In a statement, commission chairman Jon Leibowitz said, “We expect more from a great American company than making dubious claims – not once, but twice – that its cereals improve children’s health. Next time, Kellogg needs to stop and think twice about the claims it’s making before rolling out a new ad campaign, so parents can make the best choices for their children.”

In a joint statement, Leibowitz and commissioner Julie  Brill used stronger language: “As a trusted, long-established company with a presence in millions of American homes, Kellogg must not shirk its responsibility to do the right thing when it advertises the food we feed our children.”

Kellog had a run-in with the FTC over its Frosted Mini-Wheats that resulted in the company’s admission that health claims made for the cereal were false and a settlement order in February 2009. Kellogg agreed not to claim “benefits to cognitive health, process, or function provided by any cereal or any morning food or snack food unless the claims were true and substantiated,” according to the statement on the Rice Krispies order.

Leibowitz and Brill said in their joint statement that even as Kellogg was pulling back on the Mini-Wheats claims, it must have been moving forward with health claims on the Krispies cereals.

“The company clearly has the means and ability to carefully test its children’s food products to determine if the products in fact provide health benefits for kids,” the commissioners said. “We are also confident that Kellogg has the wherewithal to carefully develop truthful and nonmisleading advertising about such health benefits.”

Kellogg responded with a statement saying that it stands behind the validity of product claims and research. “So we agreed to an order that covers those claims,” their statement said.

The expanded order now prohibits Kellogg from “making claims about any health benefit of any food unless the claims are backed by scientific evidence and not misleading.”

This is familiar ground for makers of nutritional supplements, but not so much for a manufacturer whose advertising icons include three guys in hats and a cuckoo bird. (Cocoa Puffs had the claim, too.) Kellogg, and General Mills whose Cheerios heart-health claims drew a warning letter from the Federal Drug Administration, are now learning what it’s like when you emblazon words like “immunity” and “antioxidants” on product packaging.

• None Found

The Washington Post recently published an article asserting that vitamin D is shaping up to be the nutrient of the year, if not the decade. The article started factually strong but weakened at the end when it made specific recommendations.

The Post references an article in Consumer Reports titled “Most people get insufficient Vitamin D, but extra supplements may not be needed.” That article correctly notes that vitamin D blood levels in U.S. residents are on average below what is now thought by some experts to be what is needed for optimal health; the magazine perhaps overstates the case by writing that “…77% of Americans have insufficient amounts.”

In an article published last year in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Elizabeth Yetley uses NHANES data to show approximately 6 percent of adults are below the traditional cut-off defining vitamin D deficiency and 77 percent are below what some nutritionists now opine to be the preferred target of 80 nmol/L.

The Consumer Reports article also points out what is putting the U.S. population at risk, primarily increases in obesity (fat sequesters some of the vitamin D synthesized in the skin) and less skin exposure to sunlight’s ultraviolet radiation.

The Institute of Medicine is currently reviewing the Dietary Reference Intake value for vitamin D, which was last updated in 1997. A final report is expected this May.  Currently, people 19 to 50 years of age are advised to consume at least 200  International Units per day,  those 51 to 70 at least 400 units, and those over 70 at least 600 units. Estimates are that adults get 100 to 150 units daily from food.

Consumer Reports goes astray when it writes: that people don’t need a special supplement; that overdosing is unlikely; and who should be advised to have their blood levels tested. Although makers of nutritional supplements are planning reformulations of their multivitamin products pending the institute’s report, most of what is on the shelves now is still at only 400 units.

What defines overdosing is up in the air. Officially, the Tolerable Upper Intake Level is 2,000 International Units per day. While bets are that the Institute will raise the adequate intake to 1,000 units per day, it is less clear whether the upper limit will also be increased. Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, John Hathcock and his colleagues make a case for 10,000 units as a safe limit. The Institute has a conservative approach to upper limits.

Finally, people should not wait to get a blood test until they are diagnosed with weak bones or an absorption problem, contrary to what Consumer Reports says. Better advice would be for all adults to start taking 1,000 units per day from supplements. If you are in a higher-risk group for low vitamin D levels (obese, female, older, bypass surgery, Hispanic, African-American), get tested a few months later.

David A. Mark, Ph.D., is president of dmark consulting LLC, a science consulting company serving the dietary supplement and functional food industry. Contact him at david@dmarknutrition.com or 978-897-0890.

• None Found

Marketers of nutritional supplements often complain that they do not know what the FDA wants. Even after the agency sends a warning letter about misleading claims and advertising, its staff does not explain what would fall within the rules. That’s the reality; the FDA will tell you what’s wrong, not what’s right.

Through warning letters, the agency provides insight into how a marketer can fall afoul of the rules. Companies that examine why their competitors get chastised can apply the lessons to their Web sites, catalogs, labels and the like.  Washington attorney Ivan Wasserman looked at the 73 letters issued in 2009 (way, way up from 44 in 2008) and found that 72 related to claims on Web sites. Six involved claims made in metatags.

Lesson #1: The FDA is surfing the Web, checking not just product descriptions and benefits, but Googling for questionable SEO/SEM.

Wasserman’s list would rank the letters by claim problems in this order:

• Drug and disease claims: 72
• H1N1 virus claims: 37
• Other drug and disease claims: 20
• Heart disease and cardiovascular claims: 11
• Diabetes claims: 8
• Cold and flu claims (not H1N1): 8
• Cancer claims: 8

Lesson #2: The medical emergency that makes the most headlines gets the greatest scrutiny. In 2009, that was H1N1.

The FDA also sent 12 warnings letters related to claims made on labels and product labeling. Some of these may have echoed what was published on Web sites as manufacturers compounded their marketing errors.

Lesson#3: The FDA reads labels in the stores and on packages sent by mail. Adding an asterisked disclaimer to language on a label is no protection.

The FDA lived up to its announced commitment of greater enforcement and more scrutiny of the supplement industry. The agency could top the century mark in warning letters this year. Companies that have not recently reviewed their sites and labels would be wise to do so now before the mail carrier brings bad news.

• None Found

Lesson #1: Do not copy someone else’s advertising. Just because the other companies make product claims does not mean it is OK. The FTC might penalize all of you. The FTC settled with Airborne for $30 million in August 2008 and with Rite-Aid, seller of Germ Defense, in July for $500,000.

Lesson #2: Have product claims reviewed before you advertise. The FTC said in a press release that it had charged CVS with “making false and deceptive advertising claims that using its product would reduce the risk of colds and protect against catching colds in crowded places, such as schools, airplanes, offices, health clubs, theaters, or restaurants.” The FTC said that “the company had no evidence that the products could boost the immune system or prevent colds.”

Lesson #3: The FTC is cracking down on supplement advertising. “With orders against Airborne, Rite Aid, and the one proposed against CVS, manufacturers and retailers are on notice that they have to tell the truth about what dietary supplements can and cannot do,” the FTC said in its release on the CVS settlement.

Lesson #4: Do not stretch the truth. The FTC is taking a highly critical view of product claims and scientific evidence. The agency has sued Rite Aid’s supplier of Germ Defense, Improvita Health Products Inc., claiming that company with deceptive acts or practices and with making false advertisements.

Lesson #5: Avoid the flu — and advertising related to it. This fall, the public faces the dual threat of seasonal flu and the H1N1 virus. A company that advertises a defense against either is likely to receive a call from the FTC.

• None Found

We are not sure of the reason, but it seems that every three months or so, a national media outlet weighs in on an old story: tainted nutritional supplements. To be sure, the story will not go away in the sports world. Athletes who test positive for steroids often say they thought they were taking vitamins.

The dietary dangers faced by professional players is a good launching point for a substantive news story. If the pros can be victims, what about the amateurs playing high school and college sports? What are the players’ coaches doing about the dangers of contaminated supplements? Are industry forces and organized sports working together to eliminate the problem? If not, why not?

No, we get a rehash of anecdotes with the same question: Are vitamins safe? So goes the Sept. 7 article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, “What’s Really in Supplements?” with the ominous sub-headline, “Regulators and Physicians Raise Alarms About Dangerous Ingredients in Many Herbal Remedies.” The illustration is scarier; it features demons escaping an opened capsule.

Among the article’s weaknesses:

• No one at the FDA raises an alarm. One FDA official says consumers should read labels and another says that the agency is doing the best it can to find and ban bad products.
• Just a few — not the headlined many — herbal remedies are cited as causing problems. The article reaches back five years to a now-banned substance as an example. Why bring up ephedra if product integrity is an issue today?
• No event gives the article urgency. No one famous has become ill or died from taking a supplement. The most notable recalled product of recent times is Hydroxycut, which gets no mention. The article says that the  FDA will hold hearings this month without giving specifics.
• The reader service is laudable, but not prominent enough. The first mention of information sources about supplements appears in the fifth paragraph, after the anecdotal lead about a policeman who unwittingly took steroids.
• Statistical evidence of the prevalence of product contamination devolves into a he-said, she-said between HFL Sports Science and the Council for Responsible Nutrition.

After all of that, the Journal article treads on much of the same ground covered in a May 18 Sports Illustrated article that also fed on fear with the headline, “What you don’t know might kill you.” Where is the news?

• None Found