Michael Rosenthal

(6/2021) We’ve written before about dietary supplements, and how many of them have little or no value and can even be harmful. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of1994 defines dietary supplement as follows. "A product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients: a vitamin, a mineral, an herb or other botanical, an amino acid, a dietary substance used by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any of the aforementioned ingredients.

Furthermore, a dietary supplement must be labeled as a dietary supplement and be intended for ingestion, and must not be represented for use as conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or of the diet. In addition, a dietary supplement cannot be approved or authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic, or biologic, unless it was marketed as a food or a dietary supplement before such approval or authorization. Under DSHEA, dietary supplements are deemed to be food, except for purposes of the drug definition."

Much has been written about dietary supplements, and there are those that swear by them and those who discount them as useless money-makers. The truth is more complicated. Consumer Reports, an independent, nonprofit organization, to which I subscribe and in which I have great confidence, did a 2020 study on brain supplements. The Consumer Reports study found a number of interesting facts, as follows.

Sales of memory supplements almost doubled between 2006 and 2015, according to a 2017 report by the Government Accountability Office. They found the presence in some of these supplements high doses of illegal prescription drugs, which have never been proven safe or effective. A chemical called piracetam, a drug found previously in brain-boosting supplements, and similar chemicals are not approved for use in the United States, but are used to treat dementia, strokes, and brain injuries, and other neurological issues in a number of foreign counties.

Another of the problems associated with usage of these drugs as supplements is their connection to increased and decreased blood pressure and to other serious medical conditions. Unapproved drugs may have other dangerous effects. Phenibut, marketed online as a treatment for anxiety or as a cognitive enhancer was linked to a steep rise in calls to poison control centers. Some of these cases were life-threatening or resulted in significant disability.

We need I feel a much more rigorous system of consumer access to reliable information about supplements than we have today. If I could have coffee with President Biden, I’d suggest this to him. Strengthening the FDA approval or non-approval process is a good route. I have always in this column urged consumers to look for FDA approval on drugs. And as important, seek the advice of a board-certified physician. The most important step in brain health is to maintain a healthy diet. Exercise and mental use are certainly significant contributors to this objective as well.

The Consumer Reports newsletter, On Health, has an article in its June 2021 issue on Multivitamins. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that nearly 40 percent of adults age 60 and older take multivitamin/mineral supplements. Research studies report ambiguity in the evaluation of the effectiveness of these supplements. Over the Counter supplements (OVC) are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as are prescription medications A study (see ConsumerLab.com) last year found 12 of the 27 supplements studied had quality issues, such as more or less of the vitamins and minerals than claimed by their labels, and some may contain contaminants.

I also have a subscription to Environmental Nutrition, a long-time (forty-four years) newsletter of the Health Information Network. Since I’m not trained in the field I take their advice a little more skeptically, but in general, I find what they say make sense in taking science and applying it to your food choices . Here’s an example. BPA, bisphenol, is an industrial chemical that has been used since the 1960s in plastics and food containers. Animal studies have shown that BPA has considerable negative health effects with links to obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, and more. They have the following advice. Look for products labeled as BPA-free; avoid putting plastics in the microwave oven or the dishwasher; throw away old and damaged plastic food containers; use glass, porcelain, or stainless steel to store foods and serve hot foods.

As I have said before, I spent some fifty years of my career teaching or in support of undergraduate chemistry courses. Admission to medical school requires a strong and successful background in science, not a surprise if you regularly read this column. Some wonderful students have become physicians without a science major, but with success in science courses, especially in biology and chemistry. In most of my 19 years at Bard College teaching chemistry, I was also the pre-med advisor. I believe the study of medicine requires a broad background in a variety of topics, often referred to as a "liberal-arts education". Though most of my students were biology or chemistry majors, admission to medical school did not necessarily require such a major, only requiring a high success completion of the pre-med courses. The world is a complicated place, and that is why I favor an undergraduate education in the liberal arts and sciences. Engineering preparation has a program called a 3-2 program, where you do three years of liberal arts and basic science, followed by two years of engineering school –it takes a year longer, and is it thus more expensive, but it guarantees a broad educational background for a complex and ever-evolving world. One must make one’s own choice. I was very lucky. I found the path to do what I enjoyed for some 50 years.

Finally, where are those cicadas? As of this writing, I haven’t seen any yet. The May 9 Washington Post says they will emerge shortly. I remember them so well from our days living on the Bard College campus. I remind you that they do no serious scientific damage to the environment, but they sure can cause a fuss. Let me reiterate the truths to five myths published in the May 9 Washington Post written by Professor John Lill of George Washington University and Zoe Getman-Pickering, a postdoctoral scientist at GWU, both of whom study cicadas.

Now to other maters….

1. Cicadas are not invaders. They are native to the Eastern United States and have been here for millions of years. 2. They are here even during the period when we don’t see them, living underground. 3. They are not locusts! They are of the species labeled Hemiptera. They do not feed on crops and they do not migrate, as do locusts. 4. They do not kill plants, only use them as food. 4. Don’t use pesticides which kill indiscriminately. If you need to control cicadas, use netting, 5. They do not encourage increase the risk of attack by snakes. Snakes like cicadas for occasional lunch, but there is no evidence this increases snake attacks on humans.

Read other articles by Michael Rosenthal