and then treated as any other protein |
| SpirulinaCider vinegarHoneyLecithin | As a slimming aid | Claims that substances can burn up fat or stimulate metabolism are nonsense; if true obesity would be a thing of the past. Honey and Lecithin are significant sources of calories |
| Aloe veraGreen lipped-musselKelp | As a cure for arthritis and rheumatism. | It should be noted that chronic disorders such as rheumatism and arthritis have periods of partial remission in any case. |
| Herbal remedies | Healing | A skilled herbalist may well be able to relieve minor ailments via the pharmacologic effects of some plants. But these effects can be powerful, and some times toxic, indiscriminate use of these remedies by the uninformed can be dangerous |
The public incurs other costs because many products labelled as
"natural" or "organic" sell for higher prices than their "regular"
counterparts, although their special benefits are not generally
demonstrable. "Natural" vitamins often sell at double the price of
synthetic products even though they are chemically identical. In some
products labelled as "natural," only a minor fraction of the vitamin is
actually derived from natural sources.
What is also very difficult to understand is why more natural foods,
like whole wheat bread or unpolished rice, often cost more than their
refined counterparts, white bread or par-boiled white rice, that have
undergone costly processing and packaging which should make them more,
not less expensive.
