Another weekend, another show.  The Natural Products Expo West for 2007 has come and gone.  The kick-off of the annual show circuit displayed far more that a vast array of products.  Hidden among the booths and displays were hints at the future of the industry.  Seedlings really and some of them are most likely weeds.  I’ll take a look at this new, Spring emergence over the next three posts.  Maybe we can figure out which ones to water and nurture to maturity and which we should pull out by the roots.

First, the layout of the Expo was brilliant.  It took me a full day to realize the way things were set up this year and the result – well, it made so much more sense than previously.  Congrats to the folks who work so hard at this – it was a job well done.

Layout aside, there appeared to be a lack of fervor and/or enthusiasm among the viewers and I wonder if this was owed to the lack of the “NEXT BIG THING.”  Everyone is still looking for it but if was present at Expo – I couldn’t identify it. 

The message here is that our efforts should be to build additional legitimate support for the materials and products we have already in the “system.”  Think about it for just a moment.  When DSHEA passed in 1994 the “E” stood for EDUCATION.  The intent was to afford the makers of dietary supplements the opportunity to EDUCATE the consumer as to the benefits of the materials and products offered.  It was NOT meant to provide the opportunity to foist information on the public about such things as “Spin Activated” or “Blessed” water being superior either because of some swirling action or the application of repeated, amplified ablutions toward the liquid.  Education is a process that involves presenting information of legitimate standing to those who lack the information.

The trick is that this legitimate information has to be generated.  An additional note here is required.  Feeding rodents a particular diet and watching their reactions when a specific substance is included is NOT a Clinical.  It is a Study, to be sure and can reveal potentially interesting information.  However, Clinical Studies involve the application of science on humans.  So when we attempt to educate even ourselves with the phrase “Clinically studied” – the participants should at least walk on only two legs, have cognitive reasoning capacity and opposable thumbs.  The use of data from animal studies can be beneficial and lay a groundwork for substantiation of claims, but the first step is to not mis-represent the nature of the data itself.  This goes beyond legitimacy but really is just the background to it.  There are data out there to support and/or substantiate (the difference between these two words being the topic of yet another perspective) a good many claims.  There are, unfortunately, claims out there that are mis-representations of data or that are inappropriately categorized.  This creates fundamental challenges in our education efforts.  Education should first come from us to our sales people – you know, the folks standing in the Expo booths all day long and repeating (sometimes paraphrasing to a frightening degree) what they received in their education.  Listening to some of the presentations of the sales folks shows me that we need to take a longer look at our Educational process and that look should begin in-house before the unavoidable distortions are sent forward to the consumer. 

If there was one word that seemed more ubiquitous than any other at this show it was ORGANIC.  The NOP (National Organic Program) established in law by the USDA (not the FDA by the way) has truly gained traction within the industry.  The presence of the term Organic on such a broad range of products was impressive.  The certification process is one that seems to have become a benefit far beyond the costs associated.  The recognition of this benefit will likely continue to grow.  There are just one or two questions that linger.  When a product carries a seal to affirm the Organic nature of the materials used or the product itself, is there a difference between the seal of the USDA and a seal sold by third-party operations?  The requirements for being able to affix the USDA seal are extreme when it comes to many of the products sold as dietary supplements.  This is owed to the necessary composition of the products themselves when matched against the requirements of the USDA.  However, carrying a seal from a third party does not.  While beneficial from a marketing perspective, is it possible we are diluting the term Organic in order to set ourselves apart?  I’m not possessed of an opinion on the matter; I’m simply asking the question.  The most prevalent seal displayed was not the USDA seal.  Is this truly a long-term good thing?  Recall that ConsumerLab will provide you with an affirmation of potency for a fee also.  Should we provide education on the real meaning of the seal sitting prominently on our labels?

Now that we’re back to education once more, I want to note that there are many efforts underway to create distinction among specific materials used and combinations of materials.  The use of branded ingredients should provide additional benefit via the supporting materials for education generated by the branded-ingredient vendors.  Yet, there remains a relative lack of focus on these.  Sure, you can find products that emphasize the inclusion of a branded ingredient but again, as has long been our nature as an industry, there are instances where the “generic name” of a branded ingredient is presented and the data acquired by the maker of the branded ingredient is used to support the claims made.  Mark Blumenthal was the first person I know of to rail against the “Education” of consumers using the term he coined “Borrowed Science.”  It’s bad enough that we are not accurately depicting the nature of the science as discussed earlier, but to perform in a manner that “borrows” the good work of those who paid for it is not excusable.  Moreover, we as an industry tend to relegate the defense against this activity to the companies who did the work in the first place.  It would be far better to take a stance as an industry against these practices under the heading of Education since we should educate ourselves that this practice is not to be tolerated.  As long as we, as an industry, do not reward the good work of companies willing to take on the investment in science we should not consider ourselves a truly “science based” industry. 

It is my view that Education remains the “NEXT BIG THING.”  As our allowed claims structures continue to narrow (virtually unnoticed since there remains a tremendous lack of enforcement) we should consider as we sift through all the brochures and information received at Expo just how to tackle this problem.  Expo comes around once a year on the West Coast but disseminating inappropriate Education is a year-round activity.  While the  topic is not new it was reiterated loud and clear once more at Expo.  Whether the subject is Organic and what the seal affixed really means or what effects a specific ingredient has on HUMANS – one lesson of Expo is that we remain mired in old practices that do not fully meet the obligations out of DSHEA.  If you want to make a splash, try providing real, original, applicable Education to one and all concerning the products you sell.