BY MICHAEL JOHNSEN
It would seem that the tarnished reputation of the dietary supplement industry has been improving over the past few years—aided by the soon-to-be-implemented dietary supplement good manufacturing practices, the inclusion of dietary supplements as products requiring mandatory reporting of serious adverse events associated with their use and the industry’s own efforts toward self-regulation, such as its partnership with the National Advertising Division.
At the least, its reputation has been improving anecdotally, many in the industry have reported, noting that several recent meta-analyses critical of the dietary supplement industry haven’t been relayed with the usual gusto by the mainstream press. Negative meta-analyses that in the past prompted headlines, such as “Large Doses of Vitamin E May Be Harmful, Study Says” ( The New York Times, Nov. 11, 2004) and “High Doses of Vitamin E Found to Raise Risk of Dying” ( The Washington Post, Nov. 11, 2004), aren’t drumming up similar interest these days, in part because the particular meta-analysis that generated those headlines was criticized by both the industry and the science community.
Another potential disconnect be-
tween negative meta-analysis studies and declining category sales may be found in the consumer—they’re just not buying the negative hype anymore. “The consumers become apathetic because they hear such mixed reports all the time,” said Dan Fabricant, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Natural Products Association.
Whether it be consumer indifference to alarmist-style news or a more balanced and critical approach to reporting potentially defamatory meta-analyses by news organizations, the result is the same: News reports of these meta-analyses aren’t impacting supplement sales like they once did. For example, following the report on vitamin E in 2004, sales of vitamin E products plummeted by some 30 percent in the ensuing months. That’s not happening anymore.
“With respect to the most recent [meta-analysis], the antioxidant meta-analysis, we haven’t seen the effect on our products, at least yet, that we’ve seen for some of the other ones—for example, the vitamin E studies,” Fabricant said.
The Journal of the American Medical Association published in its February 2007 issue a meta-analysis that determined supplementing with antioxidants, in particular beta-carotene, vitamin A (which is actually not con-
tations. Instead, the totality of evidence from laboratory animal and human studies to date shows that antioxidants provide many health benefits, including reduced risk for heart disease and stroke, some cancers, eye diseases and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as enhanced immunity and resistance to infection.” More recently, the
Negative meta-analyses, one of which caused a 30 percent drop in vitamin same authors of the meta-
E sales in 2004, aren’t affecting supplement sales the way they used to.
analysis in last year’s
JAMA published an updated study in
the April 2008 issue of The Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, again
suggesting that supplementing with
certain antioxidants may shorten life,
not extend it. “This got very limited
pickup in the U.S. [papers],” noted
Doug Jones, manager of public rela-
tions and corporate communications
at Pharmavite. “In fact, a couple of the
stories were actually more balanced. I
think that there is an increased level of
skepticism in the consumer media.”
Jones added that although being pub-
lished in a well-respected journal like
JAMA can give a meta-analysis a cer-
tain status, consumer journalists today
are less likely to accept those pub-
lished conclusions at face value.
sidered an antioxidant, according to the Council for Responsible Nutrition) and vitamin E, may actually cause more deaths than it prevents. That meta-analysis was criticized as flawed—and not just by industry associations.
“Overall, this is a flawed meta-analysis of flawed data that does not reveal the true health effects of antioxidants, whether beneficial or otherwise, but instead reveals the authors’ bias toward showing harm,” wrote Balz Frei, director and endowed chair of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University. “The analysis is limited to clinical trials of antioxidants, and these trials are well-known to have serious limi-
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 92 and tone. Women, on the other hand, often use the bars as meal replacements or healthy snacks because they hit the sweet spot, yet offer nutrition, Heimowitz said.
The bars are also a good fit for people with diabetes because they provide proportioned options to help control hunger between meals. “We are helping consumers keep calorie intake in check,” said Kelley Steinhofer, business manager for the drug channel at Kellogg Co., which has Special K Protein snack bars and Special K Protein meal bars.
Where does this move to rounded nutrition and science leave drug
stores? That seems to depend on the manufacturer. U.S. Nutrition’s bars sell well in the channel.
“Drug stores are a good place to have nutritional items because people come there for advice and information,” said Cornacchiulo. “They can buy the products right after they get the information.”
U.S. Nutrition sells mostly single bars in the channel, which is driven by convenience, and consumers often buy them while picking up other drug store items.
The bars are merchandised in the diet and supplement section. “We tried them in the candy aisle, and they didn’t really work; the candy consumer is here for a different reason than nutrition,” Cornacchiulo explained.
Atkins bars sell better in big-box and grocery stores. “Drug stores have a big challenge to associate themselves with health and prevention, but the more work they do in that area, the more people think of them,” said Heimowitz.
“Protein bars in general are doing well, not so much because of the protein, but because it’s a nutrition bar. People see it as healthier than a candy bar,” said Jon Fiume, vice president of retail operations for Ritzman Pharmacies, which has 10 stores in Ohio.
People like to get something sweet, but not feel bad about it, Fiume added. The bars are selling mostly to women and to people on the go. This includes corporate executives who are concerned about
wellness and metabolism—people who want a healthier choice.
The promotion of better-tasting products by the manufacturers is also helping sales, he said. “Protein is important, but [manufacturers] aren’t playing it up so much. Some people are still doing a version of the Atkins diet because there was good science behind it, and they found it did help their diet so they do it, but not as drastically.”
Unlike many drug stores, Ritzman merchandises the protein bars with its candy bars at the cashier stands because they’re largely impulse items. A few stores do feature them in the snack food and natural food aisles, and they occasionally sell cases of the bars.
References:
Archives