Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Prof Patrick Holford of Teesside University has been the recipent of a useful lesson from the ASA, the organisation that oversees advertising claims to ensure that they are:

legal, decent, honest and truthful.

Universities typically hope that their professors are in the news because they have won prestigious awards, published ground-breaking research or attracted substantial research grants. It is difficult to anticipate Teesside University’s reaction to an ASA adjudication against Holford as a newly appointed Visiting Professor although it must be helpful that the advertisement that breached the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice) Code was disseminated prior to his appointment. However, given Holford’s recent characterisation of some children as ’stupid’ or ‘thicker’ it is particularly surprising to learn that this is not the first ASA adjudication against Holford which is a dispiriting indication of his willingness to take useful criticism or learn from appropriate authorities (see Update 1).

The 100%health response to the ASA challenges was rather odd; it smacked of the arrogant manipulator who slopes around in Revenge Tragedies rubbing his hands as he influences others to believe his truths and enact his plan. As ever, the manipulator-with-enormous-self-belief seems to be completely undone when the cunning plan goes awry. In some ways, it was eye-rolling yet endearing that Holford has retained his faith in the talisman properties of the chromium paper which he had hoped (mistakenly) hoped would ward off criticism about his more exuberant claims about diabetes management earlier this year. The ASA was as splendidly and appropriately unimpressed by this paper as Holford Watch.

The ASA seems to have taken a similarly robust attitude to the other papers that were offered to them as evidence to substantiate the claims made by 100%health and Holford.

We also understood that 100%health had intended to point out that, in Patrick Holford’s opinion, scientific evidence showed that, for some individuals, a well-balanced diet that used RDAs as guidelines was inadequate.

While we noted that was 100%health’s intention, we considered that the claim implied a balanced diet was insufficient to support well-being amongst the population
in general, which we had not seen evidence to support…

While we understood that 100%health believed vitamin and mineral supplementation was essential for some people to achieve optimum nutritional benefits, we considered that the claim did not make clear that it was representative only of the author’s views. While we recognised the promising indications realised by the evidence submitted in support of vitamin supplementation for some groups, we considered that 100% health had not substantiated the implication that a balanced diet was inadequate in providing all the vitamins and minerals needed by a normal, healthy individual and the claim was, therefore, likely to mislead. [Emphasis added.]

The British Dietetic Association (BDA) has issued a dignified and understated response to the news of this adjudication.

The decision by the ASA that the claims made in the direct mailing was a breach of the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code -clauses on truthfulness and substantiation - and that it was misleading is welcomed by the BDA and dietitians. This case highlights the need for the public to be wary of nutritional therapists who advocate the benefits of a specific supplement or treatment as their advice may not be completely impartial.

For the majority of people eating a well balanced and varied diet, as identified in the recently launched Eatwell Plate, by the Food Standards Agency, this should provide sufficient vitamins and minerals to help them live a normal healthy life, without the need to take extra supplements. People who feel they are lacking in certain nutrients should consult appropriate expert help and will usually be better changing the amount or type of foods they eat rather than reaching for supplements.

Dietitians are the only statutorily recognised nutrition professionals; they have undertaken specific training to enable them to give individualised advice and support. Any decision on the need for additional vitamins and minerals to a diet should be made in consultation with a registered dietitian. Taking excess amounts of vitamins and minerals is at best expensive and wasteful, and can interfere with other functions in the body resulting in harm. Unlike nutritional therapists, dietitians are bound by a strict code of conduct, which means that any claims made about a product or particular treatment must be substantiated by scientific evidence.

Quite.

See also:
Prof Colquhoun on Holford’s untruthful and unsubstantiated advertisement
Le Canard Noir on Patrick Holford’s Advertising Standards
Dr Ben Goldacre on Patrick Holford’s Untruthful and Unsubstantiated Claims About Pills (also reproduces an image of the offending advertisement which is helpful)

Update 1 at 14:38 We are grateful to LeeT for pointing us towards the 2003 adjudication against Holford. However, there is a striking similarity behind the ideas that lead to the complaint and some of those that promote Food Is Better Medicine Than Drugs; it highlights the quirkiness of a system that finds these claims to be reprehensible in an advertisement but acceptable in other material.