VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS ARE NOT FOOD SUPPLEMENTS* (Printable PDF) (Get Adobe Acrobat)
by Joel Robbins, D.C., M.D.

NATURAL COMPLEXES
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
TYPES OF FOOD SUPPLEMENTS
HOW SYNTHETIC VITAMINS “WORK”
LABELING PLOYS
VITAMIN SYNTHETIC VITAMIN
POTENCY IS NOT DETERMINED BY MILLIGRAM LEVELS
NON-EFFECTIVE, IF NOT HARMFUL
BIBILIOGRAPHY AND SUGGESTED READING

If you are going to prescribe food supplements to your patients, why not prescribe ones that will actually provide the nutritional help they need? All supplements are not the same. Most of the nutritional supplements on the market – whether purchased in a pharmacy, health food store, through a physician's office, or via a multilevel marketing concern – do not provide much, if any, nutrition at all. Few companies produce true food supplements, the concept of which is to provide a supplement of food to the diet.

NATURAL COMPLEXES
Vitamins, as found in nature, are groups of chemically related compounds. A component of these complexes is identified by science as the organic nutrient. In the case of vitamin C, this organic nutrient is ascorbic acid. In vitamin E complex, the organic nutrients are tocopherols. The organic nutrient is singled out by empirical science as nature's work horse and, thus, the essence of the vitamin. Therefore, science concludes, if these can be reproduced and supplied to the patient, then all that is needed has been provided. Linus Pauling, after all, states throughout his writings that there is no difference between natural and synthetic vitamin C.
The problem is that this thinking does not take into consideration all of the enzymes, precursors, co-enzymes, antioxidants, trace elements, activators, and numerous other naturally occurring synergistic micronutrients that we may or may not at this time know about, and by which the organic nutrient is rendered usable by the body. In fact, some scientists feel that the organic nutrient mainly acts to protect all of the cofactors, allowing them to arrive intact at the cellular level. As one researcher put it, to take the organic nutrient alone is tantamount to consuming a banana peel without the banana and thinking one has taken in nutrition. Whether or not this view of the role that organic nutrients play is entirely accurate, the principle of wholeness stands: leave out part of the watch and you can't keep time.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE   TOP
As of 1996, some 3,800 compounds have been identified in foods as being of nutritional significance. For example, approximately 200 forms of carotene have been catalogued, yet beta-carotene is all the rage and is the only form that is placed in vitamin products. How about tocopherols? There are at least five forms of this compound as found in nature. How many vitamin products are you familiar with that contain all five? In addition, research is showing that for each of the tocopherols, there is a counterpart compound known as tocotryanols. How many vitamin supplements that you currently recommend contain these?

Twenty nutrients is about all that modern science can reproduce in a laboratory and place in a vitamin product. The problem is that when the body is lacking in nutrition, it's not lacking some isolated nutrient. Via clinical evaluation we may have determined that the symptoms presented are the result of a vitamin C deficiency, but how many cofactors, precursors, and naturally associated synergistic micronutrient factors are also lacking that the recommended vitamin supplement does not supply? If we use a little logic, we would have to conclude that whatever the patient did to create the vitamin C deficiency, he or she was creating, at the same time, a deficiency of the many vitamin C cofactors. These cofactors cannot be reproduced in a laboratory; and in my opinion never will be. How in the world, then, can we ever expect to see the body return to a state of health if it is not given the full complement of the nutrients on which it was designed to run?
Over the years there have been various studies to establish the difference between whole vitamin complexes and synthetic or partial vitamin products. Probably the most graphic illustration of this difference is the work of Dr. Ehrenfried D. Pfeiffer, who in the late 1950s utilized chromatography and published his findings in the journal Bio-Dynamics, No. 50, Spring 1959. His work was reproduced and enhanced by M. Justa Smith, O.S.F., Ph.D., who presented her work around the world to various prestigious scientific bodies and published in Human Dimensions, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 1973.
Pfeiffer and Smith dripped solutions of whole-food vitamin complexes as well as their synthetic versions over Whatman filter paper that had been sensitized with a 0.1 silver nitrate solution. The resultant patterns were then compared.
Dr. Forrest Shaklee, Weston Price, D.D.S., Francis Pottenger, D.D.S., Dr. Roger Williams, Dr. Agnes Fay Morgan, Dr. Royal Lee, and other nutritional pioneers understood the concept of whole food complexes some 60-plus years ago. They understood that in order to help the body heal itself, the diet needed to be supplemented with that which it was lacking or deficient in, i.e., food. Thus the term “food supplement” was coined. Sickness is not due to isolated nutrient or organic nutrient deficiencies. Certainly, some nutrients or factors may play a more important role in the picture of health than others, but as stated above, which part of the clock movement does the clock not need in order to function properly – to keep perfect time? Our goal for our patients should be optimum health, not just patching them up and temporarily making them feel better. The motivation behind treating patients should be health, not just the lack of symptoms.

TYPES OF FOOD SUPPLEMENTS   TOP
There are three types of supplements: One is a true food supplement, the other two are vitamin supplements, or organic nutrient supplements. Let's look at each of these individually.

1. Food Supplements
These are, as the name implies, supplements of food taken directly from a food source. The word "natural" truly applies here, for these are vitamins, compounds, and co- and synergistic micronutrients taken from a raw food. Nothing is added or extracted that would destroy or change the molecular, biological, or biochemical combinations or actions. Basically all that is removed from the food are moisture and fiber. They are processed at a temperature below 112º F in order to leave the enzymes active. A substance that is enzymatically active is capable of fermenting, souring, rotting, developing a bad odor, molding, and attracting weevils and other insects. Because of this perishing capability of natural supplements they must be preserved, by dehydration and/or freeze-drying. Even so, these supplements have a limited shelf life.

2. Synthetic Vitamins (not a food supplement)
The word synthetic states the nature of this form of vitamin supplement. In a laboratory, the organic nutrient (sometimes called the crystalline vitamin molecule) is constructed or synthesized primarily from corn sugar and non-food compounds such as coal tar. While the exact molecular formula of the organic nutrient is replicated, there are at least two problems with this type of product.

A. These synthetic products contain absolutely none of the cofactors that are essential in order for the body to be able to use the vitamin. Remember, it is bioavailability, or ability of the body to put the vitamin into physiology, that counts. Without the synergistic micronutrients present, these synthetic vitamins are of no value to the body. One might argue that surely the body could, from its own reserves, contribute these cofactors and, thus, be able to use the vitamin. The body is already deficient – where would it find these synergists? But, even if it could, there is a second concern.

B. When vitamins are synthesized under laboratory conditions, the molecular formula may be the same as the organic nutrient found in nature (minus the cofactors), but there is a problem with the spin. The synthetic versions are mirror images of their natural counterpart. For some reason, the proper rotation cannot be mastered in the lab. The natural version molecules are dextro-rotatory (right-hand spin), while the synthetic are levo-rotatory (left-hand spin). Thus, the attachment sights for the synergistic micronutrients are not available. Gilbert Levin, Ph.D., states the following on the subject: “Because its structure is reversed, a left-handed molecule cannot take part in chemical reactions meant for a right-handed molecule any more than a left hand can fit in a right-handed glove, its odd geometry would prevent it from being metabolized by the body.”

3. Crystalline Vitamins (not a food supplement)
While this type of product has a food as its original source (and therefore is not a synthetic vitamin), it has been distilled, diluted, and fractionated to the degree that virtually all of the synergistic cofactors present in the original food are processed out or eliminated, leaving only the pure organic nutrient. The motivation for producing this version of a vitamin product is to concentrate the organic nutrient, thus increasing the milligram levels for marketing value.
The crystalline vitamins (organic nutrients) are distilled out by a process whereby the source foods are exposed to high-powered chemicals, solvents, heat, and acid. As explained above, while these remaining crystalline compounds are the heart of the vitamin, they are only of value to the body if all of the associated synergistic micronutrients are intact, which makes it bioavailable to the cells of the body. Unfortunately, most, if not all, of these cofactors are removed. This type of product could also be referred to as fractionated supplements, in that they are but a portion or fraction of the complete and original complex from which they were derived. These vitamin products are often labeled natural. According to the FDA, this labeling is not fraudulent in that the original source of the vitamin was food.
There are, possibly, two minor, redeeming aspects of crystalline vitamin products. One, it is virtually impossible to reduce a food to an absolute, pure, and isolated compound. As a result, some “impurities,” small amounts of the synergistic cofactors, will survive the process. Two, the organic nutrient retains its dextro-spin. However, we must ask the question: While these factors may be true, of what consequence are they to a greatly deficient body?

Finally, according to the writings of Dr. Royal Lee, naturally occurring vitamins differ from synthetic and crystalline vitamins in the following ways:
• Natural compounds are colloidal, protein in nature, in the form of an enzyme or coenzyme
• In its natural state, the crystalline vitamin itself is in a critical combination and cannot be split off without destroying its biological activity; if separated, it must recombine with the other members of the complex before it can function as a nutrient
• The natural complex carries trace mineral activators without which the vitamin fails as a biochemical catalyst
• If synthetic or crystalline vitamins are ingested, they must be put into proper combination, as a complex, before the vitamin function can be performed; meanwhile, most (if not all) of the crystalline component is lost though the kidneys

It is very important to keep in mind that the nutrients that are being supplemented must be usable by the body. This is known as bioavailability, the quality of being available to and usable by the cells. In other words, if the cofactors that nature intended to be part of the crystalline vitamin/organic nutrient are not present or the vitamin is in the wrong configuration (spin) when ingested, then the vitamin is not usable by the body. Consuming these types of products could be likened to handing someone the steering wheel of a car and telling them that they now own a vehicle able to transport them to wherever they want to go.

HOW SYNTHETIC VITAMINS “WORK”   TOP
Via anecdotal evidence, all kinds of supplements and health products are “curing” everything from hangnails to cancer. How can this be if, from our discussion above, the products consumed are not nutritionally satisfying, but rather are chemical substances that are either toxic or lacking the greater part of the complete complement of cofactors which the body so desperately needs for its road back to health?
There are two possible explanations for why someone will feel better after taking a “health product,” when in fact it is far from supplying the body with a true supplement of food:

1. Provides some semblance of nutrition.
This would apply primarily to the crystalline form of vitamin supplements, in that these contain some residual, minute quantities of the cofactors and have the dextro-spin. The mechanism would be as follows:
If you are dying of thirst and hunger in the desert and I hand you one cup of water, for a while you will feel as if you have been revived. I can continue to hand you all the water you want, and for a time you will continue to improve from your state of desperation. But how long will you continue to improve if all you drink is water, when in fact the real reason you are lacking in health is not due totally to dehydration? Your body is also lacking in nutrients – food. If this is not provided, your health will again begin to slip. So you may reach for a second offering by another passerby – a cola drink. Due to the glucose content, you will again feel somewhat revived relative to how low you felt before, because an additional nutrient, glucose, is being supplied. Now you are singing the praises of cola, but your enthusiasm will soon fade because your overall nutrition needs are not being met.
Continuing with the above analogy, it is true that many products on the market are composed of some nutrients. Fractionated though they may be, nevertheless they do contain some semblance of nutrition. If the body is nutritionally bankrupt and is handed this poor excuse for nutrition – a vitamin product – it will, out of desperation, capitalize on what is offered and will do what healing is possible with the materials given. As low as it may be in nutrition, this product is probably more nutrition than the body has seen in years. Thus, initially, for a few weeks or perhaps even months (relative to how the person felt), some real and actual improvement in the body's health picture will be demonstrated. Given time, however, the health problems will begin to return.
I often ask vitamin-pushers whether or not they felt better when they first began taking their own product. The common response is an emphatic affirmative. I then inquire if they have been able to reduce the amount of supplementation they started with and still continue the same level of well-being. Logic would dictate that if the deficiencies were truly being eliminated, then the patient should be able to take less of the product and maintain health. The usual answer at this point is that they have had to continually increase the dosage and, further, add other products, only to find the same frustrating lack of health.
In all fairness, most health products do not stress the need for their product consumer to adapt a healthful lifestyle while using them. The fact is that it doesn't matter how wonderful a food supplement may be – even if it's one that actually contains the full complement of nutrition – because its nutritional debt-repaying ability is dependent on the patient's adaptation to a healthful lifestyle: the reduction/elimination of negative input and the introduction of positive input, primarily involving diet, rest, and stress reduction.

2. Causes a stimulatory reaction in the body.
Let's say we have a body with a debt of several thousand milligrams of vitamin C. Remember, this is a debt of vitamin C complex, not just ascorbic acid. The amount of whole and complete vitamin C in an average orange can range up to 50mg. The most oranges that an average person could consume in one sitting is two to three. This represents 100-150mg of the vitamin C complex. Due to mechanical limitations of the digestive system, we can conclude that a human being cannot consume enough oranges in a day to accomplish the task of paying back the debt in one day.
The obvious answer would be to supplement. But we're going to run into a problem if we extract and put into a tablet the vitamin C complex from 20 oranges in order to manufacture a 1000mg vitamin supplement. One biochemist told me that if we were to make a tablet containing 1000mg of vitamin C complex it would be the size of a softball! But more than that, the thing to keep in mind is that this whole complex vitamin C supplement wouldn't be simply 1000mg of ascorbic acid. It would be the whole complement of nutrients and would be so rich the body simply could not process it. At the very least, it would produce diarrhea as the body attempted to eliminate this needed, but nonprocessable supplement. We can conclude this by the very fact that nature does not have a food that contains high doses of isolated complexes. Further, we are mechanically restricted from consuming enough foods to obtain such high doses in the course of a day. All the fiber, fluid, and other nutrients in the foods serve to keep us from consuming more than the body can assimilate, thus none is wasted and neither is there any stress on the body from having to deal with excess concentrations of individual nutrients.
Motivated by producing supplements at low cost and pandering to the average consumer’s philosophy that “if a little is good then a lot is better,” vitamin manufacturers have figured out how to synthesize isolated nutrients in high concentrations in order to get the debt paid back in a hurry. Thus the birth of the crystalline and/or synthetic vitamin. The problem is, the crystalline form is too high in concentrations of isolated substances. These are either not recognizable by the body, or if recognizable are certainly way out of balance for the body's nutrient chemistry. Thus they are a potential threat to the body's internal chemistry. In the face of this threat, the body must enact some extraordinary measures in order to maintain homeostasis either in making this substance into something usable or eliminating it. This is similar to what occurs when caffeine is consumed: a mini fight or flight reaction.
Under the influence of this process, a feeling of euphoria is experienced due to excess adrenal function. Adrenaline is an analgesic, an anti-inflammatory, and an antihistamine. All of the body's systems are enhanced, including the immune system. The consumer misinterprets this feeling as one of health or healing. I always tell patients who insist that their synthetic vitamins are making them feel better that they should save their money and drink coffee instead. But how long will the feeling of well-being continue? A coffee drinker knows that each year or two he must increase how much coffee he drinks each day, or add some other stimulant (extra salt, nicotine, etc.), to accomplish the same stimulatory response and to obtain a similar level of energy as previously experienced.
An argument often heard is that high concentrations of nutrients taken as a supplement are not harmful because the kidneys just eliminate what the body cannot use. What is being overlooked with that line of reasoning is that these compounds don't just pass through, they must be actively transported out of the body. An example of this is when high doses of ascorbic acid are taken and diarrhea results – an energy-consuming process. Whether the synthetic compound is eliminated via the kidney, bowel, or other possible avenue, this process costs our body nutrition and energy that would be more valuable if it were available for health and healing. Not to mention that the synthetic contributed little, if anything, to the well-being of the body. The saying goes, “you don’t buy synthetic vitamins, you rent them.”

LABELING PLOYS   TOP
The labels on both crystalline and synthetic vitamins will list only the chemical name of the single vitamin. Legally, manufacturers are not required to list the source from which the product is derived. The following is a sampling of each vitamin as it is labeled on the product, and to the right, the actual synthetic or crystalline substance in the bottle.

VITAMIN SYNTHETIC VITAMIN

Vitamin A.........Acetate, Retinal Palmitate, Beta Carotene
Vitamin B1.......Thiamine HC1, Thiamine Mononitrate (coal tar derivatives)
Vitamin B3.......Niacin
Vitamin C.........Ascorbic Acid, Pycnogenols (from corn sugar/syrup)
Vitamin D........Irradiated Ergosterol
Vitamin E........d-Alpha Tocopherol, dl-Alpha Tocopherol, d-Alpha Succinate
.......................(from processed food oils: cottonseed, soybean)
Vitamin K........K3 or Menadione

A permissible marketing practice is to attach the word natural or organic on the label of these fractionated and laboratory-synthesized substances, implying that they are, in fact, food-source products. Manufacturers can do this legally because the FDA considers the word natural as anything that comes from nature – including chemicals, since they ultimately come from nature. The word organic is interpreted as anything that contains a carbon molecule (not an organically grown or chemically free product).
On the other hand, food supplement manufacturers who produce their products from a food source will generally list on the label the actual foods from which the vitamins in their product came. A somewhat deceptive labeling ploy often used is when the word pure is used for synthetic vitamins. This, too, is legal because they are the pure essence of the organic nutrient. The phrase vitamin complex often appears on the label of fractionated crystalline vitamin products. This is allowable because these are derived from food sources and usually contain minute quantities of the cofactors which were in the food source (as explained earlier).
Another misleading, yet legal practice is printing on the label “Vitamin C from Natural Sources.” The natural source to which they are referring is corn sugar. The label may further contain the following: “...with bioflavonoids and rutin.” While these words sound good, they are usually synthesized versions of some cofactors found in the natural vitamin complex. Adding these gives the manufacturer the legal right to print “Vitamin C Complex” on the label.
In general, the label is not the most reliable place to look in order to determine if the vitamins contained inside are of a food source or of synthetic origin. Most of the time, if a manufacturer understands the benefit of food-source supplements they are proud of it and know that it will market well to the informed consumer. Thus, as stated above, the food sources will be listed. If the label is not clear as to the source of the vitamins being purchased, the only surefire way to determine this is to contact the manufacturer and ask the following question: What is the food source of the nutrients in your product? If the response is anything other than a list of foods, you will know it is synthetic. If they supply a list of foods, remember that the crystalline form, while greatly fractionated, originates from food. So a follow-up question should be asked: What was the method of extracting the vitamins from the food? Asking “Are your vitamins natural?” is not a good approach, because they will always answer “yes.” And they may legally do so, even if it is the synthetic version (as above). I get suspicious when my questions are answered with something like, “What you're asking is proprietary.” All they have to divulge is a list of foods; why are they hesitant? It's not a very scientific test, but observing the color of the urine is one method of determining if the supplements consumed are synthetic or food source. When a synthetic product is consumed, the urine will usually turn bright yellow and often takes on a chemical odor. This is because these synthetic compounds are washed out and unused.

POTENCY IS NOT DETERMINED BY MILLIGRAM LEVELS   TOP
Food source supplements don't market well because the posted milligram levels of the key nutrients (RDAs) listed on the label are low (relative to synthetic vitamin labels) and they are more expensive to produce. Thus the retail price is higher. Synthetic vitamins, on the other hand, are more popular because the milligram levels are so high, the price is low, and they have an almost indefinite shelf life – something which retailers like. It is easy to see how the uninformed consumer would compare labels and prices of a food source product with a synthetic and reason, “I can get 10 times the concentration of nutrients at a third of the cost if I buy the synthetic version,” not realizing that he is paying for stimulatory chemicals and not for nutrition.
The problem is that the consumer thinks that the organic nutrient is the sum total of the active ingredient of the vitamin, and since a little is good, a lot must be better. Plus, the higher the dosage, the faster the debt will be paid back and, thus, the return to health. What is required for paying back debts for the purpose of returning to health is that the sum total of the nutritional picture that is missing be supplied to the body, not a fraction thereof. Potency is not necessarily how high the milligram level is, rather how effectively the nutrients are paid back. Potency is determined by bioavailability, the providing of and the delivering to the cells all the missing nutritional factors with as little cost to the cell as possible.
The delivery of a partial nutritional substance (fractionated vitamin) may be helpful, but how many missing cofactors must the body provide (assuming it can), how much work does it have to expend in order to be able to appropriate these fractions into physiology (does the body have to modify them in order to use them?), and does the body have to pay to eliminate any excesses of the synthetic and/or fractionated nutrients? If any of these are true, the vitamin supplement may actually cost the body more value than it receives from the supplement. It is quality, not quantity that counts.

NON-EFFECTIVE, IF NOT HARMFUL   TOP
With foods and food concentrates – containing whole nutritional complexes – the body can choose its needs for assimilation and excrete what it does not need. This is called “selective absorption.” On the other hand, with fractionated or isolated and/or synthetic vitamins, there is no choice: the body must handle the chemical in some manner and can suffer consequences of biochemical imbalances and toxic overdose.
Probably the greatest concern regarding synthetic vitamins is not that they are of no value, it is that they can be, to various degrees, harmful to the body. Studies from as far back as the 1930s bear this out. Below are a few random samplings of the literature illustrating this.
Synthetic vitamin A, given to pregnant women in medium to high doses of 10,000-20,000 iu per day, increased the risk of birth defects by 240% at the lower dosage and 400% at the higher dosage. These defects were teratogenic in nature, including: cleft lip, cleft palette, heart malformations, and nervous system damage such as hydrocephalus. This study, covering 22,748 women over a period of four years, did state that there was no birth defect risk noted from foods containing vitamin A or from its precursors, carotene and beta-carotene. This study was carried out by Boston University School of Medicine and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, November 23, 1995.
Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School ran a four-year study to determine if antioxidants, administered as supplements, could prevent the recurrence of adenomas of the colon after successful removal of the same from some 864 patients. After four years of giving 25mg of beta-carotene, 1000mg of ascorbic acid, and 400mg of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E), all of a synthetic form, there were no positive effects noted and the researchers concluded that: “Current data do not support the use of antioxidant vitamin supplements for purposes of cancer prevention.” This study was cited in the July 22, 1994 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
A 10-year Finnish study on 29,133 male smokers (ages 50-69) was performed to determine if vitamin E and beta-carotene would reduce the incidence of lung and other cancers. The daily dose of beta-carotene administered was 20mg, which raised the blood levels of the same more than tenfold. The daily dosage of alpha-tocopherol given was 50mg, elevating the blood values of the vitamin E by approximately one-third. Both the beta-carotene and alpha-tocopherol were of a synthetic form. To the astonishment of the researchers, not only was there no protection noted from the supplementation, but harmful effects were observed, including: 18% higher incidence of lung cancer, more heart attacks, more strokes, and an 8% higher increase in the overall death rate. This study was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, April 14, 1994.
Synthetic multivitamins, given to elderly Americans (average age 63) as a supplement for the purpose of improving muscle weakness and physical frailty, demonstrated no benefits to the participants. This was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, June 23, 1994.
In a study cited by E. Levin in American Journal of Digestive Diseases, Volume 12, January 1945, in an article entitled “Vitamin E vs. Wheat Germ Oil,” vitamin E-deficient laboratory animals that were fed tocopherols died before the control vitamin E-deficient group that did not receive any vitamin supplement at all.

Agnes Fay Morgan, Ph.D., food research scientist at the University of California, reported in Science, 93, pages 261-262, 1941, that animals on a synthetic vitamin-enriched diet died long before the animals on an unprocessed diet became disabled. She further stated that the enrichment of processed foods with synthetic vitamins may “precipitate conditions worse than the original deficiency.”
Cited in Scandinavian Veterinary, Volume 30, 1940, pages 1121-1143, is a study in which two groups of silver foxes were fed a synthetic diet, allowing the researchers to qualify all components of the diet. This study revolved around the B vitamins. The result was that this group did not follow normal growth curves – were below normal, their fur deteriorated, and they eventually died early, untimely deaths. This contrasted with the second group, which were fed food sources of the vitamin B complex. Their health flourished and a normal lifespan was recorded.
Dr. Barnett Sure’s pig study was cited in the Journal of Natural Agriculture, August 1939, in which he demonstrated the effect of synthetic vitamin B versus natural vitamin B on pigs. One group was fed the MDR of the synthetic and the second group the equal amount of the natural version. Dr. Sure found that 100% of the first generation of the synthetically supplemented group were sterile.

BIBILIOGRAPHY AND SUGGESTED READING   TOP
Duke, James, Handbook of Chemical Constituents of Grasses, Herbs, and Other Economic Plants. Boca Raton:CRC Press. 1992.

Cheraskin, E. and W.M. Ringsdorf, Jr. New Hope for Incurable Diseases. Jericho: Exposition. 1971. Pages 83-85.

Levin, Gilbert, Ph.D. Discussing Optical Isomers or Asymmetrical Molecules with Atomic Arrangements That Are Mirror Images of Each Other. Discover, 1981.

Many more references and citings could be added to this subject, but this is not intended to be an exhaustive dissertation. Rather, its purpose is to give a basic understanding of the differences between nutritional products.

An excellent book for more insight and references on the subject of natural vs. synthetic supplementation is The Real Truth About Vitamins and Antioxidants, by Judith A. DeCava, M.S., L.N.C.