There is the RDA (Recommended Daily Allowances), USRDA (United States Recommended Daily Allowances), DV (Daily Values), ESADD (Estimated Safe and Adequate Daily Dosages), and who knows what all else is used in other countries around the world. Where did it all come from and what does it all mean?

There are 53 known nutrients that require consumption in order for human life to survive. Of these 53, only 16 have RDAs established. The rest are considered secondary and of little importance in the determination of RDAs. This is because we do not know what health effects are created whenever a deficiency state of that nutrient exists. Therefore, if no deficiency state can be identified, then no RDA is necessary.

RDAs were merely established as the amounts of vitamin and minerals needed to be consumed daily in order to prevent vitamin and mineral deficiency. Each vitamin or mineral has its own number corresponding to age, sex, and condition. It was easy to establish, using animals, to determine the amount of a nutrient that will prevent scurvy (vitamin C deficiency), for example, by merely observing the dose and effect condition, increasing the dosage of vitamin C until the symptoms disappear.

The RDAs do not take into consideration the interaction between the vitamins and minerals, either in their ability to increase or decrease the usability of the other nutrients. Also the RDA amounts necessary for disease prevention or treatment have not been taken into account.

The bottom line is that taking supplements based on RDAs probably does not mean anything. Science is just getting caught up on vitamins and minerals and a lot of controversy still exists over what numbers are meaningful. It is difficult enough to reach a consensus within certain groups, but the communications break down when major groups try to agree. When doctors, nutritionists, politicians, and biochemists debate the issues . . . . . well, nothing gets done, just like nothing has really changed since 1980, though current change is in the air. 

However, considering how most of us now know that food contains too little nutrients, especially after preparation, to insure an adequate nutrient level without taking supplements, there is probably no great need to revise the RDAs. We know that they refer to food more than supplements and we know that the amounts are too low to be useful for American health. After all, the RDAs refer to deficiencies which are rare in the United States. Not necessarily so. It is theorized that most of the illnesses currently being treated are the result of poor nutrition. Whether you call it deficiency or not, it is clear that insufficient intake of vitamins and minerals are still a cause of concern. The RDAs attempt to address some of these conditions though much more work needs to be done.

It is not practical to continuously revise the RDAs because too much controversy still surrounds some of the RDA nutrient amounts, and revisions have too high an economic impact on manufacturers and producers (i.e., nutrition labels, etc.). Scientists are also not prone to make quick decisions that might require them to rethink their positions or retract speculation easily.

For now, use the RDAs for better label understanding and usage. It should not take too long to see that food contains a lot less nutritional value than you thought. Even supplements often contain too little of the nutrients that you need. One thing for sure, RDAs do not help in making nutrition more understandable or logical – more likely, they help to lesson the importance of dietary nutrition and health, especially when used for prevention or treatment.

Things are changing and not necessary for the better -- the subject is becoming more confusing because of the experts cannot agree on much.  Some even insist that nutrition should not be such an important issue -- of course, most of us know better.   Just to see what the future is bringing, the RDAs are losing favor and in its place will be even more mind-boggling issues of debate.

In addition to the RDAs, we will have to deal with the following different nutrient consumption values:

        DVs (Daily Values),
        DRIs (Daily Reference Intakes),
        EARs (Estimated Average Requirements),
        AIs (Adequate Intakes), and
        ULs (Tolerable Upper Intake Levels).

These "scientifically determined" amounts will undoubtedly go through various changes and debate.

We will be adding information and showing the proposed values in future information pages.

During this time of change and confusion, the health-conscious consumer must try and learn what supplemental nutrients and amounts of consumption are best for their particular health constitution and lifestyle.  We can help you do this somewhat through our Health Questionnaire.  In addition, we are going to include articles that will give you clues as to how to determine that you are getting sufficient nutrients in your diet and supplements.

Back to Top