LE Magazine August 2001

Are Dietary Supplements Causing People To Live Longer?
New studies show that people are living longer and that a higher percentage of the elderly are living independently.
In 1982 for instance, 6.2% of the nation’s elderly were confined to nursing homes, compared with only 3.4% in 1999. Another interesting statistic is that while there were nearly a third more elderly Americans in 1999 than in 1982, the total number of chronically disabled older Americans actually dropped.(1)
Researchers attribute this surge of healthy aging Americans
to improved diet, exercise and better medical care. In fact,
those who have chosen to live a healthier lifestyle are the
ones attaining advanced age in a vigorous state.(2)
 |
The critical fact that everyone ignores is that in 1982, only 2 billion dollars
of dietary supplements were sold in the United States compared
to 15.4 billion in 1999. Dietary supplement sales have surged
seven-fold over the past two decades, but these numbers continue
to be overlooked as a reason why so many Americans are avoiding
aging-related disease.
A report just released by the U.S. Census Bureau shows that
the number of Americans over age 85 jumped 38% from 1990 to
2000. The Census Bureau confirmed that the reason for this
huge jump is the cumulative effect of reduction in disease
risk as well as the increase in the average life expectancy.
The Census Bureau reports that among senior citizens, the
category of “oldest old” is increasing fastest of all, meaning
that Americans are achieving a substantial increase in the
human life span.(3)
These statistics should further motivate those seeking to
avoid the catastrophes of aging to follow a healthy lifestyle.
These reports document a substantial reward in the form of
increased longevity and decreased disease risk for those who
make the right choices.
Can we attribute these improvements in health and longevity
to the sharply higher intake of dietary supplements? Not according
to mainstream medicine, which is still waiting for the results
of large-scale trials. Existing human studies, on the other
hand, demonstrate a significant correlation between supplement
use and increased life span.(4-7)
 |
| The FDA argues
that if women ate more fortified
foods, they would obtain enough
folic acid. The facts are that
most people won't change their
diet, but many will consume a
low-cost folic acid supplement. |
|
Members of The Life Extension Foundation decided a long time
ago to take matters into their own hands and consume supplements
that have been shown in scientific studies to protect against
disease, aging and death.
The folic acid controversy
We reported two months ago about a stunning defeat the FDA suffered in Federal
Court when the agency tried to censor a health claim that
folic acid supplements are more effective than food in preventing
neural tube birth defects. The FDA filed a motion for the
court to reconsider this ruling, but the FDA’s motion was
flatly rejected.
The FDA was thus under Court order to prepare a disclaimer to be put on dietary supplement labels if folic acid was promoted to prevent birth defects. Here is the disclaimer the FDA now requires on folic supplement labels that claim to prevent birth defects:
| “FDA does not endorse this claim. Public health authorities recommend that women consume 0.4 mg of folic acid daily from fortified foods or dietary supplements or both to reduce the risk of neural tube defects.” |
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence in support of folic
acid, the FDA displays its historical prejudice against dietary
supplements by prefacing the Court-ordered statement with:
“FDA does not endorse this claim.”
|
FDA
Drops Threatened
Appeal of
Folic Acid
Decision
The
FDA made it
clear that
it did not
agree with
the Court’s
decision permitting
a health claim
to be made
about the
superiority
of folic acid
supplements
(compared
to food) in
preventing
birth defects.
In an April
3, 2001 letter
to the victors
of the folic
acid First
Amendment
lawsuit, the
FDA threatened
enforcement
action if
the label
typeface of
the disclaimer
was not the
same as the
health claim
about folic
acid’s benefits.
The FDA went
on to state:
"FDA
believes that
no disclaimer
can remedy
the deceptiveness
of your health
claim |
because
the claim is contrary
to the weight
of the scientific
evidence."
After threatening
to file an appeal
of the Court’s
decision that
allowed the folic
acid health claim,
the FDA just announced
it would not contest
this issue further.
After eight years
of intensive litigation
over this one
narrow health
claim, the FDA
has finally capitulated
on this fundamental
First Amendment
issue.
 |
|
|
Another government agency often at odds with the FDA is the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In
the March 16, 2001 issue of their publication called Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC reminds women
of reproductive age that they need to take at least 400 micrograms
of folic acid daily. According to this report, a survey of
women of child-bearing age found that only 30% of women were
aware that taking folic acid can prevent neural tube defects.
Most of these women did not know that folic acid consumption
on a regular basis is important to them.(8)
The CDC advocates that more information be disseminated to
women of child bearing age about the importance of folic acid,
while the FDA has gone to extraordinary lengths to suppress
the truth about this critically important B-vitamin.
The result of FDA censorship of folic acid supplements is
that more babies will be born with horrendous birth defects
such as spina bifida and other related neural tube defects.
The FDA argues that if women ate more fortified foods, they
would obtain enough folic acid. The facts are that most people
won’t change their diet, but many will consume a low-cost
folic acid supplement.
For women to know to take folic acid, the FDA has to let supplement makers advertise that folic acid can reduce the risk of certain kinds of birth defects. The FDA is now under Court-order to allow a claim that folic acid supplements are more effective than folic acid obtained from food.
It cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and took eight years to force the FDA to recognize this one health claim. If the FDA continues this pattern of censoring scientifically-based health claims, most Americans will not learn what they can do to reduce disease risk.
Few people read medical journals. That means that if more Americans are to take advantage of the evolving knowledge about disease prevention, supplement companies must be allowed to advertise truthful, non-misleading health claims to the public. FDA censorship equals death to the uninformed.
As a subscriber to this publication, you are updated every month about the latest scientific methods of preventing disease via the use of diet, hormones, drugs and supplements.
For longer life,

William Faloon
| FDA To Be Sued On Antioxidant-Cancer
Claim
Attorney Jonathan Emord announced on June 4,
2001 that a new lawsuit will be filed against
the FDA based on their denial of a health
claim that antioxidant vitamins may prevent
cancer. The FDA denied this claim based on
their interpretation of studies indicating
that antioxidants don’t cure cancer. The health
claim that’s being sought, however, seeks
only to convey the message that reducing free
radical damage may prevent cancer at the initiation
stage. The FDA does not appear capable of
differentiating between preventing and curing
cancer.
Supporting anti-FDA litigation
Only a handful of people are paying the legal
costs of battling the FDA’s attempt to deny
the public access to truthful, non-misleading
scientific information. The First Amendment
victories over the FDA to date have been remarkable,
but the FDA continues to squander tax dollars
in an effort to protect the drug companies
against low-cost dietary supplements. You
can help support litigation being spearheaded
by Durk Pearson, Sandy Shaw, Julian Whitaker
and others by sending a donation to:
Pearson and Shaw Litigation Fund
Emord and Associates
5282 Lyngate Court
Burke, VA 22015
All of the legal briefs filed for Durk and
Sandy by Jonathan Emord and Associates can
be found at www.emord.com. |
References
1. Manton KG, et al. From the Cover: Changes in the prevalence
of chronic disability in the United States black and nonblack
population above age 65 from 1982 to 1999. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001 May 22;98(11):6354-9.
2.Rapport R. Senior health issues. N
J Med 2000 Jun;97(6):43-4.
3. “The Graying of America,” HealthScout
May 16, 2001.
4. Meydani M. Dietary antioxidants modulation of aging and
immune-endothelial cell interaction. Mech
Ageing Dev 1999 Nov;111(2-3):123-32.
5. Han SN, et al. Vitamin E and infectious diseases in the
aged. Proc Nutr Soc 1999
Aug;58(3):697-705.
6. Yu BP, et al. Can antioxidant supplementation slow the
aging process? Biofactors
1998;7(1-2):93-101.
7. Diplock AT. Will the ‘good fairies’ please prove to us
that vitamin E lessens human degenerative disease? Free
Radic Res 1997 Jun;26(6):565-83.
8. Knowledge and use of folic acid among women of reproductive
age - Michigan, 1998, MMWR, March 16, 2001 Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report.
Back to the Magazine Forum
|