There is evidence to (reliable or otherwise) to suggest very high doses of “synthetic” vitamins are not necessarily beneficial and may do some harm. This is not surprising as the human body is likely to fail to assimilate or even recognise these vitamins and minerals as food and make an effort to dispose of foreign material. Also, synthetic supplements are more likely to be made from cheap and doubtful substances to keep prices down. Any research report that fails to make clear the critical distinction between synthetic and plant derived supplements is suspect.

The safer option is surely to choose “plant derived” or living food supplements, or botanicals such as Aloe Vera, Bee Pollen & Cider Vinegar, which the human body recognises as food. This type of supplement is far more likely to deliver a wide range of essential nutrients, proven to be deficient in many supermarket fruit & vegetables. Our modern farming methods and distribution systems have long taken their toll.

Stephen Reynolds, Chelmsford, UK

It is becoming quite obvious that nothing is good for the human body nowadays...if we paid attention to all the warnings there would be nothing left for us to indulge in and feel good about! Taking vitamins is a perfect way for those who run a busy lifestyle,and perhaps neglect their diet due to work load/stress,to keep themselves 'topped up' on the essential vitamins and minerals...

Similarly to what Anthony (below) said, i also blame the media. After all,which story hungry journalist wants to write about how vitamins are good for you, and how they can benefit you, because after all,bad news sells far better than good news.

Harry Daniels, Leeds,

We really should have check-out inspectors to make sure everyone is buying well balanced meals.

david, Bromley,

Right. So the very things necessary for life are bad for you. Anyone else smell a rat? 405 studies in which nobody died were excluded from the 'meta-study'!!

And from page 13 of the PDF of the study:
"Because we examined only the influence of synthetic antioxidants, our findings should not be translated to potential effects of fruits and vegetables."

None of the media coverage so far points out that there are huge differences in the effects of synthetic analogues vs natural vitamins - did these people take, for example, the d-alpha-tocopherol Vitamin E, or the synthetic dl-alpha etc form? Well, with this kind of reporting, nobody would know!!

Scare the public away from natural health and towards toxic drugs once more...

And what did these people die of - a car crash? Heart attack? Anything remotely related to taking vitamins? As the 405 other studies were excluded, this already shows bias and skewing of information.

Think I'll go take my Vitamin C now.

Issy, Chichester, UK

If i followed all the advise i am given i would die from not doing or eating anything! I could blame the biased scientists all i like but the real blame lies with the media.

I wouldn't consider my opinions on the safety of a building more valid than an architects! I wouldn't consider my armchair generalship superior to a real general! I'm no nutritionist. So why should i doubt a scientist with experience in his field?

Well, the fact that biased, dubious, scare-mongering, completely contradictory, and often not even peer-reviewed or completed research, is passed off as fact on a daily basis by a media eager to boost sales certainly helps!!!!

Anthony, Birmingham,

"We lack evidence to refute a potential negative effect of vitamin C on survival."

Who is "we" and why are we in the position that we have to prove that vitamins are not harmful rather than proving that vitamins are harmful?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? We are talking about nutrients here, not household cleaning products.

Also, this attack on vitamins is based on a selective review of research and not based on original research.

I wonder if the pharmaceutical industry is behind all this: trying to spread fear (FUD) and regulate something that can heal disease at a very low cost so that they can make more profit by selling expensive drugs.

John, London, UK

From the people that brought you

"Spread tubs of hydrogenated fat all over your food it is good for you."

comes

"Ban antioxidants, they are bad for you."

Department of health ftw.

ikenstein, mcr, uk

When this topic was discussed on the Today programme it was made clear that only regular large doses of these vitamins could perhaps be harmful. And a medical man did suggest that fish oil and calcium supplements, at least, could be beneficial for older people.

But then, the moral of this story seems to be, not so much "An apple a day..." as "A health scare story a week keeps press finances healthy."

Barry, Wallington, UK

If the government really wanted to help people, they should regulate sugar and high fructose corn syrup, not vitamins.

Danny , Belleville, IL, USA

The so called toxic vitamins, A, E, and beta carotene occur as isomers and are produced synthetically by vitamin companies as a mixture of natural and unnatural isomers. We know by hard experience of the past fifty years that the unnatural trans isomers of vegetable oil vitamins are toxic. It should not require a whole fifty years to conclude that trans isomers of vitamins A, E, and beta carotene are also toxic.

Pure natural vitamins A, E, and beta carotene are probably safe. You may find natural vitamin A in cod liver oil. If you search the shelves you may find natural L-isomer of Vitamin E.

Cigarette smoke contains free radical catalysts that can convert natural beta carotene in the skin and lungs into the unnatural isomer. Hence the link between beta carotene supplement and smoking leading to cancer is logical and on a firm basis of science.

If legislators were inclined they could outlaw the unnatural isomers. The natural isomers are probably safe without more evidence.

Beatty, San Diego, California

Scurvy, utter scurvy is this propaganda.

"The conscious and and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society" - Edward Bernays

Codex Alimentarius will outlaw health products and information on vitamins and dietary supplements, except those under government control. It's wake up time.

Edward Bernays, Totnes,

I have always eaten what I wish,lots of butter, read meat,veg, and fruit . I am now slightly over weight, but at 62 that is fine, I dont take any extra vitamins, except cod liver oil which does help my joints, but to much and I get cramps. I have always believed that there is a large group of people that have a financial interest in selling these vitamins regardless of any good (or indeed bad) they may do for the taker. We all have to die, and the passion given to living longer is totaly misplaced, there are far to many of us humans about as it is

Michael Rudd, Barking, Essex

Dave. When we do studies of normal British people typically we find that none of them are deficient in any vitamins, certainly none of them sufficiently seriously deficient for it to be a real medical problem.
A 29 year old man shouldn't need any dietary supplements. There is a bit of controversy about the optimal intake of vitamin C and you might consider adding fruit juice to your breakfast. Apart from that your diet is fine.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

Do you expect me to believe a commercial organisation and the Department of Health or the very independent Cochrane organisation. After Merck (Vioxx, the Vytorin (ENHANCE study)) and others (Seroxtat, larium etc) and the huge advertising budgets (Crestor, Astrazeneca, 13$BILLION in one year!) I am afraid my money is on the Cochrane setup. Also, no one seems to have noticed their use of the subjunctive "may". In short a comment of warning.

Just highlights the poor education in English grammar these days.

And compare the advice on statins. Professor Boyle admitted to the programme (BBC) "that clinical studies have shown 99% of this group will gain no benefit from taking the drug”.
By my calculations based on the RAW DATA from HPS it is 99.7% pa.
Professor Peter Weissberg, Chairman BHF admits of the HPS: "It tried everyone on the drug and only the ones who didn't have side-effects were continued”. This means that those individuals likely to have side effects were EXCLUDED!!.

M. Cawdery, Portadown, Co. UK, EU.

My doctor advised me to take statin to reduce my fat levels, saying that no diet or supplement could possibly work. What she didn’t say was that taking statin runs the risk of liver damage and muscle wastage. I need my liver in good condition to process the fat, and isn’t muscle what you need to burn the fat? What was going on?
There are plenty of natural alternatives that do work. I have researched the internet , tried ‘em, and I’ve reduced my fat levels without risk of screwing up my metabolism. So thanks for the information Doc, which you seem to have regurgitated from what your drug company rep told you when he gave you a few free pens.
Science’s definition of “evidence” is so tight as to disqualify centuries of anecdotal evidence and what people of common sense know to be true from their own experience. The doctor’s dismissal “The failure of people to ... fully understand the logic of scientific research is a sad reflection of education in our society” is, frankly, insulting

MaxC, London,

Its a shame scientists don't warn the population about the seriously damaging effects of painkillers that people buy over the counter on a daily basis ...yes they seriously damage your kidneys and liver over time and thats just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG but ooh yes all those drug companies that employ the scientists would lose millions of pounds of profits ... and they wouldn't want that regardless of the damage their drugs do to your health. The hypocrisy of it all!!

sarah, london,

Another one of those.
In my view, ''scientists'' can prove anything they want, because with the present availability of data, one can always find a sample size that is big enough to get the statistic relevance one needs, to prove what one has set out to prove.

Jan Hoftijzer, Riemst, Belgium

Malcolm - be careful, many a true word is spoken in jest!
Bal Jaj - spot on!
What intrigues me is how do they manage to control ALL of the other variables (the scientific approach) in a person's diet & lifestyle to be able to point to a specific vitamin as causing an increase in mortality? Can anybody tell me please?

By the way - I'd rather rely on a daily multivitamin and mineral tablet and fish oils than any of the poisons the NHS dishes out on prescription. I can't take codeine for a headache for example - a common drug - because it causes me excrutiating abdominal pain.........

Liz Flynn, Exmouth,

This sounds like Codex Alimentarius propaganda.

Larry, Chatanooga,

HELP please!
I have just read this story with great interest as I take a multivitamin once a day and am now very confused as to whether or not I should continue taking them - so would really appreciate some clear advice.

My usual daily diet consists of the following: Breakfast:cereal (with skimmed milk) or 2 toast with a butter spread.

Lunch: White baguette with either tuna, turkey or cheese with onions and cucumber.

Evening meal:Usually something frozen, cooked in the oven (e.g. frozen cod fillett (breadcrumbs) with frozen chips and beans. Pasta (not fresh) with supermarket sauce and cheese etc...)

I'm 29, and try and exercise twice a week at the gym. I only take one multivitamin a day but am now seriously concerned that I might be leaving myself open to future ill health.

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers
(A very stressed and worried) Dave

Dave Smith, Birmingham, UK

After a bit of research on the internet it appears that there may be some fundamental errors in the report.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228172604.htm

It appears that this report has been around for a couple of months already and it is interesting that the press are only just now picking up on it. To paraphrase some of the key points which suggest it may be quite flawed:-

1. Two large studies that fit the criteria used by the Danish scientists were excluded. These studies were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in the USA and The Lancet. If they had been included none of the reported effects in mortality would be significant.
2. The mean duration of the selected trials was 2.7 years - are we really saying that these things are going to kill you in less than three years?
3. Most trials used included other dietry supplements and pharmaceutical drugs which could all interfere or mask the effects that can be attributed to the antioxidents.
4. And finally, but just as importantly, the causes of death in the trials were not even considered!! These could include accidents or other causes that have nothing to do with diet or oxidative stress.

In short the whole report looks statistically very dubious even though the experts views above are from the Linus Pauling Institute which does have its own interest in promoting nutritional supplementation.

jake, london,

The original research can be found here:-

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD007176.pdf

jake, london,

Higher crime rates, rising unemployment, ridicuous inflation (13% on a first class stamp, what the hell is that?!??)

And this Government wastes yet MORE of our tax on a subject like this ???

Good Lord, what is this country coming to...

Personal choice should remain personal choice. Legislation cannot interfere with that- if a pill is limited to say, I don't know 500mg of Vitamin C maximum, then it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that if you personally want and CHOOSE to take 2 tablets, you can have 1000mg if you want.

Labour thinks they're still in touch with the people? Do me a favour...

hetterley, Chelski, Uk

Today's diet does not contain the vitmains and minerals from the soil that it used to because of intensive farming methods.

I am someone who has been through breast cancer without drugs or radiotherapy - despite the recommendations of my doctors - and took to a regime that included dietary supplements. I was diagnosed in 2001 and have no regrets or doubts as I remain healthier than ever.

Let us not forget the words of Allen Roses, world-wide president of genetics at GSK the big pharmaceutical company: 'The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 - 50% of the people.' This is an open secret in the drug industry.

So what is this study reviewing? If we are looking purely at specific therapeutic value and drawing a comparison with the drug industry there really isn't much competition. But doesn't supporting your body's own bio-chemical processes seem like a much more effective way to go when it comes to a positive approach to health?

Alyssa Burns-Hill, MSc, FRSH, MIHPE, Guernsey, UK

I cannot find the link to the study in the Cochrane Reviews web page.

How can we check that the comparison between studies and the conclusions of the review are not correct, and that Peter Burton is right ?

Peter quite clearly point to the fact that many persons taking supplements are not quite healthy, they may increase their life span, but not enough to compare themselves with healthy people.

Paul, Bangor, Gwynedd

If what the scientists say was true, I should have been dead long time ago.... However, as a nutritional therapist I do know what I am doing and I treat supplements with 'respect'. Vitamins and minerals in excess doses can be toxic and dangerous. Hence, as Principal of BCNH - UK College of Nutrition & Health, I am against supplements being available to general public who may not be aware of potential side effects and safe doses.

In our view, vitamins (and other nutrients such as herbs) should be prescribed by fully qualified health professionals, such as nutritional therapists and herbalists, whom having had an extensive consultation with a client will a) ensure that clients are not overdosing on any nutrients b) check for any drug-nutrient interactions and c) ensure that all nutrients are in synergy and e) ensure they follow a healthy diet and lifestyle.

As for vitamins increasing mortality, I have not seen the review, so I am not sure what other factors may have been involved in the mortality rates of the specified groups and individuals.

breda gajsek, London, West Hampstead

John Barker,

The Cochrane review is one of the most transparent and rigorous methods of collating scientific data in existence. The relevant paper can be found at www.cochrane.org.
You obviously don;'t know your "scaremongering" from your science. Unfortunately this is the case with most people in the UK.

Carol, Dublin,

Why on Earth do so many of your correspondents think that their opinion with respect to 'health benefits', and the efficacy of substances to do this, are valid?

Would they assume that their views on the causes of cancer, the orbits of asteriods or any other natural phenonenon were as valuable as properly researched discoveries?

The tendency to believe that one's views are valid is an illusion of democracy. Whilst your view of Gordon Brown is probably no more or less informed then mine, and is certainly just as valid, your personal experience of health is no guide to the validity of assumptions.

Just because your granny lived to be 90 and smoked all her life does not invalidate the established dangers of smoking. Scientific knowledge is different from personal experience.

The failure of people to grasp this and fully understand the logic of scientific research is a sad reflection of education in our society.

Dr P Allen, Canterbury, UK

I take no vitamins or cod liver oil and don't get colds. Spend tons of free time walking - including on very cold days!

All about marketing.

Walking shoes: £30
Nike trainers: £30

Make that sale!

John, London,

Wonder if studies like this are funded by certain drug companies who wish to have all supplements under their control so they can sell you the same vitamin C but for an inflated amount. drugs companies would even then control the sale of juice drinks with added vitamins. What next, will I have to get a perscription for orange juice, or broccoli from the doctor?

macolm, durham, uk

I find this article absolutely AMAZING.

At a time when we over farm to the extent where our soil has very little in minerals evidenced by data which shows fruit and vegetables today contain a fraction of the nutrients and minerals then they did pre 1945 (but a much greater proportion of pesticides etc) - is there a link between lack of nutrients and the increase in cancers and other diseases.

Vitamin and mineral supplements are essential to a long and healthy life,

This article is a pretext to the introduction of theCodex Alimentarius legislation which will limit the maximum dosage/potency of vitamin pils (get this clear - not the minimum nutrition we should have, but the maximum). It may have something to do with the fact that the Codex Alimentarius Commission is controlled by the large parmaceutical conglomerates who make huge profits by selling us drugs to paper over the cracks (disease) because our diets don't give us the nutruition we need.

Bal Jaj, Reading,

As a regular taker, I do not need more advice on my diet, thank you very much. The DoH says 'Most people are able to meet their nutritional needs by eating a balanced, varied diet'. Well thank you Mum. I would have thought the word 'SUPPLEMENT' had a meaning there.

The only thing that needs to be done is more checks to be made that what they say really is in the supplements; and not placebos, a reduced dose or worse, something completely different that could cause harm.

Howard, Manchester,

Lies, damn lies and statistics. You can use any data to confirm most theories.

In this case, maybe the people taking the suppliments included more who were already unwell. This is often the prompt to think about our health and start taking suppliments.

There is a lot of vested interest (big drug companies) who want us to be unhealthy and so depend on their drugs to cure our sicknesses which could have been prevented by good diet, lifestyle and the use of vitamin supplements can be part of that.

Please - legislate only if you must and with great caution!

Peter Burton, Llanfyllin, Powys

This is an insane thing to for the government to say that means absolutely nothing!?

Of course most people do not need supplements if they eat a balanced diet because that's what a blanced diet is, by definition!!!

The problem is most people don't eat a balanced diet!

Nick A, London, UK

Complete absolute rubbish, the so called report ignored 90% of the existing available studies. Dr Linus Pauling one of the early advocates of vitamin C argued his point on the benefit and need to take a high dose daily he lived until he was 91, the average age of a doctor at death in the USA, where he was challenged on this was 63, dead doctors don't lie. !

roger, epping,

More Scaremongering, i smell a rat, where can we see this research for ourselves?

John, London

John Barker-Downey, London,

What did the people die from?
How much is too much A&D ?

Sue, Northamptonshire, U K

I take a vit C and zinc and a cod liver oil every day and don't get colds...haven't had a cold apart from an occasional sniffle or years...works for me. Also take a ginseng - energy and lycopen for prostate...want to make my own mind up as to what I ingest...advise me if you wish, but no regulation please!

phil, york,

At the age of 73 I find that the use of drugs to cure illness is the norm.But the use of food supplements can often do a better job with little or no risk. You do not take drugs when you are well nor should you take food supplements. A good and balanced diet is the answer

David Duckworth, LUTON, U.K

Vitamin A is antagonistic to D, which has a big impact on the immune system.

So really this is another vitamin D story in disguise.

Get your sun, or cod-liver oil in winter, and you'll be fine.

And no need for even more regulation, for goodness sake.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK