Thank you for the post and question. I'd hope to encourage others to weigh in on this issue as well.

First of all, we're talking about a rather complicated issue.

The industry is regulated, although many have concerns both about the level of regulation and more often, the enfocement of existing regulations by FDA and FTC. Next, commerical products on the market do not have a 'standard' formulation and one would expect clinical trials to use 'available' product. This brings up the question of appropriate formulas and amounts of active, and expert opinion differs signficantly in this regard, hence the number of formulations. Further complicating this issue is the ability to measure 'endpoint' in a supplement clinical trial. The pharmaceutical model is usually targeted at a disease state (or absence) model, a challenge for many supplement products. The ingredient amount for a supplement product, targeted at a disease state, would typically be more than what might be available in a commercial product marketed as a supplement, and if the endpoint was a disease state, then the trial results would not be allowable for supplement marketing and education.

It is true that a series of clinical trials using one formulation would provide excellent data and some of these studies are currently underway, in some cases, sponsored by NIH. It is also true that more information about trial conditions (and materials) need to be both provided and understood. What is probably reasonable is that a formula:endpoint matrix could eventually be developed as a reference for future trials. Having said that, in their desire to present new and innovative products company-sponsored clinical trials would continue to use proprietary formulas for market edge, IP position and the ability to use speical science.