Nutritional science for mind health products
DSM Nutritional Products
On January 25, Newsweek published an article entitled “Antioxidants Fall From Grace: The popular dietary components may not do any good, and may actually harm”. The article treads the same old path of ‘antioxidant supplements do not work, and one big meta-analysis indicated they may increase your risk of mortality’.
One word: Yawn.
The world of antioxidants is moving onwards, and repeating the same old line is not benefiting anyone: Not consumers, nor industry. For those at the cutting edge of antioxidant research, now is the time to show where the science is going.
Antioxidants = that meta-analysis
In the Newsweek article (available here ), Sharon Begley states: “The first hints that the [antioxidant] bandwagon was crashing came from the hundreds of studies that have tried to assess the health effects of antioxidant supplements. The results have not been pretty.”
Ms Begley then goes on with reciting the results of the meta-analysis with 67 studies that concluded that vitamins A and E, and beta-carotene may increase mortality risk by up to 16 percent. The meta-analysis first appeared in JAMA (2007, Vol. 297, pp. 842-857), and then enjoyed an encore as a Cochrane Systematic Review.
“It’s not clear why antioxidants in supplement form might be so dangerous,” adds Begley.
No! It is not clear that antioxidant supplements are in any way ‘dangerous’: What is clear, however, is that there is no mention of the 748 trials that were excluded from the meta-analysis that the Newsweek article hinges on, including 405 trials that showed no mortality in the study groups. After all, you can't measure antioxidants in relation to death if you have no deaths to compare it to.
There is also no mention of the recent revisit of this data by scientists led by Prof Hans Biesalski from the University of Hohenheim, which found that 36 percent of the trials showed a positive outcome or that the antioxidant supplements were beneficial, 60 percent had a null outcome, while only four percent found negative outcome (Nutrients, 2010, 2(9), 929-949).
Balance is the key
Extra antioxidants from the diet or supplements help redress the scales often tipped in favor of the pro-oxidants by factors such as aging, exposure to pollution, smoking, and excessive exercise: Pro-oxidants do perform important functions, including being involved in cell signaling and immune responses, but it’s about balance between these species and antioxidants.
(For an update on thinking of antioxidants and reactive oxygen species, I’d point you in the direction of a new opinion paper by Prof. Barry Halliwell from the National University of Singapore – a leading voice in antioxidant research.
Writing in Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, Prof Halliwell notes: “The biology of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antioxidants is not an esoteric field of study: these species are involved in all aspects of aerobic life. One cannot live without them, nor would one wish to, but ultimately they no doubt contribute to individual mortality. Learning how to stop the latter while preserving the useful functions of ‘reactive species’ should be a major research priority.”)
Ms Begley does discuss the pro-oxidant issue, but to cite these reasons, one (controversial) meta-analysis, and four animal studies is not doing the subject of antioxidants any justice whatsoever.
Such comments have been echoed by academia and industry: Tufts University’s Prof Jeff Blumberg told NutraIngredients-USA.com: "Regrettably, this piece does not provide a balanced viewpoint of the state-of-the-science of dietary antioxidants and attempts to frighten readers with brief descriptions of a few in vitro experiments, studies in mice and rats, and reliance on controversial meta-analyses."
And this echoed comments from Douglas MacKay, N.D, Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), who added: “The article provided an incomplete picture of the existing scientific evidence supporting the benefits of antioxidants, instead relying exclusively on findings from only negative or null studies, and meta-analyses that many scientists have already criticized.”
The next phase
In addition to being incomplete, the article also contains nothing that is ‘news’. Instead, the real news on antioxidants is far more interesting: Academics such as Prof Blumberg have called for a move beyond the term ‘antioxidant’ .
“Stopping use of the term ‘antioxidant’ provides a terrific opportunity to differentiate yourself and promote the multifunctional benefits of these compounds we now call antioxidants,” said Prof Blumberg in an interview with NutraIngredients in 2010. “Can we tell that story without using the term ’antioxidant’?”
Industry, too
From an industry perspective, the term ‘antioxidant’ is an established member of the marketer’s little black book of favorite terms, and this is not surprising when we consider the global supplements market in 2009 for antioxidant vitamin C was $3.4bn (€2.49bn), coenzyme Q10 was $897m (€657m), and vitamin E was $1.39bn (€1.02bn), according to Euromonitor.
But relying on the term to guarantee future sales is short-sighted. Indeed, various sections of the industry acknowledge the need to move beyond our current thinking. Last year, Dr Michele Kellerhals, research and innovation, functional ingredients director at Coca-Cola Europe told the Fresenius Functional Food conference last year Coca-Cola said he expects antioxidants to be replaced with polyphenols.
Such pro-active thinking is what we need in terms of antioxidants. It is clear that consuming these nutrients is beneficial but thinking of them only as antioxidants is getting old.
Now that would wake us up and get us thinking.
Stephen Daniells is the senior editor for NutraIngredients-USA.com and FoodNavigator-USA.com. He has a PhD in chemistry from Queen's University Belfast and has worked in research in the Netherlands and France. He has been writing about nutrition and food science for over five years, and has commented on the subject of antioxidants previously: “Time for Antioxidants v2.0 ” and “The quest for a radical new world for antioxidants ”.
11 comments (Comments are now closed)
Run Away Train of Gross Stupidy?
In this age of information and the billlions of dollars being spent all over the plant on food research....what is coming clear is the effort to
squash the natural food and supplement industry so the arrogance of the medical and pharmacuetical industry can prevail.....and what is clear is gross stupidity the journalist
of Ms. Bagely. If this is her conscious speaking, she needs to truly be educated on
how antioxidants work in the body so she can prove to the children of America at high risk for Cancer from environmental effects and the lack of good nutrition why they should eat berries. Is her intention to get them to stop eating berries?
Can two time Nobel Prize winner, Linus Pauling's work be refuted? He opened the door on molecular science and to this day is the leader.
Shame on Newsweek!
Report abuse
Posted by Sandra White Hornsby
04 February 2011 | 20h03
Newsweek slams antioxidants: Yawn! pfff
As always, part of it is true, a big part is nonsense. Many "antioxidants", or better, most antioxidants are produced synthetically. Science found a technique to copy one molecule. However, in nature, such molecules do not exist in isolated forms. Very few studies are done with natural antioxidants, but all show great benefits. However, taking to many antioxidants of one type and in an isolated form may compromise certain functions in the body, such as the immune system. Many natural polyphenols do such much more than just being an antioxidant. What about the gene expression of certain important processes such as inflammation? These can be modulated very well with natural polyphenols (which are also antioxidants). Some improve the function of vitamin D3 in activating 25OH-D3 in it active form 1,25 OH-D3. Others modulate COX and LOX enzymes or are involved with PPAR gene expression. Just looking at antioxidants for their reducing capacity is only a minor part of the story. To bad this never reaches the public or even a big share of the medical establishment.
Report abuse
Posted by Erik-Alexander Richter
02 February 2011 | 21h45
Perhaps Newsweek have done us a favour?
We in the science community get a little precious at times and close our minds to alternative scenarios. Any commentary that promotes debate and an outing of the evidence for or against a current scientific paradigm, has to be good. Where would the world be without the alternative thinkers of history who have challenged established dogma and those who think that they know best?
Report abuse
Posted by Nigel Larsen
02 February 2011 | 21h12
What motivates journalists
I am puzzled by journalists that write anti-nutrition articles like this. Is it simply because they are under editorial pressure to supply a "good story"? Would a story with more balance and science in it be unacceptable? Are they deluded into thinking that they are champions of "true science"? None of these explanations quite convince me - anyone have a better one?
Report abuse
Posted by John Nichols
02 February 2011 | 13h20
Steve, I have a better story for you that will knock your socks ff
Steve, Please contact me at my email address. I have a better story for you that will just amaze you. How would you like to turn the fish oil industry on its head???
Report abuse
Posted by Margie Adelman
01 February 2011 | 03h04
Science aplenty!
If anyone bothers to actually read the recent science on antioxidants, they will find that the compounds we call antioxidants probably do have lots of health benefits. The big BUT is that antioxidant capacity has nothing to do with it! I agree with Prof Blumberg, a new term is needed - "antioxidants" really don't work.
Report abuse
Posted by David Stevenson
31 January 2011 | 22h44
So where's the science?
You are defending anti-oxidants, but cite no studies supporting their benefits to humans. Vitamin supplements have shown little benefit despite the money thrown at promoting them. Until a reputable study of their benefits to humans comes along, this is just another smokescreen.
Report abuse
Posted by Bill Cross
31 January 2011 | 20h08
Thanks Stephen
Exactly. I am surprised that Sharon Begley is being so uncritical re supplements when her husband, Ed. is so open-minded. Anyway, sometimes we all need a little perspective. You may wish to check out:
http://thegormleyfiles.blogspot.com/2009/08/dietary-supplements-setting-record.html
Report abuse
Posted by James J. Gormley
31 January 2011 | 19h06
Ditto on Antioxidants
Hi Stephen,
I'm yawning too! Your comments & insights were spot on. For Newsweek, this article was very weak on science and showed a distinct lack of vision.
Report abuse
Posted by Sharrann Simmons
31 January 2011 | 18h57
Excellent Evaluation
Excellent comments, Stephen! It is surprising how some individuals can twist the data to satisfy their own selfish reputation. This is not the first of this type of analysis.
Report abuse
Posted by Gopinadhan Paliyath
31 January 2011 | 18h49
Great Commentary on Newsweek Article
Exactly right. It is important to note that more studies were excluded than included in the meta-analysis. And since then, a Cochrane Review concluded that antioxidant supplementation helped with infertility issues in men, positively increasing live birth rates and pregnancy rates almost 5-fold. http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab007411.html
Report abuse
Posted by Michael McBurney, Head of Scientific Affairs, DSM Nutritional Products Inc
31 January 2011 | 18h15
Read all comments (11)