A.  Identifying Claims and Interpreting Ad Meaning 

1. Identifying Express and Implied Claims
2. When to Disclose Qualifying Information
3. Clear and Prominent Disclosure 

B.  Substantiating Claims

1. Overview 
2. Ads that Refer to a Specific Level of Support 
3. The Amount and Type of Evidence
4. The Quality of the Evidence
5. The Totality of the Evidence
6. The Relevance to the Evidence to the Specific Claim

C.  Other Issues Relating to Dietary Supplement Advertising

1. Claims based on Consumer Testimonials and Expert Endorsements
2. Claims based on Traditional Use 
3. Use of the DSHEA Disclaimer in Advertising
4. Third Party Literature

To the Editor.—The practice of physician involvement in a "multilevel marketing" arrangement of promoting and selling nutritional supplement products directly to patients came to our attention when some patients in our health care system complained of their "high-priced" vitamin therapy.

Our general ethical concerns are 2-fold: physicians are using their positions of authority to profit from direct sales to patients, and  physicians are promoting  therapies with little evidence-based support.

Nutrition News Focus
Want to make sense of all the confusing nutrition news you're bombarded with every day? Are you tired of hearing that some food is good for you on Monday morning, only to hear that it's "poison" on Friday afternoon? 

Our FREE daily email newsletter, Nutrition News Focus, helps you make sense of it all. You can subscribe to it right here, on our website! 

Here are some highly rated websites  from 
The Tufts University Nutrition Navigator http://www.navigator.tufts.edu/

***Health Oasis, Mayo Clinic http://www.mayohealth.org/

***American Dietetic Association http://www.eatright.org/

This site mentions that Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are replacing (or rather expanding ) current RDA. New reference levels have been set for calcium and related nutrients such as magnesium. The new AI (adequate intake) for calcium is 1200 mg a day. 

No mention of a calcium/magnesium ratio. On the osteoporosis page is simply says it is the combination of nutrients that influences bone 
http://www.eatright.org/womenshealth/osteoporosis.html

***Alternative Health News Online http://www.altmedicine.com/

You need to get through a disclaimer page to get to this site. I did not find anything about a calcium/magnesium ratio on the Diet and Nutrition page. 

I did find a link to an August 27th  new story called Magnesium appears to  slow bone loss ( but why they did the research on young men I do not know) 
http://www.altmedicine.com/app/registeruser.cfm

***Health Canada Nutrition http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/nutrition/

Not much here on magnesium, or much of anything though except Canada's food rules. Magnesium seems to be in all of the food groups. 

***AMA Health Insight http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3457.html

Your own personal nutritionist 
http://www.ama-assn.org/insight/gen_hlth/pernutri/pernutri.htm

And a little test to see how fit you are 
http://www.ama-assn.org/insight/gen_hlth/trainer/index.htm

OK I found something on magnesium on the Nutrition basics page 

http://www.ama-assn.org/insight/gen_hlth/nutrinfo/part1.htm#vitamins

Here are the magnesium food sources, note that it includes dairy so getting your calcium from dairy should not be a problem. 

"Leafy green vegetables,  nuts, whole grains, dried peas and beans, dairy products, fish,  meat, poultry"

 Sorry I couldn't help you out with your nutrition question, but maybe the ratio question only applies if you are taking supplements? 

But I have  the USDA Nutrient Database website for you: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl

You can put in the food in the search box and after giving you several selections and weights it comes up with an answer. I put in walnuts and after selecting English, and 1 oz it came up with 47.912 mg magnesium. 

Another website is NAT Nutrition Analysis Tool v 1.1 http://spectre.ag.uiuc.edu/~food-lab/nat/
But this one does not do all the nutrients e.g. it did not cover magnesium

The Pauling Institute and its progenitor, the late Linus Pauling, are not without controversy; over the years, however, many of Pauling's once-fringe theories about human nutrition have become part of mainstream medical/dietary knowledge.

The site takes a scientific, non-faddist approach to nutrition; they emphasize the desirability of getting nutrients from food rather than from pills (although they do support taking a daily multivitamin), and they are very clear when their own recommendations diverge from, for instance, the federal government's Recommended Daily Allowance figures. They summarize recent research on specific nutrients, and provide citations. 

Best of all, they're not selling anything.

Whether one agrees with the Institute's approach or not, I find this a very useful site, and am bookmarking it for future reference.

--Pat Kight
[email protected]

Gulp! Vitamin Facts 

By Sally Squires
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 28, 2000; Page Z13 

As science finds exciting new roles for a growing number of vitamins and minerals, many consumers mistakenly ask not whether they need extra doses of these nutrients but how much of these popular dietary supplements they should take.

Mistakenly because most research links the beneficial effects of vitamins and minerals to food – not pills. In fact, several recent large, well-designed scientific trials have found some vitamin supplements pose real danger, especially to particular groups of people.

"Dietary supplements are just what they say they are," says Jeffrey Blumberg, associate director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston. "They are supplements to, not substitutes for, a healthy diet."

The charts on the next six pages are designed to help separate the science from the fiction, identify foods rich in each vitamin or mineral, report on safe supplement doses and flag lesser-known risks, including the potential dangers of megadoses.