The “Vitamin D Council” advertisement

Article Outline

• Copyright

In the March issue (page 13A) of the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology an advertisement appeared that was placed by the “Vitamin D Council.” A number of readers wrote letters to the Publisher and Editors regarding this advertisement that claimed, among other things, a relationship between Vitamin D deficiency and autism that these readers believed was unfounded. Furthermore, as they pointed out, the advertisement was laid out in such a way that it could have been interpreted as editorial comment rather than advertisement.

The Publishing Director and the Editors-in-Chief take such issues that are raised by our readers very seriously. In > 100 years of the Journal's existence, none of us or our previous Editors are aware of such an issue arising from an advertisement. Certainly there have been advertisements that made controversial claims, but controversy is a normal and often constructive part of medical science. Because the Publisher and Editors do not believe that there is a need to censor controversy, especially in clearly labeled advertisements, it has been the Journal's policy not to scrutinize commercial advertisements. However, in the case of this advertisement, we believe that we must take a stand.

Regarding the appearance of the advertisement, we do agree that, although it was clearly labeled from the “Vitamin D Council,” without careful scrutiny it could have been confused with editorial comment. This has now resulted in a change in policy for the Journal. In the future, advertisements will be regulated in appearance to appear clearly as advertisements. In the opinion of the Editors, the claims of this advertisement are not founded with any degree of reasonable scientific evidence specifically as it relates to the link between Vitamin D and autism. The references that the advertisement provides to support this association cite evidence that is, at best, suggestive, and the conclusion is little more than conjecture, perhaps enticing enough to warrant real research on this subject but nothing beyond. This is a more difficult issue to deal with from a policy standpoint. Nonetheless, in the future we will be far more vigilant, and any suspicious claims will be reviewed by the Journal Editors.

In addition, this specific advertisement was removed from the April and May issues of the Journal, and the prepayment was returned to its sponsor. The Editors and Publisher sincerely appreciate readers bringing this and other such issues to our attention. We believe and hope that you will find our response appropriate and reflective of the high standards and concern for quality characteristic of the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.