Thoughtful Debate Must Be Part of the Antioxidant Craze

We are now almost five years into an antioxidant “craze.” People can’t get enough of them. These days it seems everything is termed an antioxidant, preventing cancer, promoting heart health or delaying the onset of old age. You can buy supplements, muffins, juices and even shampoos. And that’s only the beginning. It’s also part of the problem. There is often a fine line between publicizing a healthful supplement or nutritional ingredient and marketing a panacea or cure-all.

Antioxidant is a powerful term. It has become a “buzz word” that means both everything and nothing.  The word has become pervasive to a point where consumers lose sight of its actual meaning. From Andrew Weil to Cindy Crawford, everyone is selling antioxidants. Those who aren’t selling antioxidants are buying them and talking about them. Consumers and marketers who aren’t even sure of what an antioxidant is or does are singing its praises.

Technically speaking an antioxidant is a substance that inhibits the growth of potentially harmful “free radical” substances that grow in organisms. From promoting cancer treatment to the preventing heart disease and dementia, antioxidants have acquired an almost mystical reputation.

The studies showing the potential benefits of antioxidants are legion.  Some of the richest sources of antioxidants are those least likely to be promoted by the most vociferous marketers. The organically produced sources of antioxidant like chocolate, berries and dried fruits are rich sources of antioxidants. Shampoo and deodorants are some of the more peculiar, creative and far-fetched offerings.

Then there are the studies that come down on the other side of the equation. Not all studies agree that a superabundance of antioxidants is necessarily a good thing. One study, for example, suggests that antioxidants may actually neutralize the positive effects of working out. Antioxidants haven not been shown either to improve performance or to speed the recovery process.

Rigorous study and debate between advocates and critics is an integral part of the process of developing valuable medical treatments, drugs, and nutritional supplements. This time, thoughtful debate has not been a part of the process.

Lost in the quest to find a veritable fountain of youth has been a valuable discussion about when and where antioxidants work best, and which ones are the most effective.

The downside of the current “gold rush” is that the voices of the thoughtful and legitimate players in the market are given the same weight and currency as the shills and showmen.  In order to truly inform consumers of the value of antioxidants and to prevent them from becoming known as simply the “snake oil” of the 21^st Century, it’s up to the industry to inform and self-police. This is a strategy that will not only inform and serve the public but also benefit the reputation and ultimately the profits of the industry.