When I was in school studying journalism, one of the core concepts we were taught is news reporting should be just that – news reporting. It should present the news – not take sides.

While the new CBS examination of herbal supplements does present both sides of the story, it is incredibly biased against the supplement industry right out of the gate. Like I mentioned in my previous post, a tag line of - If you or someone you know uses dietary supplements, you need to watch – is a red flag.

Also, I found the number of pharmaceutical company commercials running during the broadcast somewhat disconcerting. Even on the website page, a Tylenol banner ad is blazing away…

It appears the entire broadcast is incredibly well placed PR for a new book (also mentioned in my previous post), which attacks the nutritional supplement industry. From a PR standpoint I have to give that agency props – talk about a home run! The author is reported to be a science and medical writer, and appears to be quite familiar with many issues surrounding the industry.

I’m sure he recognized it is a ripe time to release such a work - with adverse event reporting, the NIH MVM panel, and Codex Alimentarius being timely and newsworthy issues. The groundwork has been laid, and the author has hopped on the ephedra-scare bandwagon - and stands to make a great deal of money from writing this book.

I can’t wait to get my hands on a copy.

Tonight’s episode reportedly focuses on government regulation, and I’m interested to see if FDA representatives feel they have enough power to regulate nutritional supplements through DSHEA – like they have said they do in the past.

As far as studies proving benefits, or lack thereof, there are many out which do both. Do a bit of Google Scholar research and you can see for yourself. One thing I always find interesting is the research supporting almost always uses the word “may” and says more research is needed, but the ones against appear to solidify the final word.

Is more research needed? Yes. Would more regulation meet with resistance? I doubt it. The issue is with the cost. An entire industry – very small in profit compared to their pharmaceutical counterparts – has been operating under a functional regulation system for quite some time. These companies simply cannot afford to conform to the same system as does the pharmaceutical industry, the pockets are nowhere near as deep.

I believe the reputable members of the industry would welcome further regulation, as long as the cost would not put them out of business. Some say it is exactly what the pharmaceutical industry wishes, then they could effectively monopolize the market. The industry has supported newly passed adverse event reporting legislation, and welcomes the detrimental effect it may have on unscrupulous manufacturers.

Obviously, I work for the nutraceutical industry and am biased as well. I do believe in the potential of vitamin and herbal supplements to provide health benefits. This is a blog from a supplement company, so a reader should have an idea what to expect. However, I found a comment made by an Amazon.com reviewer of the before mentioned book to contain quite a bit of insight, and I think speaks to concerned parties on both sides of the issue. A pharmacist and pharmaceutical/herbal medicine book publisher by the name of JPS Kohli said:

I would like to extend compliments to the herbal medicine manufacturers to have come his far by way of quality of products now available in the market. They should not feel rejected by criticism but take what is good from such criticism and build on it. Pharmaceutical industry also should support this industry that should call itself ‘Complementary Medicine’ rather than alternative.

Well put.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pm and is filed under Enzymes Inc..

Tags: CBS News, herbal supplements, herbal supplement regulation, dietary supplement regulation, emzyme supplements