Observers say Harvard anti-supplements article so poorly done as to be 'embarrassing'

By Hank Schultz contact

- Last updated on GMT

Harvard anti-supplements article called 'embarrasing'
A recent Harvard publication blasting supplements as ‘suspect’ and ‘useless’ was criticized by industry observers as ‘unbalanced’ and even ‘embarrassing.’

The article, published in the April edition of the newsletter Harvard Women’s Health Watch​, is titled Why dietary supplements are suspect​.​  The subtitle goes on to say that few are effective, many are useless, and some may actually be harmful.

The article, which was posted without an author attribution, lumps a number of dietary supplement ingredients together, including herbs, omega-3 fatty acids, minerals, vitamins and others. It discounts any evidence of benefit in most cases, and along the way perpetuates errors such as associating cases of liver damage with black cohosh, when this has been shown to be attributable to adulteration with a closely related Chinese species​.  

Observers noted that the article appeared to have been very poorly researched. The black cohosh information, for example, has been available since at least 2010​. In another paragraph supposedly supporting the conclusion that supplements are dangerous, the article cites a New England Journal of Medicine ​study that concluded that dietary supplements are responsible for an average of 23,000 emergency room visits per year. Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association, wrote a guest article for NutraIngredients-USA​ showing that that study included some products that are not supplements, such at OTC remedies and topical preparations. He concluded that even if the 23,000 figure were taken at face value, when ranked against the total number of supplement users and against emergency room visits from all causes, that number vanishes into insignificance and is really indicative of the safety of these products rather than the reverse.

Observers are dumbfounded

These omissions and errors led industry observers to conclude that the Harvard posting had been hastily thrown together with perhaps little oversight.  Their reactions verged on the incredulous.

Because it was first published  on April 1, 2016, I read it several times to to try ensure that it was not an  ‘April Fools’ joke. The author(s) appears to have done very little true research on his/her own, apparently choosing instead to uncritically regurgitate information from various secondary or possibly even tertiary sources,” ​Mark Blumenthal, founder and executive director of the American Botanical Council, told NutraIngredients-USA.

“This is some of the worst journalism we’ve seen in a long time. It’s utterly uninformed, poorly researched and contains a boatload of errors,” ​said Frank Lampe, communications director for the United Natural Products Alliance.

“We are embarrassed on the behalf of the Harvard Medical School that they would allow something of this nature to be posted,”​ he added.

“I think this is a case of unbalanced journalism,”​ said Duffy MacKay, ND, executive vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition. “To try to lump all supplements together and say they are useless is pretty silly because they are such a broad category.”

MacKay did not that even with the strongly negative headline and general negative tone of the article, the author did include some positive information. In the paragraph about melatonin, for example, the article says , “A synthetic copy of a natural hormone, melatonin is used for jet lag, sleep disturbances, and insomnia. Research has determined that it can be effective at doses as low as 0.5 mg.”

“I’m not sure I would write any differently about melatonin,” ​MacKay said. “And for chamomile, it says it is effective in relieving anxiety, though it’s not as potent as a drug. I think that’s pretty fair.”

The DNA refrain

The article also includes at the end a lengthy discussion of adulteration and quality issues in supplements that relies heavily on DNA analysis conducted by Canadian academicians and by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. It completely misses the boat when it comes to the serious issues raised about whether the tests used in these cases were fit for purpose.

“Where this article really fails is in its apparently blind acceptance of the ‘herbs are adulterated’ premise by uncritically citing the highly-discredited 2013 study by Newmaster et al. at the University of Guelph and its improbable conclusions of the identity of herbal supplements that were inappropriately tested solely by DNA barcoding methods and then the equally questionable and widely-discredited results of the New York Attorney General’s 2015 DNA tests on herbal supplements sold by four major retailers. By ignoring the growing body of published  literature — some of it in peer-reviewed publications — by qualified medicinal plant experts that call into serious question the over-reliance on DNA barcoding as a sole determinant of the identity of the herbal ingredients in dietary supplements, this article does a disservice to its readers and raises legitimate questions as to the editorial veracity of the publication in which it appears,”​ Blumenthal said.

Overall bias?

The ‘unproven’ line in the article seems to be attributable to the fact that supplements are not regulated like drugs and are not studied like them, either. MacKay said he would stop short in saying that Harvard as an institution has a bias against supplements. To do so, he said, would be making the error that article makes.

“If they are looking for the same standard as for an FDA-approved drug, that’s really a non starter position,” ​MacKay said. “There are lot of reasons why these products are regulated differently than drugs. I know a lot of people from Harvard who understand and appreciate supplements. If you ask, does their public health newsletter possibly have an agenda? Then I would tend to agree.”

Related news

Related products

show more

Today’s Weight Management Consumer

Today’s Weight Management Consumer

Kemin Human Nutrition & Health | 18-Jan-2018 | Infographic

The weight management market has an estimated value of $34 billion. As the percentage of overweight and obese consumers continues to rise globally, there...

Are you using the right probiotic ingredients?

Are you using the right probiotic ingredients?

Nebraska Cultures | 07-Dec-2017 | Clinical Study

Good probiotics must confer a health benefit and withstand the rigors of processing and the GI tract. Nebraska Cultures’ science, proprietary technology...

omnilean

A Modern Look At Managing Blood Sugar

OmniActive Health Technologies | 14-Nov-2017 | Technical / White Paper

Sugar is ubiquitous and addictive. Over the past 30 years, sugar consumption has steadily increased, contributing to the growing epidemic of elevated blood...

Protect your brain functionality with red grape

Protect your brain functionality with red grape

BIONAP Srl | 03-Nov-2017 | Product Presentation

COGNIGRAPE™ is a powder extract of red grape juice from Sicilian varieties, clinically proven to support cognitive functions involved in age-related cognitive...

Related suppliers

6 comments

Show more

Harvard Anti-Supplement Article

Posted by Michael J. Holubik,

How can all supplements be bad? Statin drugs for example, interfere with the production of the enzyme HMgCoA-Reductase which the liver produces to make CoQ10 - an enzyme essential for ATP energy production. It is wise therefore to supplement with CoQ10 (or Ubiquinol) to make sure all cells can continue to produce CoQ10 - especially heart muscles. Beta Blocker anti-hypertensive meds also interfere with production of CoQ10... so why not supplement?
I don't think that Harvard article has any merit as there are many vitamins and minerals that serve useful purposes because we can't get all their benefits from the foods we eat these days - because the foods just don't have all the nutrients that they did 20 or 30+ years ago..... MY HUMBLE OPINION.

Report abuse

University sell-out

Posted by Edward,

Harvard follows suit with Oxford eager to destroy its own reputation by publishing foolishness and selling out to big pharmaceutical and GMO-producing corporations. What a shame!
Scientists are the false prophets of today: Blind leading the blind.

Report abuse

Confused Consumers!

Posted by Bobbie,

It is these types of articles that continue to confuse consumers and why they don't know fact from fiction! That is a HUGE blemish on such a prestigious university and shows there are NOT enough filters PRIOR to publishing such articles. We wonder why we have 70 percent obesity in this country and why the we are so malnourished and overweight! Not all supplements are equal so specificity is important versus generalization! I agree with the comment: "SHAME ON HARVARD!"

Report abuse

Follow us

Featured Events

View more

Products

View more

Webinars