The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), Washington, D.C., issued some harsh words for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Washington, D.C., and its campaign to clarify the permissible health claims for selenium and certain kinds of cancer. The trade association’s comments came in response to CSPI’s recent allegations that there are increased health risks associated with selenium intake. “It is disappointing to read the kind of fear-mongering that is being attributed to CSPI in connection with its campaign to clarify the permissible health claims that can be made for selenium and certain kinds of cancer,” said Steve Mister, president and CEO, CRN. “Recently CSPI has been quoted as issuing statements like, ‘[selenium products] are dangerous to the health of men suffering from prostate cancer,’ ‘may increase the risk of diabetes and hypertension,’ and that, ‘the [selenium] products pose a health risk to consumers because results from studies associate selenium intake with increased risk of developing diabetes and with increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer’.”

CSPI recently notified Bayer Healthcare, Morristown, NJ, that it would sue the company if it continues to claim that the selenium in its One A Day vitamins may reduce men’s risk of prostate cancer. CSPI also filed a complaint with FTC suggesting that the company run a corrective advertising campaign. CSPI cited the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), which was halted in October when researchers determined that selenium was not protecting the men from prostate cancer and may have been causing diabetes in some of them. The group also referenced a cross-sectional, observational study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (June 2009). “To state, as CSPI does, that ‘studies’ suggest selenium leads to increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer is not only inaccurate, but demonstrates a blatant double-standard,” said Mr. Mister. “If industry used a single observational study, with an isolated finding not demonstrated elsewhere to support a claim of reduced risk of cancer, what would be CSPI’s response?”