Monthly Archives: September 2021

Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, consultant

Over the years, we have seen a disturbing approach being taken by some dietary supplement companies to circumvent the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) oversight. Their strategy undermines both dietary supplement safety and food safety. These companies are leveraging FDAs decision to allow manufacturers to secretly self-certify food chemicals as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) in order to:

We have long-challenged FDAs interpretation of the GRAS exemption in the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 because it results in the agency being unable to fulfill its statutory duty to ensure food is safe.[1] When Congress passed the amendment, the GRAS exemption was expected to be for common substances like oils and vinegar. In this blog, we explain how the agencys flawed approach to GRAS also undermines the safety of dietary supplements.

We call on FDA to revise its GRAS rule to close the loophole it created in 1997 and codified in 2016. Eliminating secrecy by requiring manufacturers to submit safety information would enable the agency to ensure both dietary supplements and foods are safe. If it doesnt, Congress should clarify that FDAs GRAS rule violates the law. As a stopgap measure, FDA needs to improve transparency around its assessment of voluntary GRAS notices it receives and use its enforcement authority to stop the misuse of GRAS.

Apoaequorin as a prime example of GRAS undermining both dietary supplement and food safety

An excellent example of the problem is apoaequorin, a controversial chemical commonly marketed as the dietary supplement Prevagen. An October 2020 article in Wired tells the saga in detail. We are focused on the GRAS-aspects of the story but need to briefly mention that FDA twice objected to the companys NDI notices in 2008 and 2012 for a litany of reasons that include safety concerns. The agency also took a series of enforcement actions that the company claims have been resolved.

A year after FDA objected to the second NDI notice, Quincy Bioscience began selling NeuroShake a protein shake containing apoaequorin as conventional food, presumably based on a self-certification that the chemicals use in dairy products was GRAS. In doing so, it no longer needed an NDI notice if the dose of the chemical in food is similar to what it will offer as a dietary supplement. The company effectively leveraged the GRAS loophole to avoid FDA review of the chemical as a new dietary supplement ingredient.

In late 2014, the company submitted to FDA a voluntary GRAS notice for conventional food use, relying on an expert panel it hired to review the safety information.[2] The notice stated that there had been more than 2,200 instances of user-reported adverse health effects from the chemicals use as a dietary supplement. The reports, primarily consumer complaints, describe memory impairment, anxiety, hypertension, headaches, dizziness, insomnia, nausea, and diarrhea. The company identified 26 reports as serious adverse events, mainly neurological and cardiovascular problems. Despite these reports, two physicians hired by the law firm that filed the notice for the company concluded that apoaequorin was likely not the cause of the serious adverse events. One of the physicians found that there is no alarming pattern of [serious adverse events] which would indicate a safety concern. The other said he found no pattern of events that led me to think there was a particular safety problem with the product.

The company withdrew the notice in 2015. However, this withdrawal did not preclude the company from selling its product. And, as it does for all withdrawals, FDA did not make public any safety concerns with the product. According to the Wired article, FDA had concerns and sent Quincy Biosciences a letter questioning the safety of its NeuroShake stating, we are concerned about the safety of your apoaequorin products because of, among other things, the large numbers of adverse events reported for them. The company continues to offer Neuroshake for sale.

We await FDAs response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for its assessment of the GRAS notice and communications with the company[3] about apoaequorin.

Not an isolated incident

While the apoaequorin story is unusually egregious, it is not an isolated incident. In 2014, the Natural Resources Defense Councils (NRDC) Generally Recognized as Secret report[4] identified 275 chemicals from 56 companies that appeared to be marketed for use in food based on undisclosed GRAS safety determinations. The report found that almost all of the chemicals NRDC reviewed were also ingredients in dietary supplements and served no essential purpose in food other than to attract consumers attention. It noted that several dietary supplement manufacturers appear to be making a GRAS determination to avoid having to notify the FDA under both [the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994] and the Food Additives Amendment of 1958.

The situation did not change after NRDCs 2014 report. We reviewed 78 voluntary GRAS notices that companies submitted to FDA for review between May 2014 and August 2021 but then withdrew the request. After removing duplicates there were a total of 46 GRAS substances of which 13 were marketed as dietary supplement ingredients. See a few examples in the table below.

GRAS substances have higher safety standard, but NDI has mandatory notice to FDA

In theory, a chemical must meet a more protective safety standard for its use in food to be considered GRAS as compared to its use as a new dietary supplement ingredient. A substance can only be considered GRAS if there is a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful considering three factors including cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in such diet. In contrast, a new dietary ingredient can only be use if it is reasonably expected to be safe. In other words, to be GRAS, there must be a reasonable certainty of no harm as compared to for NDIs where there need only be a reasonable expectation of safety.

Despite the differences in safety standards, in reality, many GRAS substances do not go through a rigorous safety review. FDA allows companies to self-certify the GRAS substances uses as safe in secret using staff, consultants, or an expert panel it has hired with no consideration to conflicts of interest or bias.

Even when the GRAS safety determination is voluntarily submitted to the agency and published, if FDA raises concerns, as with apoaequorin, the company can simply withdraw the notice and continue using the chemical in food. The agencys concerns are only made public if someone chooses to request this information under FOIA. In addition, FDA is sensitive to demanding too much information because it does not want to discourage future notifications; as an agency reviewer said [w]e cannot require anything, as this is a voluntary program and we dont want to frighten anyone away

Daniel Fabricant, a former director of FDAs Dietary Supplement Program and current president of the trade group Natural Products Association, said in the context of apoaequorin that GRAS is pretty compelling, especially if its published. My guess is that somebody higher up in the [Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition] looked at that and said we cant make a case The Wired article also quoted Robert Durkin, Fabricants successor at the agency, as saying once this happens [apoaequorin entering the food supply via NeuroShake], the agencys original position back in 07, that the ingredient in question isnt a dietary ingredient, that argument goes away. Through Durkins statement, FDA acknowledges that Quincy Bioscience successfully leveraged the GRAS loophole and circumvented agency oversight of its NDI notice requirement. In their quotes, neither Durkin nor Fabricant acknowledged that the company had withdrawn the GRAS notice.

In contrast to GRAS, the NDI notice is mandatory. It must be submitted at least 75-days before the product goes to market, and the agency makes a formal assessment that is public. There is no option for withdrawal.

Not surprisingly, the rates at which FDA accepts GRAS notices and NDI notices are starkly different, supporting the idea that mandatory agency review with a formal assessment makes a difference. FDA effectively objects to or allows to be withdrawn to avoid an objection for less than 20% of GRAS notices.. In contrast, FDA objects to more than 60% of NDI notices. According to an industry lawyer who said at a 2020 conference that you were uncertain of what the standards for evaluation were going to be, it felt like the bar was being set impossibly high, and so people started looking for an alternative. And thats when we see the rise of interest in the GRAS self-determination process.

Is there a solution to the broken GRAS system?

After FDA adopted the 1997 proposed GRAS rule, we saw a tremendous increase in reliance on the GRAS notice. Formal petitions dropped dramatically in favor of voluntary GRAS notices. Now we see the GRAS rule undermining dietary supplement safety.

The agency needs to revise its rules to fix the GRAS system. If not on its own accord, then in response to a potential court decision or a legislative mandate that makes clear than FDAs GRAS rule violates the law.

In the meantime, as a stopgap measure to improve transparency and help reduce misuse of the GRAS exemption, FDA needs to publicly post online its assessment of a chemicals safety even if a notifier asks the agency to cease evaluating it This will help food manufacturers recognize potential problems with the substance and avoid using it without a more careful investigation. There is nothing in the rules that limit release of the agencys assessment.

Conclusion

When Congress passed the Food Additive Amendment of 1958, the GRAS exemption was expected to be for common substances like oils and vinegar. In 2011, we showed that most new food chemicals were not reviewed by FDA for safety as food additives but were allowed to be used in our food supply by means of industry certifications that the chemicals they produced are GRAS; indeed, we estimated that there were at least 1000 chemicals determined to be GRAS without notice or review to FDA.

FDAs expansive interpretation of the GRAS exemption provided the dietary supplement industry with a path that allows chemicals of unknown safety to enter the food supply without accountability, leaving consumers in the dark and undermining both dietary supplement safety and food safety.

___

[1] When the agency finally formalized its approach in a 2016 rule, EDF, represented by Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety, challenged the rule and are awaiting a court decision.

[2] FDAs 2016 rule does not protect against this type of conflicts of interest or even require an expert panel. In 2017, FDA issued a draft guidance on best practices to convene a best panel that would, if followed, limit this practice. But the agency has not finalized the guidance after four years.

[3] As well as 45 other withdrawn GRAS notices.

[4] The authors of the blog were also the authors of the NRDC study.

Originally posted here:

Broken GRAS: Undermining the safety of dietary supplements and food - Environmental Defense Fund

In this episode, Michael E. Burke, partner and co-chair of the Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology industry team is joined by Robert Durkin, an attorney in our Dietary Supplements team, as they discuss issues around business divorces or disputes between companies in the food and supplements space. They will discuss, among other things, post-divorce product regulatory status and related business challenges, as well as strategies that can be employed at the beginning of the business relationship to help mitigate risk if the relationship Seemore+

In this episode, Michael E. Burke, partner and co-chair of the Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology industry team is joined by Robert Durkin, an attorney in our Dietary Supplements team, as they discuss issues around business divorces or disputes between companies in the food and supplements space. They will discuss, among other things, post-divorce product regulatory status and related business challenges, as well as strategies that can be employed at the beginning of the business relationship to help mitigate risk if the relationship goes bad. Seeless-

Continued here:

I Wish I Knew What I Know Now: Conversations with AGG on FDA Issues - Business Divorces in the Food and Supplements Space - JD Supra

Most of us know vitamin C as a popular cold remedy. However, boosting your immune system isn't the only way your body can benefit from vitamin C. It actually helps you in ways you may not yet realize. The antioxidant power of vitamin C helps to reduce your risk of cancer and other serious diseases, as well as boost collagen levels and help prevent vision loss. And in the last few years, more key studies have found that vitamin c is also linked to gut health.

One of the major effects vitamin C has on your gut is helping to maintain a balance between good and bad bacteria in your gut microbiome. Here's why, and for more healthy eating tips, make sure to check out The 7 Healthiest Foods to Eat Right Now.

According to the Mayo Clinic, you need vitamin C for healing and forming vital parts of your body like muscles, cartilage, collagen, and blood vessels. This essential vitamin has also been proven to help reduce the negative effects of free radicals in your bodywhich are known to lead to heart disease and cancer.

Because your body can't naturally make vitamin C on its own, it needs to get it from food or supplements. Some common vitamin C-rich foods are oranges, kiwis, strawberries, kale, Brussels sprouts, and bell peppers.

It is recommended that adult women get around 75 milligrams of vitamin C per day, and adult men about 90 milligrams. If you're pregnant or breastfeeding, this number increases to between 85 to 120 milligrams a day.

A 2019 study published in Redox Biology found that vitamin C can be used to improve your gut barrier function, which helps your body absorb nutrients and protect you from certain toxins.

Along with improving your gut barrier, vitamin C has been known to help balance out the good and bad bacteria inside your gut. According to Gut Microbes, vitamin C had the most significant impact on gut health compared to vitamins B and D and was proven to help increase microbial diversity, which is necessary for maintaining a healthy gut.

Although vitamin C has positive effects on your gut health, you may experience some uncomfortable digestive issues if you take too much.

RELATED: One Major Effect Vitamin D Has on Your Gut, Study Says

According to the National Institute of Health, excessive amounts of vitamin C can cause gut-related issues like diarrhea, cramps, and nausea, which occur because of the way your gastrointestinal tract reacts to the unabsorbed (or excess) vitamin C.

Although these side effects are uncomfortable, it takes quite a bit of vitamin C to reach this point. The NIH says the tolerable upper limit for adults is 2,000 milligrams a day, which is almost impossible to reach with just foods containing vitamin C.

Although you most likely won't reach 2,000 milligrams with your daily food, you may accidentally take too many vitamin C supplements. For example, there are 1,000 milligrams in a Nature Made Vitamin C tablet, so taking more than one per day could potentially lead to some of these unwanted digestive issues.

For even more tips, read these next:

Read the original post:

One Major Effect Vitamin C Has On Your Gut, Says Science | Eat This Not That - Eat This, Not That

Soy foods, including tofu, edamame, miso, soy sauce, and soy milk, are some of the most widely consumed foods on the planet. As more people embrace plant-based diets, their popularity is increasing.

Yet soy is known to produce phytoestrogens in the body, and estrogen has been linked to breast cancer. Is there any reason to be concerned about breast cancer if you eat foods containing soy?

Researchers say no. In fact, theres solid evidence that eating foods rich in soy may actually lower your risk of developing breast cancer.

This article explores some of the research into soy foods and breast cancer. It also discusses some of the other benefits and risks of including soy in your diet.

Why was there a concern about the relationship between consuming soy and developing breast cancer? In some older animal studies, mice that ate soy had an increased number of breast cancer cells in their mammary glands. Those results led researchers to question whether soy might have similar effects on humans.

However, animal studies dont always translate well to humans. In this case, its important to note that there are at least two reasons why these mice might have a different response to dietary soy than humans.

First, mice process the soy differently than humans do. To understand how, a little background is necessary. Soy contains several kinds of phytoestrogens (isoflavones). Phytoestrogens are plant-based substances that act like estrogen in the body.

According to the American Cancer Society, certain types of breast cancer have been traced to increased estrogen in the body. Thats what gave researchers cause for concern about soy and breast cancer. However, in humans, phytoestrogens turn into genistein and daidzein, two isoflavones that are very different from and much weaker than human estrogen.

In fact, soy has been proven to block the action of estrogen in tissues. In tissues with breast cancer cells, estrogen stimulates the multiplication of cancer cells. When soy blocks this stronger form of estrogen, it is playing an active role in reducing the risk of breast cancer.

Because of the differences in how soy isoflavones are metabolized in mice and humans, the mice in these studies were exposed to much higher concentrations of isoflavones than the amounts human beings typically eat. Researchers have concluded that the higher concentrations mean the outcomes are likely to be different for the two species.

When researchers conducted similar soy studies on primates, whose biology is much closer to human biology, they found no increased risk of breast cancer among the primates who consumed soy.

A number of long-term studies involving human populations have shown that eating soy foods does not increase the risk of breast cancer. On the contrary: Studies show that diets rich in soy may actually help to protect you from developing breast cancer.

A 2020 study that tracked the soy consumption of over 300,000 women in China found that moderate soy consumption did not raise the risk of breast cancer for women in the study. Women in the study who reported eating higher amounts of soy products experienced a lower risk of breast cancer.

A 2020 meta-analysis evaluated the results of 18 separate studies. After evaluating the results of these studies, researchers concluded that higher amounts of soy in the diet lowered the breast cancer risk for women. The protective effect was highest for women who had not yet reached menopause.

If you have been diagnosed with breast cancer or are a survivor, you may be wondering whether you should be cautious about consuming soy. Experts at the American Cancer Society say soy foods are safe and healthy for people to eat. They caution, however, that more research needs to be done to see whether taking isoflavone supplements is equally safe, since these supplements may have higher concentrations of isoflavones than there are in soy foods.

In 2017, the Breast Cancer Family Registry followed the intake of soy isoflavones for 6,235 women diagnosed with breast cancer and living in the U.S. and Canada. It was found that women who ate the highest amounts of soy isoflavones had a 21 percent lower risk of death compared with women with the lowest intakes.

In 2019, researchers analyzed 12 studies that followed 37,275 women who had survived breast cancer. Their analysis found that eating soy foods both before and after their diagnosis was associated with a reduced risk of cancer recurrence in postmenopausal women.

The soy that we eat can impact our bodies in a multitude of ways. There are benefits of eating soy related both to fighting breast cancer and our general health.

Soy products are a great source of protein. As opposed to some other plant proteins, soy proteins contain all nine essential amino acids that the body cannot make, making it a complete protein. Replacing red meat with soy protein may also help reduce your risk of certain cancers, because eating red meat has been linked to higher cancer risk.

A 2020 research review found that soy isoflavones helped improve bone mineral density and prevent bone loss in people with osteoporosis. Researchers noted that it may be necessary to consume the isoflavones for a year or longer to see the most benefit.

Fermented soy foods like miso, natto, and tempeh are cultured with beneficial bacteria. These bacteria boost the health of our microbiome, which can improve our heart health, brain health, and regulate weight.

It is worth noting that most of the studies regarding soy as a cancer-fighting food are observational, and more detailed studies need to be done. The relationship between soy consumption and breast health may additionally be related to the lifestyle and other dietary habits of people who eat soy products.

While there is no link believed to exist between soy and breast cancer, there might be other reasons for you to consider eating less soy.

While soy foods are safe and have a number of health benefits, there is not enough data to say for sure that soy supplements are equally beneficial. At least one study conducted in 2019 recommended against using soy supplements until more research could be done. Its important to note that this study did not find any association between the past use of soy supplements and breast cancer.

One form of fermented soy, soy sauce, contains tyramine and monosodium glutamate (MSG). Some researchers once thought tyramine triggered migraine attacks by constricting and dilating blood vessels. However, blood vessel dilation is not considered the cause of most migraine.

While there is insufficient evidence linking MSG consumption to headaches, it is believed to be a migraine trigger for many people, and soy is sometimes found on lists of migraine triggers.

Many soy products may be created with genetically modified soybeans. Some people are concerned that GMO foods may be linked to cancer and allergies; however, there are no long-term human studies linking GMOs to cancer or allergies. More research is needed.

There is no known link between breast cancer and eating tofu, miso, edamame, soy milk, soy sauce, or any other soy food. In fact, researchers have found that consuming soy foods can actually lower your breast cancer risk.

Soy foods can also benefit your health in other ways: protecting you from bone loss, boosting the beneficial bacteria in your gut, and increasing healthy sources of plant protein in your diet. Its important to note that soy isnt entirely risk-free, however. Soy may be a migraine trigger in some people, and it may be genetically modified, which some people choose to avoid.

More research needs to be done before scientists can say with certainty that soy supplements are as healthful and safe as foods that contain soy.

The rest is here:

Soy and Breast Cancer: Is There a Connection? - Healthline

CBD, the supplement which seems to be everywhere. It's in gels, drinks, chamois cream and even pizza these days.

Already prevalent in rugby, golf, and cricket, CBD is taking the sports world by storm and it shows no signs of disappearing. So is CBD the next big thing in cycling? And is it legal?

In April this year, UCI Continental Professional cycling outift Team Skyline announced a sponsorship deal with the company Gold Medal CBD and Tokyo 2020 was widely viewed as the first time athletes could use CBD in their preparations for the Olympic Games.

Ex-pro and disqualified Tour de France winner Floyd Landis CBD company Floyds of Leadville boasts many elite athletes as ambassadors, including cyclists Sarah Sturm, Gordon Wadsworth and Peter Stetina.

The global CBD industry is projected to be worth $13.4 billion (9.7 billion) by 2028, according to Grand View Analysis.

CBD is a naturally occurring compound found in the cannabis plant and is also known as cannabidiol.

It is one of hundreds of compounds, called cannabinoids, which make up the cannabis plant.

It is neither intoxicative nor has a psychoactive effect unlike one of the plants more well-known cannabinoids, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis which gets people high.

A World Health Organisation (WHO) report states that CBD is generally well tolerated with a good safety profile.

Like Ketone Esters, CBD is legal in the UK.

CBD products are categorised under the Novel Food Regulation which means they have to be marketed as a food supplement rather than a medicine.

In 2018 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) removed CBD from its prohibited substances list but other compounds found in the cannabis plant are still banned including THC.

Cannabis is an illegal class B drug in the UK and almost all cannabidiols are controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (excluding CBD).

There are three spectrums of CBD: full, broad and narrow, which indicates the number of other compounds of the cannabis plant present in the CBD itself.

A full spectrum product contains CBD and a small amount of THC (less than 0.2% otherwise it is illegal).

A broad spectrum product contains all the compounds of the plant including CBD but does not contain any THC.

A narrow spectrum product (also called Isolate CBD) contains only CBD and no other compounds of the cannabis plant.

There are many different types of CBD products, from capsules, oils, patches, balms and gels to drinks, gummies, pillowcases and even yoga classes.

According to neurologist and medical cannabis expert, Professor Mike Barnes, the most effective way to ingest CBD is as an oil under the tongue.

Most people take CBD as an oil under the tongue as it can be absorbed directly into the bloodstream. Then its effects will last about 4-6 hours.

Essentially, it depends on what you want CBD for as to how you should take it. For instance, for a painful joint or muscle you could use a balm to rub into the affected area.

CBD advocates say it can aid post-training recovery, improve sleep quality, and reduce anxiety.

CBD in general can help with anxiety and physical pain, says Team Skyline Sports Director Michael Tacci. It helps with not only managing nagging minor injuries, bumps and bruises, but can also assist with pain management on the bike during hard efforts.

Most importantly, CBD anecdotally has been seen to significantly improve post-training recovery.

Ex road pro and gravel and endurance cyclist Peter Stetina first started using CBD in 2015 after he broke his leg at the Tour of the Basque Country when he was looking for an alternative to prescription painkillers.

For Stetina, the biggest benefit he gets from CBD is improved sleep quality.

When I take the capsules around dinner time I feel I can fall asleep sooner, he explains. It helps me get to bed early before an early wake-up for race morning.

He also uses a CBD cream to help with acute muscle soreness post-race.

Notably, Stetina doesnt use CBD during competition, but he does notice a smoother recovery afterwards due to the supplements relaxation benefits.

I definitely would recommend CBD to other cyclists, he says. There's no grogginess the next morning, no bad side effects, and it is a legal substance in regard to drug testing. I would say just start with the lowest dose and increase to what works best for you, just like anything really.

Team Skyline rider Wolfang Brandl gets two benefits from CBD.

It helps me to calm down after a race, especially because many of our races are usually late evening or at night, and even after a couple days of racing my legs feel less fatigued, he says.

Brandl first tried CBD in 2019 when he felt fatigued during a 10-day race and a friend told him to try some CBD cream. I used it and my legs felt pretty good, I actually got a podium result that day.

Brandl, who is from Germany, adds that CBD usage is more prominent in the US than in Europe.

There is a huge choice of CBD products on offer, with 217 CBD companies currently operating in the UK.

Professor Barnes emphasises the importance of looking for products with clear labelling which shows which cannabinoids it contains and what percentages, and which comes from a credible source.

In my view, look for broad spectrum products with clear labelling, clear dosing and which dont make unnecessary medical claims,he says.

Not all CBD food supplements are created equally, says Caroline Glynn, chief scientific officer and co-founder of Pureis CBD. Some products found on the market can contain unwanted contaminants along with levels of THC, and some may contain lower levels of CBD as claimed on the product label, unknown to the average consumer.

A paper published in April 2020 tested 29 CBD food supplements available on the UK market and found that 34% of products had 50% less of the CBD content advertised and 55% of products had measurable levels of THC above what is considered safe.

The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) recommends taking no more than 70 milligrams of CBD a day.

However, for Professor Barnes this is controversial.

This is based on no science whatsoever, he says. I cant find evidence that shows above 70 milligrams is not safe and some people will need more than 70 and some will need less, it is completely different for each individual. I would recommend starting with a low dose, such as 10mg and slowly build it up.

Professor Graeme Close of Human Physiology at Liverpool John Moores University emphasises the importance of applying caution until more research is done.

There is currently not enough evidence for a recommended dose but it makes no sense to go over the FSAs limit.

If you are on other medication, you should speak to your healthcare practitioner before taking CBD and certainly don't jump in taking stupid amounts.

Many CBD products on the market contain CBD as well as other cannabinoids, which means that this could be problematic for athletes in WADA-sanctioned sports.

An athlete could take a CBD product that is 0% THC but happens to have some of the potentially therapeutic non-psychotropic cannabinoids such as Cannabigerol (CBG) and WADA could decide to test for that, and the athlete would fail a drug test for CBG, explains Professor Close.

Unless WADA removes all the cannabinoids from their prohibited substance list, or names the specific psychotropic cannabinoids which are banned and which it will test for, it becomes very difficult for an athlete to try CBD safely.

Close adds that this leads to ethical challenges in research into CBD, as athletes could be given products which cause them to fail an anti-doping test.

Of note, is that WADA recently announced it will reopen discussions about removing cannabis from the prohibited list next year.

Whilst there is a general consensus amongst experts that CBD isnt performance-enhancing, there is debate over how much THC is legally allowed to be in a product and how effective a product is with all the THC removed.

Some people have read the legislation to believe there should be less than a milligram of THC in a product but that is misunderstanding the legislation, says Professor Close. My reading of the current legal status is that there should be no detectable THC in the final product.

No one can hand on heart tell you whether a product will be effective with all the THC removed because of something called the entourage effect, he adds. There's evidence to suggest that you need the full spectrum of cannabinoids, even if there's not a huge amount, for all to work synergistically well together.

We've got to remember that the research is miles behind where it probably should be because it's been prohibited for decades.

Honest Hemp, a CBD company which currently supplies an unnamed cycling club, feels that interest in CBD is growing and wants to educate people about CBD.

We are involved in ongoing studies with Hull University to enhance and develop our products and we continue to educate people that CBD does not get you high as some people wrongly assume but does have a positive effect on recovery, which in turn enhances performance, explains the companys founder Christian Sanderson.

Professor Barnes predicts better quality products, better labelling and more understanding will come to the market.

CBD is not a fad, it is an industry that is here to stay and I think it will help athletes generally, says Barnes.

Professor Close agrees.

CBD isnt going away. I'm actually quite excited about what this product can do but Im also cautious, he says. It is the most controversial and complicated supplement to hit the industry in the last 20 years.

Read the original post:

CBD: What is it and will it improve cycling performance? - Cyclist

Dublin, Sept. 27, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Pet Supplements Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Pet Type (Dogs, Cats), By Distribution Channel (Offline, Online), By Region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Central & South America), And Segment Forecasts, 2021 - 2028" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The global pet supplements market size is expected to reach USD 2.32 billion by 2028, expanding at a CAGR of 5.9% from 2021 to 2028

Pet supplement sales soared as a result of increased consumer interest sparked by COVID-19, particularly in products that target immunity, anxiety, and overall wellness. When it comes to consumer buying patterns, joint health supplements are already at the top of the list, but hip and joint supplements are only one element of the senior pet health picture.

The growing numbers of aging dogs and cats are in need of an immune response, cardiac and cognitive support items, and anti-inflammatory and pain management aid, thanks to breakthroughs in veterinary treatment and pet owner interest in pet wellness and nutrition at an all-time high.

According to Packaged Facts' 2020 Pet Owners Survey, 47% of dog owners have a dog aged 7 or older, up from 43% in our previous study, and 43% of cat owners have a cat aged 7 or older, up from 39% in our previous survey, demonstrating the growth of this pet demographic. Marketers can leverage already-existing products into a growing pet population segment by targeting the senior population with personalized products and senior-specific products, such as multifunctional supplements, thereby offering another viable avenue for market expansion.

According to a survey of pet food producers performed by Petfood Industry in April, 60% indicated higher sales through online shops. Granted, that was during the early lockdown-induced stockpiling of pet food and many other essential household goods; however, in the most recent Petfood Industry Confidence Index surveys of pet food executives and other professionals, e-commerce has remained one of the few bright spots as business confidence has lagged in other areas.

Many dog owners are naturally anxious about administering human-grade CBD oil to their pets. However, firms such as Royal CBD and Gold Bee have created CBD products designed specifically for pets that are less strong.

Story continues

Preliminary research from Baylor College of Medicine suggests that CBD oil can aid in the treatment of canine osteoarthritis, which affects 20% of dogs over the age of a year.

Pet Supplements Market Report Highlights

By pet type, the dogs segment accounted for the largest share of over 45.0% in 2020 as dogs are the most popular pets in the world, with an incredibly high adoption rate

The offline distribution channel segment accounted for the largest share of over 75.0% in 2020 and is expected to witness the fastest growth over the forecast period

North America held the largest share of over 40.0% in 2020. An increase in the number of pet owners and increased knowledge among pet owners about various health hazards are some of the factors fueling the regional market growth

Company Profiles

Company Overview

Financial Performance

Product Benchmarking

Strategic Initiatives

Nestle Purina Petcare

Food Science Corporation

Ark Naturals

NOW Foods

Virbac

Kemin Industries, Inc.

Novotech Nutraceuticals, Inc.

Zoetis Inc. (Platinum Performance)

Bayer AG

PetHonesty

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.

Manna Pro Products, LLC

Honest Paws

Garmon Corporation

Zenwise

Only Natural Pet

Dechra Pharmaceuticals PLC

Vetoquinol S.A.

Vetnique Labs

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/65xa4g

Read more from the original source:

Global $2.32 Bn Pet Supplements Market to 2028: Sales Soared During COVID-19 with Focus on Products that Target Immunity, Anxiety, and Overall...