So why isn't the FTC doing something about vitamin and supplement advertising?

According to their website the mission of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC for short) is "to prevent business practices that are anticompetitive or deceptive or unfair to consumers..."  Really?  You could have fooled me. 

On December 16, 2013, the Annals of Internal Medicine published an editorial accompanied by two original studies and a review of existing research entitled "Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements."  Why?  Because they don't work.  (Forbes, 2013)

This is hardly new news.  Evidence has been mounting for years.  In 2009, the Wall Street Journal published Jennifer Corbett Dooren's article "Vitamins Fail to Reduce Health Risks for Women," detailing the results of what was then the largest multivitamin study in postmenopausal women conducted to date.  The results of the NIH sponsored study were published in the Feb. 9 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, and they showed taking vitamins and supplements resulted in  "no meaningful benefit."  (Dooren, 2009)

In 2011, Peter Murray writing for SingularityHUB published an article entitled "Studies consistently fail to show benefits of dietary supplements -- experts think it's time to reevaluate," which discussed several studies (Iowa Woman's Health and SELECT) which actually showed increased mortality and prostate cancer for those who took vitamins/supplements versus those who didn't.  (Murray, 2011)

And then there's my personal favorite, posted by Alice on her wholegrainalice  blog in September 2011 entitled "Vitamin Pills Don't Work," which lists, with references, all of the studies published which not only failed to show positive effects for vitamins but also unearthed some negative ones.  (Alice, 2011)

As far as I know the only study to date that has showed a positive result was the 2012 Centrum study of multi-vitamins on healthy 50+ male doctors.  And given the selectivity of the participants included in the study, I think their advertising should carry a  legal disclaimer  -- which of course it doesn't.   (Rabin, 2012)

But that doesn't begin to compare with the hundreds of false ads we see daily for these products.  Ads that lead to $30 billion in sales in 2011.  Even while the public continues to get sicker.  What's the point of funding government agencies to protect consumers when they are clearly not doing anything of the kind?

The FDA says it doesn't regulate vitamins and supplements because they are not drugs.  Really?  If people are taking them to prevent disease and increase longevity then it sounds like they are drugs to me.  But hey,  I'm an advertising maven so I say it's time for the FTC to step in where the FDA has let us down and protect the public from these false claims.  Isn't that what they're supposed to be doing?

http://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc

Forbes, T. (2013, December 17)  Journal Recommends 'None-A-Day' Multivitamins. mediapost.com.  Retrieved December 17, 2013, from, http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/215706/journal-recommends-none-a-day-multivitamins.html

Dooren, J. (2009, February 10)  Vitamins Fail to Reduce Health Risks for Women.  wsj.com.  Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123423307340266303

Murray, P. (2011, October 31)  Studies consistently fail to show benefits of dietary supplements -- experts think it's time to reevaluate.  singularityHUB.com.  Retrieved October 31, 2011, from

http://singularityhub.com/2011/10/31/studies-consistently-fail-to-show-benefits-of-dietary-supplements-%E2%80%93-experts-think-its-time-to-reevaluate/

Rabin, R. (2012, October 22)  Curbing the Enthusiasm on Daily Multivitamins.  nytimes.com.  Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/curbing-the-enthusiasm-on-daily-multivitamins/?_r=0

I think Spice Islands may be on to something.

The spice manufacturer is returning to television for the holiday season with a message about their high quality standards, which includes distributing their products in glass bottles.  (Lukovitz, 2013)

If ever there was a campaign targeted to an educated audience this is it.  I cringed last month when I read about the FDA report which said that 12% of US spice imports are contaminated with bug parts, rodent hairs, and most disconcertedly salmonella.  (Christensen, 2013)

And, I switched to glass and threw out all my plastic in 2008, when the studies about the harmful effects of BPA’s in plastic were released. (Parker-Pope, 2008)

While I reminded myself when I read the report about the spices that I usually consume only fresh herbs and spices from local organic farmer markets and my own roof garden, I did take a moment to consider what I would do if I couldn’t find a particular spice through those sources, and had no easy answer.  Well now I do.  And just in time for my holiday turkey.  Sounds like a winning strategy to me.   

Lukovitz, K. (2013, November 19) Spice Islands Returns To TV Advertising.  mediapost.com. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/213772/spice-islands-returns-to-tv-advertising.html?edition=67075

Christensen, J. (2013, October 31) What’s in your spices?  Bug parts and rat hair.  cnn.com.  Retrieved November 22, 2013, from http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/health/bugs-in-spices/

Parker-Pope, T. (2008, April 22) A Hard Plastic Is Raising Hard Questions.  nytimes.com. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/health/22well.html?_r=0

You mean that skin cream won’t make me look 10 years younger?

Cosmetics and skin cream companies have long sold hope in a bottle.  And while I have recently found myself pondering whether or not anti-aging creams work, and if so how, I just couldn’t bring myself to believe that they really did.

Now after years of ignoring cosmetic claims, probably because they thought we were all smart enough to realize using these products was not going to turn us into supermodels, the FDA has fired a warning shot at Lancome.  Apparently they have gone a step too far with claims like “boosts the activity of genes and stimulates the production of youth proteins,” which the agency perceives to be a drug claim.  (Forbes, 2012)

Well.  It’s a start.  Last year the U.K. banned a couple of L’Oreal ads featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington for overuse of photoshop retouching.  And before that, there was the mascara ad featuring Eva Longoria wearing false eyelashes.  It certainly made me wonder why the U.S. wasn’t taking a closer look at these ads. (Gibson, 2011)

But let’s take a moment to consider how sad is it that even these extraordinary women need help to look the way they do in the media.  I think it’s time to take another look at Dove’s Evolution ad, and pay a little more attention to misleading beauty product claims.  Don’t you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c87AC4Le5Y&feature=fvst

Forbes, T. (2012, September 12)  FDA Crackdown On Lancome Claims Signals Shift.  mediapost.com.  Retrieved September 12, 2012, from

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/182841/fda-crackdown-on-lancome-claims-signals-shift.html

Gibson, M. (2011, July 28)  U.K. Bans Two Retouched Makeup Ads For Being ‘Misleading’. time.com.  Retrieved September 12, 2012, from

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/28/u-k-bans-two-retouched-makeup-ads-for-being-misleading/

Isn’t it about time that all health claims were properly substantiated?

5/18/09

Although the FDA has been monitoring drug company claims for their products for years, there has been a huge gaping hole, when it comes to supplements and foods.

Not only have companies been able to get away without properly substantiating their claims, they have been getting away with outrageous disclaimers in support of them. Listen closely or look at the small type and you will see that Product X will help you lose weight when “taken in conjunction with a calorie restricted diet and moderate exercise”. Duh. If you eat less and exercise more you will lose weight regardless of what supplements or specific foods you eat.

While Cheerios seems relatively benign, they are still making a very hard claim – “eat Cheerios and lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks” backed by a similar disclaimer. Their defense? We’ve been communicating this message for two years. Well, just because the ethically-challenged Bush administration was willing to go along with it, doesn’t mean that it was the right thing to do.

I think its time for the truth. What do you think?

(2009, May 12). FDA warns General Mills over Cheerios cholesterol claims. latimes. com. Retrived, May 17, 2009 from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/shopping_blog/2009/05/fda-warns-general-mills-over-cheerios-cholesterol-claims.html

Here’s an opposing point-of-view

York, E. & Thomaselli, R. (2009, May 13) With Cheerios, has the FDA bitten off more than it could chew? adage.com. Retrived, May 18, 2009
http://adage.com/article?article_id=136636