Lord... I was going to quote the same paragraph. Do these people read what they write? "...data are lacking that low levels cause problems and that increasing intake makes a difference." Really?! Sadly, this is 'as expected' for a news article like this anymore. I concur with the 'makes me want to break things' sentiment.

What's funny and ironic though is delegates expressing '...caution about coming out with too strong of a recommendation...' When in reality the recommendation really isn't all that significant in the grand scheme of D adequacy; An improvement, but nothing that's going to make a huge difference for the majority of individuals. Many would probably experience little if any movement in their D substrate level, especially if they've got preexisting deficiency.



And the dogma that UV exposure = skin cancer continues... or should I say that the oversimplified dogma that UV exposure is the sole determinant in skin cancer development continues. Many still do not equate the UV exposure with heightened nutrient demands and potential creation of deficiencies that help drive the cancer development (for which a careful nutrient dense diet can help one avoid).