It is all very odd.

What qualifications or credentials does he need to call himself a “nutritionist”?

If there is one predominant message that should be clear, there is no multivitamin formulation/panacea that suits all ages and stages of life and for many reasons (including some of the fine points that jdc adds above) I’m not sure that promoting the idea that there is a good foundational multivitamin that suits all adults is an exercise that has any merit.

I have no idea why Biocare believes this to be a formulation that is grounded in solid research from an appropriately qualified person. It is lamentable that people rely on them for appropriately-researched and justified products yet they are happy to include a product and range like this.

Wonder how Biocare reconcile this oversight?

“Myth: No one is deficient of essential nutrients” is followed by the stated fact that 50-60 per cent of Americans (up to 75 or 80% for some nutrients) are failing to achieve the RDA for certain vits and mins. That they are not achieving the RDA (I note that just how far short of the RDAs these Americans were falling is not specified by Orthomolecular) does not mean that they are deficient in vitamins. If I may quote Derek Shrimpton –
“The term [RDA] recognises that particular groups of individuals (E.g. infants and those over 60) have different needs and for each group, the intention was to be sufficiently generous to encompass the presumed (but unmeasured) variability in requirement among people. This meant that the value was usually set deliberately high”, so… we are all different, we all require different amounts of vitamins and minerals [as any nutritionist will tell you], but this doesn’t mean that RDA amounts are likely to be insufficient for some of us – given that RDAs are usually set deliberately high it’s actually more likely that they are over and above our needs rather than being ‘sub-optimum’. I wonder how many people who have seen Holford’s ODAs in the Optimum Nutrition Bible are aware of that?

And 100mcg for Chromium? COMA reckons “an adequate level of intake for trivalent chromium lies above 0.025 mg/day for adults and between 0.0001 and 0.001 mg/kg/day for children and adolescents”
0.1 to 1 mcg is adequate for children and adolescents, but PH thinks 100 times the upper amount I quote is “optimum”? And he’s basing this on… peer-reviewed, published justification? Oh. He isn’t. Oh dear. Happily, the EVM state that “ingested trivalent chromium has a low level of toxicity, due partly to its poor absorption”, but they also point out that “the data on oral chromium toxicity are limited” so I think I’d be rather reticent to recommend levels much higher than those cited by COMA (about four times the recommended level for adults and one hundred to one thousand times the level for children and adolescents.

[Sorry for the horrendously long comment. I'll probably be back in a bit once I've read the Orthomolecular site, so you should probably brace yourselves for more verbiage]