A Federal Agency at Odds with Science : Nutrition: The FDA’s proposal to limit access to high-potency vitamins would hurt research and health.

It’s time the government finally caught up with a large and rapidly growing body of scientific research on nutrition.

In 1954, when I received my first Nobel Prize, much was unknown about the role of vitamins in promoting and preserving health. Nearly 40 years later, science has painted a relatively detailed picture of the important role of vitamins in preventing illness. Unfortunately, government regulators at the Food and Drug Administration remain locked in a Cold War against vitamins when they could be encouraging education about preventing the common cold and other maladies.

I first became aware of the value of an increased intake of vitamins with my studies of schizophrenia, and published my first papers on the subject in 1968. Two years later, in the book “Vitamin C and the Common Cold,” I was among the first to present strong evidence showing an increased intake of vitamin C leads to improved health.

Scientist friends questioned why I would spoil my reputation by getting into such a “crackpot” activity. Today, studies in the respected journals of medicine have documented not only that vitamin C can help prevent colds, but also that a whole range of vitamins, antioxidants, can prevent chronic illnesses, including heart disease and cancer. Now, the rest of the world is interested, too.

Despite mounting scientific evidence and a public clamor for more information, the FDA has proposed rules that could eliminate over-the-counter access to high-potency vitamins and prohibit disease-prevention claims on vitamins and other supplements except for the value of calcium in preventing osteoporosis. These proposals reflect a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the facts and would reverse gains made in the 1970s. Perhaps even more alarming, the FDA would replace the already minimal recommended daily allowances with a confusing and lower standard.

The RDAs are the amounts of vitamin C and other nutrients required to prevent scurvy and other deficiency diseases. The daily intake levels of vitamin C and most other vitamins to help prevent disease are multiples of the present RDAs. Deficiency illnesses are no longer a threat to the public health. But other chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease affect millions of Americans who could benefit from consumer education about nutrition.

In the mid-1970s, I testified before Congress on legislation that would help protect consumers against vitamin fraud and set the stage for better education. After more than two decades and countless new studies, the FDA remains at odds with many in the scientific community regarding beneficial claims on vitamins preventing cancer, heart disease and birth defects.

As a scientific investigator, I am interested in ongoing research on medical problems, including determining as reliably as possible the values of optimum intakes of vitamins and other nutrients. There remains much to learn. But this is no excuse for government officials to effectively prevent the public from finding out what is known.

It is time for new legislation that will bring nutrition policy in line with the latest scientific evidence. Legislation is now pending in Congress that will remove the FDA from determining the scientific validity of health claims on vitamins. The proposed law would further scientific advances by putting this question to the National Institutes of Health.

Decade after decade, century after century, the world has gotten better, largely because of scientific discoveries. The challenge is for government to keep up with scientific progress.