Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
SynopsisC

Debate over credibility of natural health product claims

Wayne Kondro
CMAJ April 12, 2005 172 (8) 983; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050162
Wayne Kondro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Clinical trials of natural health products are unnecessary because the existing licensing process adequately addresses the public's safety and efficacy concerns, says the director-general of Health Canada's Natural Health Products Directorate (NHPD), Phil Waddington.

Figure

Figure. A health claim based on “traditional use,” such as those used for Chinese medicines, must be backed by 50 years of experience. Photo by: Canapress

Before going to market, natural products are tested for toxicity, and a monograph, including a health claim, is developed. Post-market, the products' manufacturers must provide a “safety summary report” that guarantees ample consumer protection, says Waddington.

If something untoward surfaces after the product has gone to market, “then, of course, we wouldn't allow it to go forward, or it would have to be mitigated through other means, such as limiting the dose, or putting a warning on the label.”

This “safe-until-proven otherwise” policy has been entirely ineffective in the US, says Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs for the US Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a public advocacy group. It creates a “reverse onus” on the US Food and Drug Administration to demonstrate that a product is hazardous before the agency can demand it be pulled from the shelves. “In the case of ephedra, it took the FDA 10 years to mount the case, while people were dying.”

In January, the US Institute of Medicine and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality urged that natural health products be subject to the same clinical testing requirements imposed on pharmaceuticals. But Waddington argues that if NHPD, which oversees licensing of an estimated 50 000 natural health products, were to rely strictly on clinical trials, it wouldn't “get as complete a picture” of a product's safety as through toxicity testing and post-market surveillance.

He rejects accusations by the CSPI that the directorate's approach is nothing less than a “mockery of the scientific review process” (Nutrition Action Healthletter November 2004) and that it implicitly helps to mislead consumers by allowing manufacturers to make unsubstantiated and often contradictory claims about the efficacy and benefits of their natural health products, typically by citing “traditional use.”

Waddington says NHPD carefully steers for the “middle” ground between classic scientific standards and cultural demands. Allowing manufacturers to make claims of therapeutic benefit because “traditional use” is consistent with the demographics of Canada: “we want to be able to respect [its] multicultural nature.”

Traditional use involves the “healing paradigm” in which a product has been used. For example, traditional Chinese medicine “has to have had at least 50 years of use within that paradigm.”

But Bill Jeffery, national co-ordinator of the Canadian CSPI, says extended use is hardly evidence of “whether a product actually serves the purpose.” Echinacea, for example, continues to be sold as a remedy for colds, despite contradictory evidence.

Health Canada is, de facto, “assisting industry in deceiving consumers” while abandoning the scientific method, which is based upon “learning from mistakes. That's not the case with traditional use,” he says.

Each of the 218 products now licensed by Health Canada got a stamp of government approval regarding its safety, efficacy and quality.

The Canada Health Food Association, a trade organization, says the government's acceptance of the notion of traditional use affirms its validity. “It's a level of evidence that our government is willing to accept,” says spokesperson Anne Wilkie.

That's hardly assurance of the validity of therapeutics claims, Jeffery says, given that the effects of most natural health products haven't been scientifically established.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 172 (8)
CMAJ
Vol. 172, Issue 8
12 Apr 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Canadian Adverse Reaction Newsletter (1133 - 1140)

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Debate over credibility of natural health product claims
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Debate over credibility of natural health product claims
Wayne Kondro
CMAJ Apr 2005, 172 (8) 983; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050162

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Debate over credibility of natural health product claims
Wayne Kondro
CMAJ Apr 2005, 172 (8) 983; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050162
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Applying the 2005 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations: 4. Managing uncomplicated hypertension
  • A newborn requiring selective bronchial intubation
  • Does β-blocker prophylaxis improve survival after major noncardiac surgery?
Show more Synopsis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Complementary medicine & alternative therapies

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire