New Vitamin D Recommendations from the Institute of Medicine Are Inadequate
By Michael Mooney
December 1, 2010

On November 30,2010, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) released new recommendations for vitamin D that greatly lag the progress seen in current research.

The IOM established new Daily Recommended Intakes for vitamin D, resulting in a all-too conservative increase in the recommended intakes by establishing an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) for adults of 400 IU/day and a Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for adults of 600 IU/day (800 IU/day for those aged 71+).

In addition, the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL), representing the dose at which there are no known adverse effects, not a recommended daily suggestion - was doubled from 2,000 to 4,000 IU/day for adults.

I'm sorry, folks, but this is hardly progress. The recommendations give us barely adequate nutrition, according to world experts on vitamin D.

First, Robert P. Heaney, MD, a professor of medicine at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., who is the one of the most credible long-time calcium researchers in the world, and a noted vitamin D researcher, too, dismissed it. Heaney rarely has harsh words but he was quoted as saying of the new guidelines: “They are way too conservative. There is evidence to support higher numbers.”

Dr. Heaney was on the panel when the panel last issued recommendations, in 1997. However, oddly, he was not included on the panel this time. The panel asked for his suggestions that were based on the most up-to-date published data on vitamin D, but did not use them.

"...The principal casualty of this is the credibility of the IOM - there were no day-to-day vitamin D scientists on the panel, and the working vitamin D community says they're off base," Heaney said.

One point he made is that there were no REAL vitamin D expert scientists on the panel who made these recommendations. Further, while the IOM has been the voice of conservative credible government medical research in the past, Heaney said that the "...principle casualty of this is the credibility of the IOM."

Why? Well, the recommendations given were not credible.

If you put Dr. Heaney or any of the other dozen expert vitamin D researchers on the panel, the recommendations would have been much higher. For instance, the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) for vitamin D is currently 3,800 IU. The experts note that this number is based on one poorly-designed study and that numerous more recent studies have shown safety, such that the LOAEL might be raised to 10,000 IU/day. RDA’s would have been raised to 1,000 IU for adults, at a minimum, according to their statements. (Drs. Vieth, Hollick, Hollis, Cannell, etc.)

But really, some of them would raise vitamin D recommendations much higher. For instance, for pregnant women, the Thrasher study recently showed that 4,000 IU of vitamin D decreased the rate of premature delivery by half, but mothers’ blood levels STILL did not measure optimally, so the recommendation might even be higher, like 6,000 IU, as is said by Hollis below.

Also rarely heard are harsh words from expert vitamin D researcher Dr. Bruce Hollis, “Basically, what is going to happen here is nothing," said a disgusted-sounding Bruce W. Hollis, professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina. Hollis, who gave expert testimony to the committee, has found significant benefits to infants whose breast-feeding mothers take 6,000 IU of Vitamin D daily - 10 times the new guideline.

Although the new recommendations of 600 IU per day for most children and adults are triple the old guideline, Hollis and other experts said that was too small to matter.

So my opinion is that Big Pharma infiltrated the Institute of Medicine - kept the smart, honest researchers off the panel and created fake recommendations that will serve those corporations who make money on people having cancer and other such problems that vitamin D and calcium could reduce.

It’s simply more of the same bad advice where big business manipulates whatever it must to foster the ignorance of the public, so that people stay in poor health and must spend money on their services.

Update, December 20, 2010: It has been revealed that Drs. Heaney and Hollis and 13 other true vitamin D scientists were consulted for their recommendations, but the panel did not use their recommendations.

One of the health freedom organizations, Alliance for Natural Health is doing a Freedom of Information Act request to dig into this.

As I said, I think big pharma has infiltrated the IOM, and sure enough --

There is, likely, a hidden agenda afoot. A pharmaceutical company is developing a patentable man-made vitamin D analog - yes, a synthetic drug version of vitamin D. And Glenville Jones, PhD, one of the committee members who determined the new vitamin D guidelines and who is quoted as saying that under these guidelines, most people “probably don’t have vitamin D deficiency” and “We think there has been an exaggeration of the public’s interest in vitamin D deficiency,” is an advisor for that same pharmaceutical company.

Michael Mooney
www.michaelmooney.net