Blinded by science, pragmatism forgotten

Comparison of Infant Vitamin D Supplement Use Among Canadian-Born, Immigrant, and Refugee Mothers

“…The lack of difference by parental origin concords with results of a recent quantitative survey in a Montreal maternity hospital, which found 98% and 88% vitamin D supplementation reported by women who were exclusive breastfeeding or mixed feeding, respectively, with no difference in supplementation practice between mothers born in or outside North America (Gallo, Jean-Philippe, Rodd, & Weiler, 2010). Information regarding supplementation of infants by health care providers, however, was inconsistent; this may in part be a reflection of current low levels of nutrition education in medical schools, as indicated by a U.S. study (Adams, Kohlmeier, & Zeisel, 2010) and the ongoing debates concerning vitamin D intake requirements (Gillie, 2011).…”

Vitamin D – the big D-bate

“…This invitation is done in order to shed some light on the ongoing debate regarding the increased recommended level of intake of vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine North America (10) . Our Associate Editor Oliver Gillie has also written his own editorial in the area (11) .The journal finds this debate of great importance, not only as a part of a sound scientific debate in general but also with regard to the intriguing nature of vitamin D and the wealth of factors that influence our vitamin D status. Environmental factors, clothing, seasonal factors, skin colour and intake all have an influence on vitamin D status: the delicate balance between them provides a challenging perspective for public health nutritionists.…”

“…This invitation is done in order to shed some light on the ongoing debate regarding the increased recommended level of intake of vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine North America ( 10 ) . Our Associate Editor Oliver Gillie has also written his own editorial in the area ( 11 ) .…”