Root Problems of Dietary Supplements

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Overview
Research Aims
The Inside Machinations of the Food Industry
About Dietary Supplements Industry
Other Factors
Impact of Supplements on Children
Advertising and PR in Supplements Industry
Solution: Need for Change
Summary
Works Cited

Overview

The aim of this research paper is to understand how the $25 billion dietary supplements industry blatantly ignores government-mandated quality and safety norms, and the health-related consequences it creates for the general public. The author will analyse this subject from a radical philosophy approach and expose the role of PR and advertising agencies which represent the supplements industry, as well as government lobbyists, in keeping the consumer ignorant about nutritionally correct information that matter to their health. The magnitude of the problem is compounded several fold when one follows news stories of how the supplements industry is able to misdirect government regulation bodies and child welfare agencies in marketing their harmful products to school bodies.

Research Aims

This paper contains substantial evidence on how a lack of proper government regulation and consumer awareness on the marketing strategy of the supplements industry (as well as a lack of interest by media) is causing irreversible damage to the health and well-being of school-going children. From a philosophical point of view, the author believes that their deception tactics are nothing short of oppression since they give the consumer no knowledge about the side-effects of these products, and instead bombard them with promotional messages which appeal to their fear instincts. In order to redress the problems created by the supplements industry, the author will invoke the Rules for Radicals by Saul Salinsky and related theories by other authors that deal with overcoming social oppression.

The Inside Machinations of the Food Industry

A prominent nutritionist, Marion Nestle, who has been an advisor for the Department of Health and Human Services, has come out strongly against the commercial aspects of the food industry in her book, The Food Politics. The underlying conclusion from her research suggests that “food companies, just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals or any other commodity, routinely place the needs of stockholders over public health” (Nestle, 1).

The modus operandi is to take on board some expert nutritionists, professional organizations and research bodies, and manipulate consumer choice by advertising food products which generate maximum profit, while hiding health impact details of such products from the public purview. As an example of how they utilise the political and legal processes to achieve government and professional support for ensuring the sale of their products, Nestle points out that over several decades, food companies through massive PR and advertising efforts, have actively persuaded government officials, nutritional professionals and the media, to make people “eat more” of their products for achieving balanced nutrition levels (Nestle, 3).

As an example, the meat industry promoted meat products to Adult Americans as a necessary means to achieve the daily Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) targets for proteins, while suppressing the fact that frequent meat-eating leads to an abundance of health-related problems such as obesity, deranged metabolism, coronary heart diseases, certain cancers, diabetes, hypertension, stroke and more (Nestle, 3). It is well-known that over 41% of American adults are expected to be obese by 2014 (Wang & Beydoum), a situation which is a direct fall-out of misplaced advertising by food companies.

Nestle has also been critical of factory farms and giant food corporations by bringing evidence that when food items are not sourced locally, as it used to happen in the earlier times, it would only lead to increasing health and safety risks for the consumer (Nestle, 13).

Taking a cue from Nestle’s critical approach of the food industry in general, the author will examine health and safety issues prevalent in the dietary supplements industry. According to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA), almost 60% of the American adults consume dietary supplements (Talbott, 1). These are legally defined as any product (other than tobacco) that “supplement the diet by consisting of one or more of the following ingredients: a vitamin, mineral, herb or other botanical, amino acid, concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract or combination of these ingredients” (Talbott, 2).

About Dietary Supplements Industry

It is interesting to note that the recent exponential growth in usage of supplements by Americans has essentially followed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) which was enacted by the US Congress in 1994 to allow the consumer the “freedom to choose” dietary supplements (Talbott, 1) as per their own discretion, rather than through proper, regulated health care advice. This judgment enabled the FDA to put dietary supplements in the same category as “food” instead of “drugs”, thus, making these products evade the stringent quality and side-effects tests that are usually done on prescriptive drugs (Porter, 12).

The DSHEA has ensured that the producer, is spared any legal liability in health or contamination issues, and the end consumer is left to his own devices when an outbreak happens. In other words, supplements manufacturers have no obligation to prove that a particular ingredient is safe before introducing it to the market (Talbott, 6).

DSHEA further requires the FDA to give a total of 10 days notice to manufacturers in the event a product is regarded unsafe. This ensures that the manufacturer can withdraw their product before they encounter a lawsuit, a clause which significantly protects their business interests.The author believes such a legal mechanism is erroneous, and calls for a complete overhaul of the existing system, with newer and stringent regulations to protect consumer interests.

Ever since the passage of the DSHEA act, the lack of legal measures to keep a check on the irregularities in the dietary supplements industry has led to numerous violations of safety concerns, with widely publicized scandals. In a mid-1997 case, the FDA proposed limitations on the amount of ephedrine alkaloids to be allowed in dietary supplements by giving suitable warnings about various side effects such as nervousness, dizziness, elevated blood pressure, heart palpitations, heart attack, seizures, strokes and death (Talbott, 6).

This proposal was initiated by the FDA’s review of Adverse Event Reports, but was later challenged by supplement industry groups as a scientifically invalid position (Talbott, 6). In another 1997 case, the FDA learnt that a herbal ingredient Plantain was infected, after news reports on heart obstruction in a woman surfacing in the media (Talbott, 6). However, the 10 day notice period given to manufacturers as per DSHEA norms, nearly legitimized their practice.

The supplements industry can also get around government-mandated safety standards for particular ingredients by using the phrase, “under recommended use”. A popular weight loss and energy herb ma huang (ephedra) was typically recommended at dosages in the range of 10 to 30 milligrammes per dose (per day) (Porter, 56). At higher doses, it would cause hypertension and thus, deemed inappropriate for the consumer. Yet, despite this safety concern, most supplements manufacturers ignored the ethical aspect and fail to place appropriate cautions and warnings on their supplements labels (Porter, 59). Even vitamins pills manufacturers take advantage of the “food” classification system instead of “drugs” to avoid their responsibility to label maximum dosage limits (Porter, 60). The loopholes in the system do not get any worse than this.

Other Factors

Other factors that promote the consumption of dietary supplements include health status, sex, age, ethnicity, education, income, geography and lifestyle (Hollenstein, 5). As they happen to be the main nurturing agents, children are encouraged to consume dietary supplements, mostly complex mineral-enriched foods, protein and calcium tablets and more (Hollenstein, 5). In fact, according to a recent survey, children under the age of 5 happen to be one of the largest consumer groups of dietary supplement products (Hollenstein, 5). This makes them an especially lucrative target base for marketing and advertising firms that promote these products.

Impact of Supplements on Children

Since, there is such an acute shortage of appropriate information on the nutritional value of these supplements, children are often misled into consuming products that are detrimental to their long-term health and well-being. Ironically, most supplement products are designed to help growing children to achieve their daily RDA-balance of proteins, calcium, vitamins and minerals (Hollenstein, 8). Advertising and PR agencies do their bit in pushing parents and school authorities to procure more of these supplement diets, and include them as normal ingredients in a child’s lunch menu.

Children always bear the brunt of dietary misinformation. They are most often the easiest target for advertisers, increasingly so due to easy access to television and the Internet. Children who participate in competitive sports are especially vulnerable to the messaging promoted by advertising companies, who almost compel them to include supplements in their daily food intake. School authorities also offer supplements as an additional choice, along with “combo meal” coupons (Porter, 65).

Clearly, the lack of know-how about the modus operandi of the supplements industry can have serious long-term consequences on children’s health. The lack of government monitoring, and industry regulation practices and categorization of supplements as a food and not a drug poses a huge problem. This is quite unlike some European countries such as France, Germany and Belgium, where it’s mandatory by law to label all supplements as drugs, instead of food (Porter, 75). Unless and until a similar regulation exists in the United States, children will continue to be vulnerable to the side-effects of their supplements intake.

Again, it must be borne in mind that not all supplement products are harmful by definition alone. In fact, many are actually beneficial when taken in right dosage amounts. Consequently, the key guideline for parents and children alike is moderation and it’s the responsibility of FDA and other regulation bodies to guarantee dissemination of relevant information on the impact of supplement products on the health and well-being of children.

Advertising and PR in Supplements Industry

In order to ensure apposite regulation, the advertising and PR industry representing these dietary supplementary firms should also be made accountable to the overall impact of their products on children’s health. Just like the tobacco and alcohol industry, the supplements industry requires a regulation effort which controls product messaging to ensure responsible consumption among the public (Porter, 78).

Advertising slogans such as “Use our supplements to gain height”, “Lose weight fast”, “Achieve higher stamina” often exaggerate the value of these products much more than they really are, and create a lasting impact on Children, a highly impressionable set of consumers. Just as in tobacco and alcohol advertising, nutrition should not be taken as a light matter. Due regulation is the need of the hour.

Dietary supplements firms should take an ethical approach and desist from their current practice of not giving adequate labeling of their products (Hollenstein, 36). It is worth noting that many of these firms quote “freedom of choice” as the principle to ensure consumers have frequent access to their products, and are allowed to make their own decision without any sort of intervention from government regulators (Porter, 91). In a similar vein, it may be argued that these firms should bear the responsibility of disseminating information so that their consumers can make a “choice”.

Solution: Need for Change

Right since the formation of the United States, radical social movements have often defined and shaped the trajectory of the nation. Just like the civil rights movement in the early 1960’s, to the contemporary animal rights movement led by agencies such as PETA, the right to have access to proper health and nutrition info should also be recognized as a key struggle. Considering the appalling present state of America regarding obesity, ill-health and the public expenditure caused due to unrestricted advertising by the food industry, it may be argued that denying people information on what constitutes the best option for their health, should be also seen as a form of social oppression.

In no uncertain words, it would be then deemed appropriate to challenge the status quo, and bring about change. As an example of social change, smoking in public was considered a highly acceptable behavior not very long ago. Many of us still recollect the movie actor, Humphrey Bogart smoking a Havana cigar while striking a pose. Back then, smoking was a fashionable trend and noone looked down upon it. Cigarette advertising was rife, and very few challenged the notion of banning it. If we look back today from then, a lot has changed. Today, most states in the country have banned public smoking in one way or the other.

Moreover, the tobacco industry is made to be compliant with government-mandated warning measures for the benefit of smokers, while being disallowed to advertise openly. All this has happened in a span of very few decades because some concerned citizens got together to challenge the victimization of the tobacco industry. The question remains, if it was possible back then, why is it not possible today? If smoking constitutes harmful behavior, why is over-eating or growing adult/children dependence on supplement products seen as a less harmful behavior.

The author firmly believes that the time has come to challenge past notions, and work towards building a healthy, and respectable society which does not take kindly to “supplements abuse”, for lack of choice of words, let a new slogan be raised, let new battle lines be drawn. Compromising on the health and well-being of citizens is not an acceptable solution to our present set of problems. In order to seek a solution, the author will invoke a set of radical philosophy theories which can be applied to the dietary supplements industry. A total of three theories are hereby discussed.

Theory One

The first theory is based on Iris Young’s “social group difference” principle (Young, 1). It advocates that public policy should be determined on the basis of differences between people, rather than considering them a homogenous mass (Young, 1). For example, public dissent towards smoking in the early 1970’s emanated from college-going educated classes of Americans. It was felt and observed that this group did not want to participate in second-hand smoke because of inadequate regulations to prevent smoking in public places.

Recognizing this situation was the first step in creating a climate where the harmful effects of public smoking could be debated, and regulations brought in to ensure everyone’s interests was kept alive (Young, 87). Today, thanks to government regulation, smokers have a choice to consume cigarettes in their own private surroundings while non-smokers do not have to be exposed to second hand smoke.

In a similar vein, the author advocates that the FDA should be made to recognize that there is a growing body of consumers who object to unregulated practices of the supplements industry. Consequently, a climate of change should be initiated which addresses this issue over the next few years, or decades.

Theory Two

The second theory is based on Paulo Friere’s “class struggles” (Friere, 5) which advocates that any form of social oppression solely exists due to ongoing class struggles between the oppressor, and the oppressed (Friere, 5). The oppressor, derives his “power” due to some measurable parameter such as wealth, status or connections with the bureaucracy by lobbying (Friere, 18).

In order to ensure that this power shield is broken down, the radical philosopher needs to stop remaining adjusted to the culture of domination which surrounds his world. The onus is on him to challenge institutions which arrest the onset of social good.

Theory Three

The last and final theory to be applied is by Saul Alinsky, who, in his “rules for radicals” (Alinsky, 3), advocated ideas that would change the world, by working from within the system (Alinsky, 3). The most critical step here is to organize forces against the opposition. According to Alinsky, people should step out of their default mode of not questioning oppression in their social institutions, as also advocated by Friere and perform real-life tactics by using their “organization skills” (Alinsky, 6)to ensure a direct headalong response to the challenges of social oppression, with real solutions (Alinsky, 6).

According to Alinsky, the rules of radicals are simple – if enough of them can gather together to create a dynamic movement, social changes are inevitable as the oppressor always lives in fear of a large swarthe of people going against their interests (Alinsky, 8). That thought alone, shakes the foundations of power, and plants the seeds of achieving social justice. Some of the often used rules for radicals include:

Understanding the true definition of power; it’s not something which one has but which one perceives to be carrying (Alinsky, 31). According to Salinsky, real strength lies not in numbers but in the ability of the leader to create a powerful impact. The example of Erin Brockovich comes in mind. She was a famous environmental activist who was able to take on the might of a major corporation, Pacific gas and Electric Company by organizing complainants of their corporation policies in ruining the environment. Not only she didn’t buckle down, but actually fought to ensure the corporation was brought to its heels, since it was clearly in the wrong. In a similar vein, a social activist studying the double games of the dietary supplements industry, can lead a signature campaign of enough people to constitute a “critical mass” (Alinsky, 6) for taking further action.
Another strategy for radicals is to remain unpredictable to the world view of the oppressor (Alinsky, 31). The important thing is to generate enough confusion, fear and doubt to ensure the opposition always remains about its toes, and is easily misled. In this particular scenario, the radicals may frequently change tactics and play similar deception game that the giant corporations play.
The radical may force the oppressor to live according to their own standards, by playing their rules-game back at them (Alinsky, 31). It is well established that most large corporations live according to a set of rules, and high standards that come with it. It’s often here that the radical may possibly find loopholes to expose the true nature of the beast, and make their offense. For instance, the dietary supplements industry often uses the premise of “freedom of choice” (Alinsky, 31) in their practice of staying away from food labeling. It’s perfectly possible to apply this principle back at them, and forcing them to examine the error of their judgments.
It is also well known that ridicule is a highly potent tool to weaken one’s opposition. Salinsky recognized the sheer potential of making fun of the oppressor, as he saw in it a way for them to react in your favour (Alinsky, 31). For instance, PETA has been known to launch scathing attacks on the meat industry by soliciting human volunteers who disguise themselves as animals that are being led to the slaughter. Not only does it draw public attention to the cause of animal welfare, but it also exposes the meat industry for their own lies and propaganda on their methods of slaughter. The nutrition proponents and other welfare groups can similarly target the supplements industry by exposing their practice of not putting adequate labels on their products. Indeed, ridicule is a highly potent tool of bringing down the opposition, and brings best results.
Changing tactics frequently is another Alinsky device (Alinsky, 31). In order to exert enough pressure on the oppressor, sometimes, a fresh tactic brings best results.
Another Alinsky device is to “keep the pressure on” the opposition (Alinsky, 31). If the cause is genuine, it should not lose steam in any way. In order to ensure that the methods eventually succeed, the radical must keep the opposition on his toes. The supplements industry, led by giant corporations, is as vulnerable to frequent opposition, as any other organization. By frequently keeping the pressure on them, it’s possible to make sure they are not in a position to ignore the threat, and are eventually compelled to accept demands.

Summary

The purpose of enumerating Paul Salinsky’s rules for radicals in the summary is to suggest a possible solution to the health and safety issues discussed in this research paper. going to ensure that the supplements industry is not allowed to go on unregulated, and is held accountable to the government and public safety norms. As a final suggestion, the author advocates scrapping the DSHEA act and replace it with more stringent quality and safety norms for dietary supplements.

Works Cited

Alinsky, Saul David. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. Vintage Books, London, UK: 2009.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, NY: 2000.

Hollenstein, Jenna. Understanding Dietary Supplements. University Press of Mississippi, Tuscasoola, MS: 2007.

Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Affects Nutrition and Health. University of Califonia Press, Los Angeles: 2007.

Porter, Donna Viola. Dietary Supplements: Current Issues. Novinka Books, New York, NY: 2003.

Talbott, Shawn M. A Guide to Understanding Dietary Supplements. The Haworth Press, Inc: Binghamtom, NY, 2003.

Wang, Youfa & Beydoum, May A. “The Obesity Epidemic in the United States Gender, Age, Socioeconomic, Racial/Ethnic and Geographic Characteristics. A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis.” John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Human Nutrition, 2007.

Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ: 2000.

Click Here To Order Now!