Thank you for supplying an explanation of the background reasons for why legislation is proposed to 'standardise' the supply of vitamin supplements. I have read about such proposals before, but never to such depth as in WDDTY (vol 11 no 10).
It is disappointing to realise that almost all products are supplied to maximise income for the provider rather than to maximise benefit for the recipient. Even without these proposed new restrictions, one is led to question whether the existing supply of vitamin and mineral supplements is really in the best interests of the general public.
Increasingly, research is showing that many of the benefits of various nutrients are attributable to synergistic effects, where the body receives hundreds or even thousands of different nutrients and enzymes from food which has not been denatured (in other words, cooked).
I am a consumer of a wholefood supplement, based on dehydrated raw fruits and vegetables, which seems to provide many of these synergistic benefits, mainly as a preventative measure. I was therefore very concerned when I read the suggestion in Viewpoint that "The net effect would be to eliminate vitamin supplements as a preventative or therapeutic medicine".
Although classed as a food rather than a medicine, is 'my' product likely to be included in this legislation or would that only cover synthetic items? Am I being naive in thinking that nobody would ever try to include fruits and vegetables within any medicine legislation? Bryan Pinches, via e-mail....
WDDTY replies: It's our understanding that all food vitamin supplements natural or other wise would be affected.