# WARNING: LEAD IN CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS (JAMA)



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

Since many IBS-D type use substantial doses of calcium supplements to assist with their symptom management, this is of urgent interest:------------------------------------------From the AP WireSEPTEMBER 19, 16:54 EDT Study:Calcium Supplements Have Lead By LINDSEY TANNER AP Medical Writer CHICAGO (AP) ï¿½ Many over-the-counter calcium supplements that millions take to keep bones strong contain small amounts of lead that could be a health risk if recommended doses are exceeded, new research suggests. Though manufacturers have reduced the lead content since the debate first surfaced several years ago, the authors say they re-examined the issue because doctors are increasingly recommending calcium supplements to menopausal women and other patients to prevent osteoporosis. About 5 percent of the U.S. population takes the supplements, including a sizable number of menopausal women, who face an increased risk of osteoporosis as their bodies stop producing estrogen. About 10 million Americans suffer from the bone-thinning disease. Calcium is often mined from ancient seabeds that also may contain lead, which in high doses can damage the nerves, blood cells and digestive system, causing such problems as irritability, fatigue, vomiting, convulsions and permanent brain damage. However, the authors say their findings suggest supplements are generally safe and beneficial unless taken in larger-than-recommended doses for many years. The authors tested 23 products in March; their results appear in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors found no detectable level of lead in 15 of the supplements. The remainder had from 1.74 micrograms to 3.43 micrograms per 1,500 milligrams of calcium. The dose generally recommended to help prevent osteoporosis is about 1,200 milligrams to 1,500 milligrams daily. Experts have suggested that the body's total daily exposure to lead should not exceed 6 micrograms, said Dr. Edward Ross, a University of Florida nephrologist who conducted the study with toxicology experts at the school's Gainesville campus. An editorial in the same issue, by a medical consultant for many calcium suppliers, says the industry has made great strides in getting lead out of supplements and criticizes the authors for sounding an unnecessary alarm. ``A backlash against calcium supplements ï¿½ evoked by a lead scare ï¿½ would unquestionably do far more harm ... than would continued ingestion of current supplements,'' Dr. Robert Heaney of Creighton University said in the editorial. Heaney also is a spokesman for the National Osteoporosis Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce the prevalence of osteoporosis. The foundation promotes the use of calcium supplements when food intake of the mineral is inadequate. Though the issue prompted a widely publicized 1997 California lawsuit that forced one manufacturer to reduce the lead in its products, many consumers remain unaware of the potential exposure. ``I'm just taking this because I'm old and I was told to for my bones and osteoporosis,'' said Eilene Boothby, 53, of Nevada City, Calif. ``Now I have to go home and look on the back of my bottle.'' Makers of the dietary supplements are not required to list lead content, and Ross said some advertise their products as being lead-free even when they contain small amounts of lead. Ross said the findings should prod manufacturers into either further reducing lead content or listing the amount on the label. A spokeswoman for Leiner Health Products Group, the manufacturer involved in the California case, said she hadn't seen the study and would not comment. The lead amounts that Ross detected are substantially lower than those that prompted the California case, said Dr. Gina Solomon, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group that filed the California lawsuit. __________________________________________SEPTEMBER 19, 20:17 EDT Calcium Supplements Glance By The Associated Press Over-the-counter calcium supplements tested for lead, with lead content of each in micrograms per 1,500 milligrams of calcium. ï¿½Caltrate 600, 3.43.







ï¿½Calcium, 600 mg, 3.18. ï¿½Liqui-Cal Calcium 600 softgels, 2.95. ï¿½Oyster Shell Calcium, 500 mg with vitamin D, 1.95. ï¿½Calci-Mix, 1.80. ï¿½Hi-Calcium from oyster shell, 1.77. ï¿½Natural Oyster Shell Calcium, 500 mg with vitamin D, 1.74. ï¿½Oscal 500, 1.74. ï¿½Calci-Chew, No lead. ï¿½Calcium, 600 mg plus vitamin D, No lead. ï¿½Calcium, 600 mg supplement, No lead. ï¿½Chewable Ultra Antacid, No lead. ï¿½Extra strength antacid tablets, No lead. ï¿½Finest Natural Pharmaceutical-Grade calcium 500 with vitamin D, No lead. ï¿½Natural Calcium 600, No lead. ï¿½Natural Oyster Shell Calcium plus vitamin D, No lead. ï¿½Nephro-Calci, No lead. ï¿½Pharmaceutical Grade Calcium 600, No lead. ï¿½PhosLo, No lead. ï¿½Regular strength chewable antacid tablets, No lead. ï¿½Renagel, No lead. ï¿½Tums EX, No lead. ï¿½Tums Ultra, No lead. Source: Journal of the American Medical Association _____________________________________________ www.leapallergy.com [This message has been edited by Mike NoLomotil (edited 09-20-2000).][This message has been edited by Mike NoLomotil (edited 09-20-2000).]


----------



## LNAPE (Feb 9, 1999)

MikeNo Lomotil,Thank you for bring this to our attention and there are many Calciums out there that are lead free or at least advertised to be so. I use the Sam's Club Pharmaceutical Grade (Member's Mark Brand) that states no lead. Even so, most of us taking it to help control diarrhea, and it does work for many, do not take more that 3 tablets in one day and with the Member's Mark Brand that is 1500 MG in a day which is not in any way exceeding what would be the recommended dose to help prevent osteoporosis.Thank you agian for posting because we do need to have as much info on anything we put into our bodies asa we can.Take Care,Linda


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

In addition to the commonly known dangers of lead toxicity, the following study was recently published (abstract here) showing that lead ingestions reduces the immune systems gut-based elements, thus supressing the protective mechanisms of the gut. This may be of great significnace in patient with compromised gut function already------------------------------------------Cytokine 2000 Sep;12(9):1414-1418 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut ORALLY ADMINISTERED LEAD CHLORIDE INDUCES BIAS OF MUCOSAL IMMUNITY. Goebel C, Flohe SB, Kirchhoff K, Herder C, Kolb H German Diabetes Research Institute, Heinrich-Heine-University Dusseldorf, Germany[Record supplied by publisher]The hypothesis that lead disturbs gut immune functions upon oral ingestion was tested. Long-term exposure to oral PbCl(2)for 10 days caused persistent downregulation of TGF-beta mRNA levels in intestinal tissue. PbCl(2)also disturbed oral tolerance induction to the dietary antigen ovalbumin. Upon challenge with an immunizing dose of ovalbumin and rechallenge of draining lymph node cells in vitro, tolerance induction was partially suppressed in animals exposed to oral PbCl(2). This was shown by increased proliferation to antigenic stimulus, increased production of IFN-gamma and decreased secretion of TGF-beta. In conclusion, we show for the first time that oral exposure to PbCl(2)has a significant effect on the gut immune system, demonstrated by a bias of the cytokine pattern towards Th(1)and by disturbed oral tolerance mechanisms. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.----------------------------------MNL www.leapallergy.com


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

bump the poison calcium


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

From Dr. Ross (Shands Teaching Hospital; UF medical School):"Experts have suggested that the body's Total Daily Exposure to lead should not exceed 6 micrograms," said Dr. Edward Ross, a University of Florida nephrologist who conducted the study with toxicology experts at the school's Gainesville campus.----------------"Dr. Ross said, "[Dr. Heaney] makes the point that calcium protects a person from absorbing lead. Unfortunately, we don't think the evidence supports that concept at all." ---------------Lead exposure is not subject I recommend be taken as lightly as some of our so-called regulatory bodies (who must balnce their roles of supposedly protecting the public with the interests of industry, and standards are at best minimally reflective of what is required for optimal sfaty much less heath).Not everyone, especially non-American Governmental regulatory bodies, notorious in the view of some for their Non-regulation of supplements and their potentially toxic contents, views lead as a casual element whose ingestion is inevitable, thus shoukd not be given such attention as might suggest there are real consequences at stake.LEAD ACCUMULATES IN YOR BODY THROUOUT LIFE EXACLTY FOR THE REASONS STATED. We are not an agrarian society, for which the human bodies cleansing and clearing mechanisms for heavy metals were designed to self-chelate.The environmental burden of lead on our bodies in the 20th century has been well beyond that which the body is capable of tolerating over a lifetime without management of lead intake. Lead absorption begins in utero as the placenta is permeable and the fetus begins receiving any circulating lead from the mother during gestation as she ingests it ans the absorbed amounts are transported vis the blood to the storage sites (see below).Of the total lead load at any given time, during childhood the intesinal tract will absorb 50% of ingested lead, as opposed to about 15% in adulthood (the amoung that is NOT removed from the body). Children not in "pica" will absorb soil lead from "hand to mouth" activity. 60-100mg of soil are absorbed per day in non-pica stage children. Children in pica will consume up to 20 GRAMS of soil and other lead contaminated substances per day. This steadily increases the retained body stores of lead.The lead that is absorbed ans stored, NOT REMOVED from the body, accumulates in the long bones primarily (95%); 4% in the soft tissue, and les than 1% in circulating blood cells.I adulthood, environmental (non occupational) lead ingestion occurs not only from the stated foodstuffs, with allegedly "recognized as safe" lead levels, but from smoking, biting of nails with lead-contaminated poliches or other environmental dirt, and hobby activities. Everyday products have beenm sources of lead at various times which is retained in yoyur body, accumulating. these include imported cooking pots, porcelain products, and toys. Old plumbing and water tanks are sources of lead exposure, and even copper piping soldered joints. tap water,and the food sorces already mentioned in the prior post are added to the body-lead stores.Inhalation is another common route of exposure to lead. Adults inhale normally about 15 cubic meters of atmospheric air [per day]. Adults now living accumulated a certain amount of lead from having been children and inhaled lead prior to the banning of leaded gas in automobiles. Lead remains in the atmosphere from use in countries where leaded fuels are still burned. There are also numerosu sources of industrila lead contmaination that continue to add lead to the atmospheric load as respirable fumes and particles.When the particles are inhaled lead is deposited in the respiratory tract dependent upon particle size. Amaller inhalable particles are stable far into the bronchioles, larger particles are deposited in teh upper airways. Only 1 micron particles reach the alveoli for direct-avbsorption into the bloodtream. Mid-brinchial deposition is partially cleared by the mucosa and cilia into the oropharynx...where they are swallowed and enter the GI tract, again about 15% will be absorbed and stored. The net result is that over 90% of the lead deposited into the lungs is swallowed.Some lead compounds can be absorbed through the skin so adults having used leaded gas have retained lead stores from contact with tetraethyl lead. This absorption continues, mostly in industrial workers, who come into contact with lead nitrate, lead acetate, and lead oxide. The skin is a better barrier than the mucosa.FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE ABSORPTION OF LEADAND THE BIOAVAILABILITY OF LEAD:iron, zinc or copper deficincyhigh polyunsaturated fat in the dietrelative partcle sizecomposition of the soil holding the leadcontact time with the lead ant type of lead compoundPregnant women, children, fetuses, people involved in construction and home renovation, people who live in industrial areas, people who own old homes which may retain hidden lead-based paints, children in pica are all at increaased risk of added lead absorption.One can now ADD people who take calicum supplements containing lead to those who are at risk for additional lead absorption. Due to the neuro and immunotoxic nature of lead, lead exposure should be kept to the Absolute Minimium. Anything which increases the bodies exposure to lead increases the lead store and the possibility of neuro or immunotoxicity which may be subtle or, at a sufficient level, overt.Prudent avoidance of any substance which will increase the body lead-load does not seem to be a recommendation that should be taken lightly, except by the manufacturers themselves.---------------------Have A DFDMNL www.leapallergy.com [This message has been edited by Mike NoLomotil (edited 09-21-2000).]


----------



## Missycat (Apr 3, 1999)

Mike, while I do agree this information is valuable, please remember that you need to look at your units (I sound like a math teacher







). Caltrate 600 supposedly has 3.43 micrograms per 1500 milligrams. That works out to 0.00229 micrograms/mg, or 0.229 parts per million Pb. Then you have to look at the bioaccumulation rate. Very few things bioaccumulate at a rate of 100%, because there's alaways a percentage of elimiation, even in toxics like lead. I don't remember what the rate for lead is, but I do know that it definitely does not bioaccumulate at a rate of 100%. Now, throw into the equation a person's body weight, and there's no reason to panic. Say you have a 135-pound woman. That works out to be 61.24 Kg body weight. Say she ingests three 1500-mg tablets of Caltrate 600 a day, and the rate of bioaccumulation=100%, then she's only got 0.000111 ppm (or 0.1 parts per billion) lead in her entire body. But we know that even lead doesn't bioaccumulate at that rate. At that rate of ingestion, lead will be eliminated before it gets a chance to bioaccumulate.That's why it is acceptable (per FDA) to have small amounts of lead in things. My God - you're exposed to far more lead contamination (and mercury) in eating fish - especially shellfish - than you are by taking Caltrate. And the last time I looked, fish was still being sold in my grocery store....... Fish, and shellfish especially, bioaccumulate lead at a much higher rate than humans, so that's why ingesting too much fish isn't good for you. It all has to do with lipophilicity and metabolic transformation, and these factors are why lead bioaccumulates at a higher rate in fish than in humans.------------------Fear can hold you prisoner.......hope can set you free.*Missycat* >^.^<


----------



## Mike NoLomotil (Jun 6, 2000)

HI MISSY. As I explained above, 15% of the total load of lead (daily exposure total) accumulates. These are not my figures but figures from as I recall the Environmental Protection Agency scientists of a country which takes environmental contaminants seriously...New Zealand I think (I would have to go back and read it all but this is what their scientists have found and how they approach the subject). They do not seem to find that all the lead is removed. They find 15% is kept in the body and accumulates. Life is long. BUT there is more to this issue than meets the eye.I already posted all I had to say about lead itself. If you beleive it is not accumulating and not a problem eat it. If one does not feel uncomfortable unnecessarily increasing their exposure to lead when there are Lead-Free Alternatives available have at it. Write to Dr. Ross and explain to him why he is needlessly warning people of this. I am passing the information along for all to consider and do as you wish.Increasing the amount of lead already in the body (the uptake rate is 15% of total daily exposure)has more implications than just the lead itself. And the fact that lead is everywhere and the body is being constantly exposed through the portals I defined is the exact reason that many feel that you need to be conscious of not adding anymore lead to the body load. Same with mercury and other heavy-metal environmental contaminants.I simply agree with the people on the side of "the acceptable level of ADDITIONAL heavy metal intake for physiologic safety" is that there is no such thing. It is something that we should make an effort to keep to a minimum as the effects of ALL the contaminants we are takinng in daily which can in aggregate cause neuroimmunologic damage must be considered together (mercury, arsenic, PCBs, insecticides, additives used in food production, processing and preservation, and all the other poisons we have dumped into our water, our soil, our air and our food).Poison is poison. I happen to be among the very very concerned about this, as I get to see some of the physiologic effects of this in the work of the people I observe. I am in the camp that recommends to patients the only safe level of poison to ingest, particularly when we are consuming and internally accumulating so many, is zero. Because you never know if you have too much until it is too late. Or it is not recognized where the damage has come from. How many "idiopathic" diseases do we have right now?If the Journal of the AMA is concered enough to issue warnings, which they do not do lightly, I am inclined to listen.Anyway, that is why I feel this way about it. Not everybody does. So they read what we write and do as they wish. Have a DFDMNL_______________________ www.leapallergy.com


----------

