NutraIngredients-USA’s Top 5 most-read articles of 2016… so far

Data from Google Analytics shows that the most read article of 2016 so far was the February 10 article about FDA sending eight warning letters out to companies marketing dietary supplements containing CBD. The warning letters cite illegal drug claims and also hinge upon the existence of CBD as the active ingredient in two drugs under development.

In six of the letters, FDA says “Based on the product label it appears you may intend to market your [brand name] product as a dietary supplement. You should be aware that, based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition.”​

Click on the following link to read the full article: FDA sends warning letters to 8 companies marketing CBD products​​

Number 2: Capstone v MusclePharm​

Our May 24 article covering Capstone Nutrition suing MusclePharm for breach of contract was the second most read article of the year to date.

The complaint, filed in District Court for the District of Colorado, seeks more than $65 million in damages resulting from breach of the parties’ manufacturing contract. Capstone said it filed the complaint following numerous attempts to resolve the matter with MusclePharm.

Capstone, based in Ogden, UT, said it is seeking damages for multiple contractual breaches by MusclePharm, including non-payment of more than $22.5 million for product that MusclePharm ordered and accepted delivery of without payment and more than $40 million for MusclePharm’s failure to meet its minimum volume requirements.

Click on the following link to read the full article: Capstone files $65 million breach of contract suit against MusclePharm​​

Number 3: The heart health benefits of multivitamin use​

There was a lot of interest in our coverage of a paper published in The Journal of Nutrition, which reported that multivitamin use for over 20 years was associated with a 44% lower risk of major CVD events.

Scientists from Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston), Karolinska Institutet (Stockholm), and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health analyzed date from 18,530 male physicians participating in the Physicians’ Health Study I cohort.

Dr Howard Sesso from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and co-author on the paper, told NutraIngredients-USA that the duration issue is intriguing. “There was a relatively weak association for multivitamin use over 13 years and major cardiovascular events, a suggestion, but this was not clear cut. This was encouraging but I wouldn’t make any strong statements about it. But for long term use over a 20 year time period we saw a 44% reduction. That’s an interesting result but we did not have many men who were taking multivitamins for that long.​

“It paints a complicated picture but there does seem to be something going on for long-term use and major CVD events.”​

Click on the following link to read the full article: Long-term multivitamin use linked to fewer heart problems: Harvard study​​

Number 4: That ​Frontline segment​

Our fourth most read article of 2016 covered the industry response to an hour-long segment that aired in January, titled “Supplements and Safety”.

During the segment correspondent Gillian Findlay dredged up many talking points that have been echoed by long-standing critics of the industry, including views from industry critics Dr Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Dr Pieter Cohen of the Harvard Medical School.

In response, Dr Dan Fabricant, Executive Director and CEO of the Natural Products Association (NPA), who was interviewed for the show, told us: “I think a lot of this was just patently dishonest.”​

Click on the following link to read the full article: Frontline TV segment bashing supplements called 'patently dishonest' by NPA chief​​

Number 5: Harvard’s anti-supplements article ​

Negative media was again the subject of our fifth most read article. Our April 25 article covered the industry response to an article in the Harvard Women’s Health Watch​, titled Why dietary supplements are suspect​.

Industry stakeholders criticized the article as ‘unbalanced’ and even ‘embarrassing.’

“Because it was first published  on April 1, 2016, I read it several times to to try ensure that it was not an  ‘April Fools’ joke. The author(s) appears to have done very little true research on his/her own, apparently choosing instead to uncritically regurgitate information from various secondary or possibly even tertiary sources,” ​Mark Blumenthal, founder and executive director of the American Botanical Council, told NutraIngredients-USA.

“This is some of the worst journalism we’ve seen in a long time. It’s utterly uninformed, poorly researched and contains a boatload of errors,”​ said Frank Lampe, communications director for the United Natural Products Alliance.

Click on the following link to read the full article: Observers say Harvard anti-supplements article so poorly done as to be 'embarrassing'​​