National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$59.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety (2005)
Institute of Medicine (IOM)

Citation Manager

. "4 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Human Information and Data." Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
140
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety

is compacted in a capsule where taste and sheer volume of the material does not limit consumption, then there is a greater likelihood of an adverse reaction compared with the same botanical that was traditionally ingested in smaller amounts.

  • Is the modern duration of use consistent with historical use patterns? The duration of use needs to be considered because acute, short-term, and long-term intakes all have different safety implications. A lack of adverse events reported for a botanical traditionally used only for a few days has little or no relevance to safety of the same botanical when it is chronically ingested. When considering how the current duration of use compares with traditional duration of use, it may be helpful to also consider whether the modern day indication is consistent with traditional indications. The modern uses of some botanicals, especially for nonmedical indications such as memory enhancement and ergogenics, may lead consumers to chronically use dietary supplements that were never used chronically in traditional medicine. In summary, concern is increased if the substance is now used for longer duration than it was traditionally.

  • Is the modern reason for using the substance consistent with historical indication for its use? The reason for using the substance does not in itself provide information about its safety as a dietary supplement, but comparing the modern and traditional indications may provide clues for comparing historical and modern use. For example, some indications are more consistent with external use versus ingestion. Similarly, some indications are more consistent with long-term use (e.g., to lose weight) compared with short-term use (e.g., to treat an asthma attack).

  • Is the target population similar to that which used the substance historically? Is the current user population similar to that which used the substance historically? People vary in their response to bioactive compounds. Due to physiological condition or other reasons, particular subpopulations may be more likely to suffer a serious adverse reaction than other groups. Thus, the modern use of a dietary supplement ingredient by populations that have not traditionally consumed the ingredients reduces the relevance of safe historical use information. A change in usage does not necessarily in and of itself raise the level of concern; however, if the supplement ingredient is now used by a subpopulation that may be more susceptible to adverse effects, concern may be warranted.

Summary of Historical Data Use

The fact that a botanical or other dietary supplement ingredient has been used for centuries is not prima facie evidence that it is safe. If the current preparation concentrates constituents, if the current use is more frequent or of longer duration, if the substance was not historically in-

Page
140
Front Matter (R1-R20)
Executive Summary (1-18)
1 Introduction and Background (19-42)
2 Approaches Used by Others and Existing Safety Frameworks (43-84)
3 The Framework (85-125)
4 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Human Information and Data (126-155)
5 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Animal Data (156-174)
6 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Information About Related Substances (175-216)
7 Categories of Scientific Evidence--In Vitro Data (217-234)
8 Interactions (235-246)
9 Vulnerable Groups and Prevalance of Use (247-252)
10 Scientific Principles for Integrating and Evaluating the Available Data (253-268)
11 Applying the Framework: Case Studies Using the Prototype Safety Monographs (269-291)
12 Factors Influencing Use of the Safety Framework (292-296)
13 Findings and Recommendations (297-306)
Appendix A: Existing Frameworks or Systems for Evaluating the Safety of Other Substances (307-315)
Appendix B: Scope of Work and Comments to Initial July 2002 Framework (316-321)
Appendix C: Plant Family Information (322-355)
Appendix D: Chaparral: Prototype Monograph Summary (356-362)
Appendix E: Glucosamine: Prototype Monograph Summary (363-366)
Appendix F: Melatonin: Prototype Monograph Summary (367-371)
Appendix G: Chromium Picolinate: Prototype Monograph Summary (372-375)
Appendix H: Saw Palmetto: Prototype Monograph Summary (376-379)
Appendix I: Shark Cartilage: Prototype Monograph Summary (380-384)
Appendix J: Prototype Focused Monograph: Review of Liver-Related Risks for Chaparral (385-449)
Appendix K: Protoype Focused Monograph: Review of Anti-Androgenic Risks of Saw Palmetto Ingestion by Women (450-477)
Appendix L: Acknowledgements (478-480)
Appendix M: Biographical Sketches of Commitee Members (481-488)
Index (489-506)