A February 1, 2007 article by Michael Downey quotes ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan to explain why even sellers of "natural" foods ought to care about mainstream scientific research:
To promote credibility and trust in the supplements aisle, retailers must discriminate between real science and pseudoscience. "Let's take an example of the scientific gold standard. Without doubt, sufficient folic acid in your diet lowers your risk of having a baby with certain birth defects," says Elizabeth Whelan, Sc.D., president of the American Council on Science and Health. "So what elements here make up this gold standard? Years of research, hundreds of thousands of participants, hundreds of studies, all published in peer-reviewed journals.
"Then there's the lower level of gold standard dozens of epidemiological studies in peer-reviewed journals suggest a diet rich in calcium might reduce your risk of colon cancer. It's not all wrapped up, but it looks good.
"From there, you step down to almost everything else like whether St. John's wort helps depression. There's no vast body of evidence to show that effect whatsoever." And this last level, says Whelan, describes 95% of manufacturer-cited studies...
If retailers simply cannot understand scientific literature, Whelan has a suggestion: "Approach people in nutrition at local universities and say, 'We've been told about this study: Where does it fit into the general understanding of things?'...There's some conflict of interest [in dismissing pseudo-science] because retailers want to increase sales," Whelan says.
