Antioxidant Supplements Won’t Hurt Us, But Misinformation Might
Posted Monday, May 5, 2008

The following entry was provided courtesy of guest-blogger and award-winning journalist James Gormley. Read more from James at http://thegormleyfiles.blogspot.com.

Lately we’ve heard quite a lot about how nutritional supplements, including antioxidant vitamins, are regarded by a few scientists as a great danger—or so we might gather from recent media coverage that has treated us to such fear-mongering headlines as “Potential for harm in dietary supplements”1, “Vitamin pills may do more harm than good”2 and “Why some popular pills might kill you”.3

The scientific review to which these sensationalistic stories refer was a meta-analysis in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews4. A meta-analysis is supposed to be careful re-review of many studies whose results are pooled together.

The Cochrane Database meta-analysis, authored by Goran Bjelakovic and others, is an updated version of a review that originally appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association5 that had been roundly criticized by scientists.

While 67 clinical trials were included in this new review, most people are not aware that 748 trials were excluded for a number of reasons, including 405 studies that failed to show anybody died.6

One could persuasively argue that the authors of this review only included studies which could be molded to support the viewpoint that antioxidant vitamins are dangerous.

Dr. Bjelakovic has made no bones about his skeptical attitude towards dietary supplements. In 2007, he co-authored an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute entitled: “Surviving Antioxidant Supplements”7 and has posted an article on a newspaper syndicate entitled “Do antioxidant supplements work?”8

While meta-analyses, when properly conducted, can be an insightful tool; when ill used they are subject to bias by those who hold pre-determined conclusions and are seeking a way to force studies into them.

A wide body of scientific evidence has established that taking antioxidant supplements—including vitamins C and E, beta carotene, selenium and zinc—can help reduce the risk of chronic disease.

That being said, we know that antioxidant supplements (and supplements, in general) are not magic bullets, but they can be an important complement to a healthful diet.

If we twist science to create worldwide distrust in healthful dietary supplements, then we are truly harming consumers.


An award-winning journalist, published author, and member of the prestigious American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA), Gormley has 20 years of experience in health-related media communications. He is a senior policy advisor for Citizens for Health (www.citizens.org), an advisory board member of the National Health Research Institute (NHRI)and a member of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT). From 2006 to 2008, Gormley directed three leading health-food trade magazines for VRM Inc. He is perhaps best known for having served as the longtime editor-in-chief of Better Nutrition magazine (1995 to 2002) and for having founded Remedies magazine in 2006. A consumer health advocate and industry champion, Gormley has also been a frequent guest on television and national radio where he has spoken out on a variety of health and regulatory issues.


1. Brody J. Potential for harm in dietary supplements. New York Times April 8th, 2008. 
2. Vitamin pills may do more harm than good. Scotsman UK. http://news.scotsman.com/health/vitamin-pills-may-do-more.3984844.jp 
3. Why some popular pills might kill you. The Herald UK. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2199569.0.Why_some_popular_
pills_might_kill_you.php 
4. G. Bjelakovic, D. Nikolova, L.L. Gluud, R.G. Simonetti, C. Gluud. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD007176. 
5. G. Bjelakovic, D. Nikolova, L.L. Gluud, R.G. Simonetti, C. Gluud. Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2007 Feb 28;297(8):842-57. 
6. Daniells S. The dangers of selective science. Nutraingredients.com April 12, 2008 [online news portal] http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=84792-meta-analysis-antioxidants-randomised-clinical-trials 
7. Bjelakovic G and Gluud C. Surviving antioxidant supplements [editorial]. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 99(10):742-743, 2007. 
8. Bjelakovic G. Do antioxidant supplements work? Project Syndicate [online]. http://www.project-syndicate.org/print_commentary/bjelakovic1/English

guest on May 6, 2008 at 1:33:43 pm

The fact that no one died during any of the clinical trials as a reason why the studies were not included is absurd. Rather do individuals involved in a clinical trial die. If they did, as happened serveral years ago involving a study doen at John Hopkins, the University were in all likelihood never see a dime of research funding ever again. the reason many of the Dietary Supplement studies are not considered credible is because they are often done by less than reputable faclities that also use a limited number a research subjects.
guest on May 5, 2008 at 11:53:10 pm

There are at least 27 Cochrane reviews examining the influence of antioxidant and vitamin intake on diseases ranging from cataracts to gastrointestinal tumours. The specific study being referred to, and being criticised here because it excluded studies where no subject died in either the intervention arm or the control arm of the study, was designed to ask whether antioxidant supplements have any effect on the *overall mortality* of those taking them.So, OF COURSE course it was reasonable to exclude studies in which no patients died. Such studies could not contribute data relevant to the question being asked.Quote from the abstract–“BackgroundAnimal and physiological research as well as observational studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may improve survival.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality in primary or secondary prevention randomised clinical trials.”
guest on May 5, 2008 at 11:52:47 pm

This is very misleading. The Cochrane reviews are independent reviews, not updated versions of other reviews. Cochrane excludes trials that are of poor quality because they are not meaningful in reaching conclusions. The reasons for exclusion are published. Suggesting that the authors picked only trials that supported their view verges on defamation. If the lead author has written elsewhere that dietary supplements don’t work, that’s because that’s what the best scientific evidence currently shows. Other reviews and the independent, unbiased Medical Letter concur. Getting nutrients from the diet appears to improve health; getting them from supplements appears to do more harm than good. Those are the facts. It is Gromley who is “twisting science” in favor of the products his company sells.
 

  Blog Archives

Live Your Healthiest Life!
Click here for information on a variety
of health topics.

Find Answers
Vitamins A to Z
Click here for information on vitamins,
minerals, supplements and herbs

Find Answers
About | For Industry | Lookup | In the News | Newsletter | Donate | Contact
Natural Products Foundation
Copyright 2013 Natural Products Foundation | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer