Talk:Dietary supplement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A. Ng, Future UCSF PharmD, AlecGBarajas, Achang6, Agkobi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bobbyybbob.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

needs a lot more studies

This page should link to many large, long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of the effects (or lack of effect) of specific commercially available dietary supplements on objective measures of intelligence, strength, endurance, and disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwr42 (talk • contribs)

Having worked in this field for most of my career, I can say that the human trials you want for links rarely exist. Individual ingredient or supplement companies cannot afford large trials, one reason being no exclusivity because no patents. For a subset of supplements a government may decide to conduct a large trial. These can end badly. SELECT looked at vitamin E and/or selenium because epidemiology and small trials were promising for prevention of prostate cancer. And then the trial was ended early, because early results indicated no benefit and possible harm.David notMD (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014

Requesting the 'Adverse effects' section be re-worded and expanded. The single citation is itself rather inflammatory, and the section doesn't clarify exact numbers of use-to-harm cases, nor in what countries (of course, neither does its citation).

Nobody's arguing dietary supplements aren't without risk, but clarification should be made here, as the section is a stub and showing bias.

Also, the article almost entirely covers "fat burning" weight-loss supplements, while the stub makes this seem as if it cites study on more common supplements like multi-vitamins, etc.

I understand this is a semi-protected page due to vandalism, but that means all the more emphasis needs to be made on thorough, un-bias research, and as little single-sided commentary as possible. An otter (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Most supplements should be avoided, and usually people should not eat micronutrients except people with clearly shown deficiency.[4]"

Wonderful! Citing an editorial and passing off an opinion as though it were established fact! Wikipedia marches on!  ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.12.130 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph 5 is an opinion and should be removed

The fifth paragraph (copied below) is an opinion of one person, perhaps based on one individual article. Further, "Should be avoided..." cannot be drawn from that one article: the only thing the article stated was that, according to that one person, supplements are unnecessary. That is very different in meaning than "should be avoided." There are countless other studies which support the use of vitamin supplements, which far outweigh one paper.

"Most supplements should be avoided, and usually people should not eat micronutrients except people with clearly shown deficiency.[4] Those people should first consult a doctor.[5] An exception is vitamin D, which is recommended in Nordic countries[6] due to weak sunlight." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brlteach (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No it summarizes the body, where the content is well sourced. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Text about UK FSA recommending iron and folic acid sometimes

I removed this text from the multivitamin page. Just dropping it here in case anyone thinks it could be useful in this article:

"The United Kingdom Food Standards Agency recommended in 2007 that pregnant women should take extra folic acid and iron and that older people might need extra vitamin D and iron. However, these recommendations also advised that "vitamin and mineral supplements are not a replacement for good eating habits.""

References

. Great floors (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dietary supplement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527205400/http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/QADietarySupplements/default.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/QADietarySupplements/default.htm#what_is

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Clear bias in the article

Much of this page is pro-medicine and anti-supplement with almost no links to any studies that have been conducted. Most of the sources are basically just "doctor's say: don't self-medicate"

Compare this to the information given on the pages of specific supplements, where research is linked as well as pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.188.5.115 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you give specific examples of bias in the article? Maybe you can add citation needed tags, where necessary. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

In the lead section: "Most supplements should be avoided, and usually people should not eat micronutrients except people with clearly shown deficiency." The citation used to support this statement only reflects the view of a single source. There does not appear to be a clear consensus over whether supplements should be avoided. Apparently the nutrition.gov citation is actually in favor of dietary supplements in certain circumstances. 211.100.57.205 (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I get what you mean. I added a "additional citation needed" tag. Do you have a proposal on how the text could be improved? VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 13:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are so many references news media?

Can't we do better than citing articles in The New York Times and BBC?David notMD (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

source link leads to ad

Reference # 2 "Grace, Emily. "How to choose the best supplement". Health Beacon. Retrieved 3 October 2013." leads to a website with Nike ads. http://healthbeacon.co.uk/articles/featured/health-beacon/2013/08/how-to-choose-the-best-supplement.aspx IguanaArmadillo (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Images

The current top one is kind of weird, I´d more expect to see some colorful pills, or maybe jars of super-common supplements (for humans). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes! And the second image is goopy supplements for pigs!! and the third one is not a real product. Rather, it is an anti-supplement image!!! If the article is supposed to be neutral point of view (NPOV) then that should apply to the images, too.David notMD (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed the top and second image as not relevant to the topic. Article coould have one image of capsules, tablets, pills, powders, liquids if that can be done without showing any brands. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed the last image as not NPOV. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Added three images that are NPOV. David notMD (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Z added good images. Some better than what I had put in, so I deleted mine. David notMD (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What's missing

As written, the article covers (barely) the concept of essential nutrients (vitamins, minerals, fiber, amino acids, essential fatty acids) as dietary supplements, but does not describe the larger subset of botanically derived non-nutrient ingredients. Even if the science is weak to non-existent, readers come to Wikipedia for a description. There should be a way to describe what dietary supplements are rather than having a black hole in the middle of the article. I look forward to other people's thoughts. Let's be polite. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this area of the article could use expansion, but not in the lead section in a list format as you earlier proposed. I looked at it and found the presentation of this information to be improperly formatted and beyond what a summary of the article's subject should contain. Edaham (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

to recap for the benefit of those who did not read the last couple of edits and summaries, this is the text which you proposed to add to the lede:

Dietary supplements provide

nutrients that may otherwise not be consumed in sufficient quantities

non-nutrient ingredients purported to have health benefits

combinations of nutrient and non-nutrient ingredients.

The first sub-set includes vitamins, minerals, fiber, fatty acids or amino acids. The second sub-set includes substances either extracted from plants or synthesized and chemically identical. One example is caffeine. Edaham (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

E - My issue with the reversion of my edits to the that it goes back to having nothing about non-nutrient dietary supplements. Anyone who walks down an aisle of a pharmacy will see glucosamine, MSM, chromium, melatonin, phytosterols, caffeine, maca, astaxanthin, and so on and so on. IMO the lead and the article need to define what are dietary supplements (in the U.S. and perhaps also Europe) - and why they exist (DSHEA) - before getting to what the consensus conclusions are (Meh, or worse). David notMD (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to add a single sentence, not a whole detailed list of compositions and variations of compositions. That kind of detail is for the body of the article. Very very rarely will you find bullet point lists that expound on so much detail in the lede of an article such as this. Please let me know if you do find such an article and I will subject it to similar scrutiny. If you could summarize what you think is missing from the article in one sentence or clause and append it to this sentence:

"A dietary supplement is intended to provide nutrients that may otherwise not be consumed in sufficient quantities."

I think your issue would be solved. Brevity is the key issue here. Any large reel of details and lists of subdivisions of the subject will make the article read like it is written from an industry insider perspective, radically and controversially altering the tone of the article. My suggestion would be:

"A dietary supplement is either intended to provide nutrients that may otherwise not be consumed in sufficient quantities or to provide a non-nutrient chemical which is claimed to have a biologically beneficial effect".

Would a sentence to that effect solve the problem if it were understood that this subject would later be revisited in the body of the article? Thanks for your time Edaham (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

How about plural, with a comma: "A dietary supplement is either intended to provide nutrients that may otherwise not be consumed in sufficient quantities, or to provide non-nutrient chemicals which are claimed to have a biologically beneficial effects". I would still like to see DSHEA briefly explained in the lead (and perhaps what EFSA is doing in Europe), because otherwise how we got here is a mystery, but that could equally well be covered with a History section. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "A dietary supplement is either intended to provide [nutrients] in order to increase the quantity of their consumption, or to provide non-nutrient chemicals which are claimed to have a biologically beneficial effect." I didn't like the part about "may not be consumed in sufficient quantities", as it precludes the possibility that the supplements may be taken in spite of sufficient consumption, to increase the level of intake above that which is generally considered necessary for health. Edaham (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: Regarding your comments on my talk page: Correct. I'm not an expert in nutrition and you clearly are. Let's keep the discussion about what to add running and evaluate the outcome as to whether or not it looks right for an encyclopedia, because when it first went in (purely from an editorial perspective) it didn't look like something that belongs in a lede. I could be wrong about that but fortunately, this being Wikipedia, I'm not the only one who's going to edit it; other editors will evaluate it too. Thanks for your help Edaham (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead replaced

The lead was an incoherent mess. Help make it better if you wish, but please do not revert to what it was. David notMD (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed an instance of the passive voice, which generally comes across as being a bit weasely. I'm sure there's other ways to rewrite it, but if claims are made "by people" its best to give either a citation or in-text attribution Edaham (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm also looking with a critical eye at the amount of US-centric info you've placed in the lede. It might be worthwhile either/both

1. adding info about europe and asia
2. scouring repositories of info such as WHO sources or affiliated sites for worldwide info on the subject.

in particular the third paragraph stands out, as it is a summary of part of a section in the article on regulation, which covers both US and EU in subsections. A good lede section ought to briefly cover both or neither of these pieces of info. My instincts tell me that both would be better as regulations seem to be an important word when D.S. are mentioned.

In the second para, There are more than 50,000 dietary supplement products marketed, This piece of info comes from the NIH (A US based health service). I think intext attribution would help here also as it would support the number being quoted and also provide context for our readers as well as a useful link.

Edaham (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A problem with "have a biological effect" is that many dietary supplements do not have confirmation of a biological effect. I tried a different wording. I agree the lede and the article need to get less US-centric. The other major review/approve/reject system is the European Food Safety Authority. A few other countries have their own systems - many don't. David notMD (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Declaring conflict of interest

Currently I am self-employed as a science consultant to companies in the dietary supplement, performance nutrition and functional food industries. I am not receiving payments from clients for making changes to Wikipedia entries (and have not, and will not). NO PAID EDITING. None of my clients are aware of my Wikipedia activities, and none have ever asked me to create or edit Wikipedia entries. My intentions are to maintain a neutral point of view while improving the quality of writing and referencing in this article. David notMD (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

working within an industry does not necessarily imply a conflict of interests with editorial contributions to articles about that industry. A conflict of interests would arise if you were to create articles about, or contribute to articles about clients or other entities from whom you receive remuneration. If you are in doubt, you are encouraged to use the {{request edit}} template, or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that your contributions can be peer reviwed. The current modification to the lede of this article represents a net improvement and my only comments about it so far have been of stylistic issues and of geographical bias, which are common issues when a surplus of reliable sources come from one particular country. Do avoid using the passive voice and referring to non specific entities without attribution or sourcing, ('...it has been claimed...' or 'many scientists state...' for example). If you are considering an article for creation and want to know if COI might apply you can check out the link wp:COI or message me and I'd be happy to help. Note: I have not checked how much experience you have had with Wikipedia, so many apologies if all of this is known to you. Edaham (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

All good suggestions. There are articles about companies that are/were my clients and I do not edit those. The areas of my interest - nutrients and dietary supplements - are contentious and fraught with weak science, so my approach is conservative. For topics such as this one I still felt it was important to be transparent about my background. "Writing what you know" means that I tend to start with the situation in the United States, but am conscious of the need to be more global. As for experience, I am at >6,000 edits (but have not yet attempted to create an article). David notMD (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia encourages subject matter experts to edit in their field of expertise. Being employed in the field of dietary supplements and having an interest in the topic makes a person more, not less, useful to developing Wikipedia articles. Conflict of interest is most often a problem when someone uses Wikipedia to promote a brand or product, and often a problem when someone is trying to advocate for a position. If you are just an expert bringing professional experience into Wikipedia then feel welcome. This and many articles need professional advice! Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Downrated from B-class to C-class

This article needs better content and citations in all sections. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There are no tags indicating where better sources are needed. Can you be more specific? Natureium (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am loathe to add "citation needed" because much of the text needs to be revised, too. For example, in Proteins and amino acids I removed all text and started replacement: protein mostly done, but nothing on amino acids yet. Sections I recently revised are Lead, Vitamins, Dietary minerals, Proteins and amino acids, Bodybuilding. The rest all need a cleanse (not a valid health treatment by the way) before improvements to citations. David notMD (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

you can add tags to sections, or to the article head, rather than to individual parts of the article. You can also make a wp:TODO list which you can put on the talk page. Tagging articles (ideally) requires that the editors who leave the tags be clear about what needs to occur in order for them to be removed. Downgrading an article which requires a great deal of maintenance should also be a collaborative decision, hopefully in order to ensure there is sufficient attention being given to restoring it to its former status. Thirdly, at the top of the article are several links to projects to which this article belongs. You can create notifications on the talk pages of those project pages and also on pages related to this one, to attract the attention of editors who may be interested in improving this article. I think this is the bare minimum of effort an article being downgraded deserves. Edaham (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

New sections created in Talk at the various WikiProjects and at the related Bodybuilding supplement article, explaining my decision to downgrade Dietary supplement from B- to C-class. I will also work up a TODO list. David notMD (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree In lots of ways that are obvious to me even though no one has made a to-do list, this article is a lot of bunk and hooey. In Wikipedia's ranking system it merits a grade of C. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Agree Great work working on this difficult topic. Need a lot more attention, sadly I have no expertise in this topic.Sgerbic (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In February, after extensive editing by several editors, an editor restored B-class. I concur with this, although still needs lots of work. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TO DO list

Suggestions for improving the Dietary supplement article before can be considered for B-class David notMD (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Definition section: As exists, it is copied almost verbatim from Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Needs trimming.
• Types section: Improve Essential fatty acids to cover DHA, EPA, ALA. Add content on amino acid supplements (Arginine, BCAA, Taurine) Add sections for plant sourced, animal sourced and synthetic.
• Delete sections: Medical uses, Controversy, Physical and chemical properties, and Society and culture. Reassign content in those sections to existing and proposed new sections: History, Regulation, Adverse effects, Industry, Quality control, and Research.
• History section: Cover several traditional medicine systems. Source from that article.
• Regulation section: Start with what is currently the governments subsection in Society and culture
• Adverse effects section: In addition to documenting a few well-known examples of ingredients that caused harm and were discontinued, add description of government-operated reporting systems intended to detect and stop harmful supplements.
• Industry section: Describe growth from pre-DSHEA to present. Describe ingredient sourcing, international nature of ingredient supply chain, verification systems, supplement manufacturers, contract manufacturing, marketing, in U.S., role of FDA and FTC to stop illegal and fraudulent labeling and advertising.
• Quality control section: This new section to get adulteration (including spiking with prescription drugs), substitution, contamination, GMPs
• Research section: Describe quality of science, including problem of industry bias (only publishing studies that had positive results). Describe how population observations may indicate a benefit that is refuted by subsequent placebo controlled trials.
• Replace news-reporting citations (BBC, NYTimes…) with better citations. Ongoing.

Article has more than doubled in length since this round of changes started, and an editor restored it to B-class. I agree with the reassessment, although in my opinion there are still improvements to be made and parts express an anti-supplement POV. I also consider this topic too controversial and the citable information so continually changing as to not warrant an attempt to raise it to Good Article. The article gets more than 20,000 views a month, so this continues to be is a worthy topic for improvement. David notMD (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Which sections contain NPOV text? I didn't read through the entire article at the time I reassessed it; I just checked to see whether or not there were any overt violations of the WP:B-class criteria. I'm willing to revise and appropriately cite any sections with NPOV content though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Adverse effects section mentions numerous events when what is being cited reported ~6,000 case reports over several years from tens of millions of people using dietary supplements. The rest of the section also imprecise (and refs 68 and 81 are identical). David notMD (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Research section or not?

I replaced what I thought was a short, confusing mish-mosh of a Research section with three paragraphs (~530 words) and six references. Now all deleted and no Research section. Should this article have a section on research, and if so, what goes in it? David notMD (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Via a Pubmed search, one can see there are numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials over the past few years that assessed efficacy and safety of supplements in various conditions and diseases, allowing us to actually state results for some high-quality studies. Concerning this, citing activity in clinicaltrials.gov is not encyclopedic. I'll work on drafting a new Research section in the next day or so. --Zefr (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to have a research section in this, general article, it should discuss supplements generally, not research with specific supplements. If we did the latter the section would be enormous. Stuff like PMID 29300341 is what we would want... and per MEDMOS we should be discussing trends - what kind of stuff is being studied, and perhaps why..Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do not include literature about foods or medical foods, as those are not classified as dietary supplements. David notMD (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article defines a dietary supplement, which fits fine with the type of materials studied in the two sources you removed. The hip fracture article covers many kinds of supplements, i.e, not food or medical foods, that were added to the diets of the subjects. The gout study included supplemental vitamin C. Both articles support the point of the section: adding nutrients to the diet independent of food did not improve the subjects' conditions. --Zefr (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yogurt examples for probiotic supplements and controversy

Yogurt products contain probiotics, have had health claims made, same claims disputed, regulated, fined, etc. Problem is that probiotic-containing yogurts are by definition NOT dietary supplements. It should be possible to replace the content with examples and with government regulatory actions against probiotic dietary supplements. This would be preferred to just removing the text and citations about yogurt. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Combined the probiotics content from Types and Controversy into the former. Kept all citations, including the yogurt ones, but made clear those were not about dietary supplements. Added a description of FDA regulating a probiotic dietary supplement company. Did not go into specifics of health claims, as that content is covered at length in the Probiotic article. A reminder that I have declared a COI for dietary supplements. See 17 January 2018. David notMD (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Himalayan salt and 84 minerals

David notMD - I'm wondering about the usefulness and WP:UNDUE weight of this addition you provided. Accepted that the new section is intended to highlight and minimize the misinformation about Himalayan salt nutrient content, as well discussed in the 2017 Hall article. I feel the issue could be handled with one sentence in the Minerals section, perhaps giving another example or two. One could find innumerable examples of other quackery about nutrient and supplements, so giving attention to this one seems odd. Alternate idea: maybe a short, more general section under Controversy discussing supplement quackery and misbranding could be added, and would dovetail logically with the FDA litigation subsection. Thoughts? --Zefr (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I put it there because relevant to minerals, and where readers might look for information on mineral dietary supplements. But you are right that it puts a useless mineral supplement in a section about essential nutrient minerals. The generalized problem is that there are supplements that contain only nutrients, supplements that contain only non-nutrient ingredients (using criteria that nutrients are essential and everything else not a nutrient), and the very common combination products. I am open to any rearrangement of the article. And to deletion of the content I just added if undue. David notMD (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Among other countries..."

Among other countries, the definition of dietary supplements may vary as drugs or other classes of ingredients used in supplement products.

I'm a native English speaker, but at a loss to say what this means - and from what I can see it doesn't seem to summarise anything from the body of the article either. If you think it means something, I'd be interested to know what, but it should not go back until it makes sense without such an explanation. - Snori (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's a poorly worded sentence and is not really needed in the lede. Its intent (I don't claim to be the author) apparently was to state that supplement ingredients could actually be classified as drugs or nutrients in some countries – a statement of fact. --Zefr (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Pets!

Needs a section on dietary supplements for pets, or perhaps enlarge to animals in general? There is a supplement industry for race horses. David notMD (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Australian review of "Nutritional Supplements"

Looks like the linked paper [120] for this statement - "In 2015, the Australian Government's Department of Health published the results of a review of herbal supplements to determine if any were suitable for coverage by health insurance.[120]" - is a review of various physical therapies, massage and so on, not "herbal supplements" or dietary supplements. Maybe it should be removed. 2001:8004:1DF1:7ED:7883:C274:AAEA:EDCD (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group 2 Proposed Edits

- restructuring Dietary Supplements page to follow the Wiki style Medicine manual guidelines
- adding sections on fertility supplements and pediatric supplements Achang6 (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't use the encyclopedia as a group draft term paper for a university course, as done with these two edits. Do your research first and follow WP:MEDRS for choosing high-quality sources. There are no antiaging drugs, and there are no "antiaging" supplements with qualified health claims from any national regulatory agency. Zefr (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Foundations II Group 30 Peer Review 2021

Great job group 2. It was great to see the updated information in the lead section. Love the addition of the prenatal/ pregnancy section and the linking of various relevant articles. Great use of lay language, flow, and organization. Overall, we do believe you’ve achieved your initial goals. X. Chen, UCSF (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC) William.p.chau (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC) W.nguyen, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The language used by all members of group 2 is neutral, stating the outcomes/ findings of the relevant research cited in the references in an informative manner and no sweeping claims were made. All information presented had corresponding citations.

X. Chen, UCSF (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Upon closer observation of the contributions made by Group 2 over the past week, I did not find any inappropriate language with regards to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Primary contributions from this group were in the new Prenatal and Fertility sections, with additional contributions being dispersed throughout the article, mainly as essential supplemental information which further bolsters each section. Both the Fertility and Prenatal sections appropriately state a neutral point of view through acknowledgement of other points of view. William.p.chau (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The points included are able to be verified with numerous cited secondary sources that include the FDA, WHO, Cochrane review, and PubMed journal articles. One area of improvement I can suggest would be to consolidate duplicate citations to clean up the reference section. Great work team 2! W.nguyen, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Referencing was not initially in standard format, and added text needed to be revised because some wording was more conclusive in tone than was supported by the references. Some content removed because it rested on a weak review even though stronger and more recent reviews were available in the literature. All in all, good work for students (I've seen and fixed far worse). There is always hope that participation in Wikipedia will continue beyond a class assignment. David notMD (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Group 2 has reviewed all the references so that they are all correctly formatted. Previously, predatory publishers were scrubbed by other editors, and we have since taken care to ensure the sources are credible. Achang6 (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC) A. Ng, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Agkobi (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC) AlecGBarajas (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Group 2 removed all the months from the dates of journal articles, which is preferred, also a lot of unnecessary effort to remove spaces within references, as these are invisible to how the article and references appear. Blanket revert. One ref had been improved (going from CNN summary of a journal article to the actual journal article - that was restored). David notMD (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Regulatory Compliance

Regulatory Compliance incorrectly says that Canadian law considers dietary supplements a food item. Canadian law lists them as a Natural Health Product and regulates them as a tertiary thing under the Food and Drugs Act. 142.109.6.211 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Make the change and use that as a reference. David notMD (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

Below I have pasted the edited version of the intro and Definition sections. I made grammar corrections and cleaned up phrasing:

A dietary supplement is a manufactured product intended to supplement one's diet via alternative consumption forms such as pills, capsules, tablets, powders, or liquids.[2] A supplement can provide nutrients that are extracted from food sources or manufactured synthetically in order to increase the efficacy of high quantity consumption. Targeted nutrient classes include vitamins, minerals, fiber, fatty acids, and amino acids. Dietary supplements can also contain substances that are not necessarily essential for life but are marketed as having a beneficial biological effect. Examples of these include plant pigments or polyphenols. Animals can also be a source of supplement ingredients as in the case of collagen, which is derived from chickens or fish. Products can contain nutrients on an individual basis or in combination with one another; it is important for individuals to check nutrition labels so that they know exactly what they are taking. In this regard, the European Commission has established harmonized rules to help insure that food supplements are safe and appropriately labeled.[3] Within an industry estimated to have a value of $151.9 billion in 2021,[4] there are more than 50,000 dietary supplement products marketed in the United States.[5] About 50% of the American adult population consumes dietary supplements with Multivitamins being the most common.[6] The United States National Institutes of Health states that supplements "may be of value" for those who are nutrient deficient from their diet and receive approval from their medical provider.[7] In the United States, it is against federal regulations for supplement manufacturers to claim that their products prevent or treat any diseases. Companies are allowed to use what is referred to as "Structure/Function" wording if there is substantiated scientific evidence that a supplement provides a health effect.[8] An example would be "_____ helps maintain healthy joints,” but the label must bear a disclaimer that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "has not evaluated the claim" and that the dietary supplement product is not intended to "diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease,” because only a certified drug can legally make such a claim.[8] The FDA enforces these regulations and also prohibits the sale of supplements with dangerous ingredients or that are not made according to standardized good manufacturing practices (GMPs). Definition In the United States, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 provides this description: "The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) defines the term "dietary supplement" to mean a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients: a vitamin, a mineral, an herb or other botanical, an amino acid, a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any of the aforementioned ingredients. Furthermore, a dietary supplement must be labeled as a dietary supplement and be intended for ingestion and must not be represented for use as conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or of the diet. In addition, a dietary supplement cannot be approved or authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic, or biologic, unless it was marketed as a food or a dietary supplement before such approval or authorization. Under DSHEA, dietary supplements are deemed to be food, except for purposes of the drug definition."[9] Per DSHEA, dietary supplements are consumed orally, and are mainly defined by what they are not: conventional foods (including meal replacements), medical foods,[10] preservatives or pharmaceutical drugs. Products intended for use as a nasal spray or topically, as in a lotion applied to the skin, do not qualify. FDA-approved drugs cannot be ingredients in dietary supplements. Supplement products are or contain vitamins, nutritionally essential minerals, amino acids, essential fatty acids and non-nutrient substances extracted from plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, or in the instance of probiotics, are live bacteria. Dietary supplement ingredients may also be synthetic copies of naturally occurring substances (example: melatonin). All products with these ingredients are required to be labeled as dietary supplements.[11] Simar to foods but unlike drugs, no government approval is required to make or sell dietary supplements. Rather than requiring risk–benefit analysis to prove that the product can be sold like a drug, the FDA only uses such an assessment to decide that a dietary supplement is unsafe and should be removed from market.[11]

Lastly, I made grammar corrections and rephrasing suggestions to the Vitamins section. I also added a bit on what happens if a vitamin is consumed in excess. The citation for this is included below as well:

A vitamin is an organic compound required by an organism as a vital nutrient in limited amounts.[12] An organic chemical compound (or related set of compounds) is called a vitamin when it cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by an organism and must be obtained from the diet. The term is conditional both on the circumstances and on the particular organism. For example, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is a vitamin for anthropoid primates, humans, guinea pigs and bats, but not for other mammals. Vitamin D is not an essential nutrient for people who get sufficient exposure to ultraviolet light, either from the sun or an artificial source, as they synthesize vitamin D in skin.[13] Humans require thirteen vitamins in their diet, most of which are actually groups of related molecules, "vitamers", (e.g. vitamin E includes tocopherols and tocotrienols, vitamin K includes vitamin K1 and K2). The list: vitamins A, C, D, E, K, Thiamine (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Niacin (B3), Pantothenic Acid (B5), Vitamin B6, Biotin (B7), Folate (B9) and Vitamin B12. Vitamin intake below recommended amounts can result in signs and symptoms associated with vitamin deficiency. There is little evidence of benefit when vitamins are consumed as a dietary supplement by those who are healthy and have a nutritionally adequate diet.[14] The U.S. Institute of Medicine sets tolerable upper intake levels (ULs) for some of the vitamins. This does not prevent dietary supplement companies from selling products with content per serving higher than the ULs. For example, the UL for vitamin D is 100 µg (4,000 IU),[15] but products are available without prescription at 10,000 IU. The adverse effects of chronically exceeding ULs vary with the given nutrient. For example, excess calcium can lead to hyperglycemia and renal insufficiency. Too much fluoride may result in moderate enamel fluorosis or, for children 9-13 years of age, skeletal fluorosis. A final example is Vitamin C overdosing, which can cause osmotic diarrhea and gastrointestinal disturbances*see citation below.

• From: 6, Using the Tolerable Upper Intake Level for Nutrient Assessment of Groups

DRI Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary Assessment. Institute of Medicine (US) Subcommittee on Interpretation and Uses of Dietary Reference Intakes; Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Gduffy25 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - be specific about what you wish to change and why. No one is going to read your long post and compare it to the current version. Zefr (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)