Group items tagged

The second committee meeting was held August 4-5, 2009 in Washington, DC and included an Information-Gathering Workshop on August 4, 2009. The agenda for this workshop is below, along with the PowerPoint presentations that were used by the speakers during the workshop. Please note, online presentations from this meeting are subject to copyright protection. Permission from the speaker is required prior to any copying, reproducing, or rebroadcasting any portion of the speaker's presentations. Additional copyright and legal policies of The National Academies can be read in the National Academies Legal Statement.

Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Vitamin D (expressed on 4 December 2002)

Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium An IOM committee has been named to undertake a study to assess current relevant data and update as appropriate the DRIs for vitamin D and calcium. The review will include consideration of chronic and non-chronic disease indicators. The study will also incorporate, as appropriate, systematic evidence-based reviews of the literature and an assessment of potential indicators of adequacy and of excess intake. Indicators for adequacy and excess will be selected based on the strength and quality of the evidence and the demonstrated public health significance, taking into consideration sources of uncertainty in the evidence.

Despite inadequacies in information concerning the minimum prophylactic requirement of vitamin D for all age groups beyond infancy, there is no doubt that a total intake of 400 I.U. per day is adequate to prevent vitamin D deficiency in substantially all normal children from birth through adolescence. Evidence derived from the study of idiopathic hypercalcemia suggests that certain infants excessively sensitive to the toxic action of vitamin D may, on rare occasions, be adversely affected by daily intakes of 3,000 to 4,000 I.U. and sometimes considerably less. Because of the prevalent practice of food fortification in the United States and Canada, there is now a definite possibility that the individual, even the young infant, may ingest considerably more than the recommended vitamin D allowance, and intakes of 2,000 to 3,500 I.U. per day are possible, particularly beyond infancy. Although there has been no specific evidence that intakes of this order produce deleterious effects beyond infancy, it is pointed out that the long-term consequences of this new nutritional situation on older children or adults are entirely unknown.

The Toronto group gave a fixed low dose (2,000 units) of the prehormone, cholecalciferol, a very safe compound that never causes high calcium in the doses used. In fact, the lowest dose of cholecalciferol known to cause high blood calcium is more than 20,000 units. Therefore, the Toronto group got better results with one-tenth the comparable dose of deltanoids! Vieth wanted to use more cholecalciferol but widespread ignorance about the physiology and pharmacology of vitamin D remains and he could not get adequate dosing past the various review committees.

The Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME) is preparing a vitamin D policy paper it hopes can influence European national associations considering vitamin D medical recommendations. PA International Foundation is hosting an event on the topic in Bruges, Belgium, on October 6, its 14th workshop to be held on the matter. The CPME draft paper will be presented at the convention attended by doctors, scientists, patient groups, media representatives and politicians.

This article discusses our experience at the one-day Institute of Medicine workshop on vitamin D and calcium. Both of us had an opportunity to make comments before the committee. Here are Paul's comments and slides and here are Amy's comments and slides. Note that our 2009 paper in Autoimmunity Reviews[1] discusses some of the science we allude to in further detail.

Global vitamin D status and determinants of hypovitaminosis D. Mithal A, Wahl DA, Bonjour JP, Burckhardt P, Dawson-Hughes B, Eisman JA, El-Hajj Fuleihan G, Josse RG, Lips P, Morales-Torres J; on behalf of the IOF Committee of Scientific Advisors (CSA) Nutrition Working Group. Osteoporos Int. 2009 Jun 19. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 19543765 CONCLUSION: Reports from across the world indicate that hypovitaminosis D is widespread and is re-emerging as a major health problem globally.

Prevention of rickets and vitamin D deficiency in infants, children, and adolescents.\nWagner CL, Greer FR; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition.\nPediatrics. 2008 Nov;122(5):1142-52. Erratum in: Pediatrics. 2009 Jan;123(1):197.\nPMID: 18977996

Vitamin D Toxicity Fears Unwarranted Is vitamin D toxic? Not if we take the same amount nature intended when we go out in the sun. Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69:842-56. Vieth attempted to dispel unwarranted fears in medical community of physiological doses of vitamin D in 1999 with his exhaustive and well-written review. D-Lite, Renew, & SunSplash UV/Tanning Systems Sunsplash Tanning System Is toxicity a concern for you? If so, then increase your levels the way nature intended, with ultraviolet B light! His conclusions: fear of vitamin D toxicity is unwarranted, and such unwarranted fear, bordering on hysteria, is rampant in the medical profession. Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD. Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed adverse effect level. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94. Even Ian Monroe, the chair of the relevant IOM committee, wrote to the Journal to compliment Vieth's work and to promise his findings will be considered at the time of a future Institute of Medicine review. Munro I. Derivation of tolerable upper intake levels of nutrients. Letter, Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74:865. That was more than two years ago.

The panel selected to analyze the health claims is being criticized for not including the medical researchers whose work prompted intense scientific interest in the nutrient in the first place. "If you were publicly in favour of vitamin D, you were not included, and I find that outrageous," said Reinhold Vieth, a professor in the department of nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, and one of Canada's leading experts on the nutrient.