0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editorial |

Vitamin Supplements: More Cost Than Value:  Comment on “Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women”

Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc
Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1634-1635. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.422.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Extract

Vitamin and dietary supplement use has increased steadily in the United States, with a whopping 85% of women in the Iowa Women's Health Study reporting supplement use. The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act helped to foster the growth of this industry by creating a new regulatory framework, which puts the onus on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to show that supplements are unsafe before it can take action. Manufacturers are not required to disclose to the FDA or to consumers the evidence they have regarding their products' safety, nor must they empirically back up claims of purported benefits. This permissive approach has encouraged sales of more than $20 billion annually for dietary supplements. Mursu et al find that consumers are getting little value for this expenditure and that increased mortality is associated with most of the commonly used vitamins and mineral supplements, not to mention the opportunity costs. A better investment in health would be eating more fruits and vegetables, among other activities. Because commonly used vitamin and mineral supplements have no known benefit on mortality rate and have been shown to confer risk, this article has been given our “Less Is More” designation.

Topics

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Even more cost
Posted on January 16, 2012
Michael B. Mundorff, MBA, MHSA
Primary Children’s Medical Center
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
There can be no better illustration of this phenomenon than the recent blizzard of direct-to-consumer (DTC) television advertisements for Bausch + Lomb Ocuvite products, which purport to "help maintain eye health". How, exactly, is this accomplished? Why, with acknowledgment of no FDA oversight, is it possible to state that one of those products is "for people at risk for age-related macular changes"? Reference: http://www.bausch.com/en/ECP/Our-Products/Eye-Vitamins/Eye-Vitamins-ECP (accessed 16 January 2012)

Conflict of Interest: None declared
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 4

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();