Skip to main content.

Landmark study on dietary supplements throws current regulations into doubt

Landmark study on dietary supplements throws current regulations into doubt

Last week the New England Journal of Medicine published a landmark study by CDC researchers on the safety of supplements. Over the past years we've explored many of the risks of supplements, but we've had no way of measuring the public health risks — until now.

CDC researchers collected data from a network of 63 emergency departments (ED) to learn how often supplements result in an ER visit. The CDC investigators estimate that 23,000 ED visits and 2,100 hospitalizations annually are due to the use of dietary supplements. 

The most important caveat to these findings is that they represent very conservative estimates of harm. The epidemiologists only considered adverse effects that physicians in the ED linked to supplements, and they do not tally the toll of supplement use on U.S. military bases around the world. 

But even these conservative findings are game-changing.  Supplements are sold as if they are entirely safe. The supplement industry argues that there’s no need to standardize production of botanical products, no need to list the amount of a specific botanical, nor need to list the adverse effects on supplement labels. That’s no longer persuasive, and the CDC's new study undermines the foundation for our current regulatory framework.

Hopefully in the years to come this will be reformed. In the meantime, patients should discuss any supplements they are taking with their doctor. And both doctors and consumers should report all adverse effects to the FDA here.

[Photo by Noodles and Beef via Flickr.]



Picture of

This entire blurb reads like a Boundary or Turf War.

The abstract doesn't even touch co-medication usage - is this happening because of interactions with traditional medications?

Also ROH has run articles about word choice and hype, (ie landmark!) as well as extrapolating numbers from 'guesstimates'.

Finally, nothing was published about the researchers' relationship to industry or conflicts of interest.

I think the articles' authors missed the real story; instead choosing to run with what is basically a press release.

Leave A Comment


Medicare Advantage plans are surging in popularity. What’s at stake for seniors in your community as private companies increasingly administer Medicare? This webinar will help cover an essential story on a program that covers 60 million Americans across the country. Sign-up here!

In this season of giving, you can support journalism that saves lives by making a tax-deductible contribution to the Center for Health Journalism. For 15 years, the Center has made it possible for reporters to call attention to untold stories, highlight solutions and bring communities together around common aims. In today’s difficult news environment, the USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism provides critical support so that reporters can produce ambitious, game-changing projects on health and well-being. You can text to donate. No amount is too small; just send a text to 41-444 and type the message CHJ for further instructions.

Got a great idea for a substantive reporting project?  Let us fund it! (And bring you to L.A. for five days of intensive training as well!)


Follow Us



CHJ Icon