The two chemicals that have made the headlines the most frequently in the last couple of years are probably bisphenol A and resveratrol. But their fame is due to different reasons. Bisphenol A is usually demonified as the evil substance that leaches out of some plastics and destroys our health, while resveratrol is the compound found in red wine that supposedly increases our life expectancy. Well, bisphenol A is not as bad as it is made out to be, and it is unlikely that resveratrol is going to be our savior.
There certainly has been a lot of hype about resveratrol, but it outstrips what science has actually shown. David Sinclair of Harvard University is the central player in the resveratrol sweepstakes, having demonstrated in the laboratory that the compound can stimulate the activity of a gene that codes for the “sirtuin 1” protein. This is actually an enzyme that has anti-aging and anti-disease properties and seems to mimic the positive effects that have been seen in various species due to calorie restriction. The problem, though, is that resveratrol has only been shown to trigger sirtuin 1 production in yeasts, fruit flies and mice. Still, this was significant enough for Sinclair to launch a company called Sirtris, with hopes of eventually marketing resveratrol as a dietary supplement. The company’s research efforts caught the eye of corporate giant GlaxoSmithKline and in 2008 the company bought out Sirtris for 720 million dollars.
At the time Sinclair was interviewed on numerous television programs, always carefully weighing his words about what science had actually shown. Yes, mice fed resveratrol live at least 15% longer than normal mice, but to get such benefits humans would have to consume about 5 grams of resveratrol per day. That’s roughly 80 pills at the doses found in a typical bottle of resveratrol sold in health food stores or on the web. Neither Sinclair nor GlaxoSmithKline have ever endorsed any such supplement for the simple reason that resveratrol has never been shown to be effective in human clinical trials.
Glaxo is banking on the possibility that resveratrol, or more likely, synthetic derivatives of the compound, will eventually show some benefit. But for now, resveratrol amounts to no more than a compound with unfulfilled promise. That, though, is all hucksters need to convert resveratrol into a miracle product, and then convert the unsubstantiated hype into handsome profits. Charging close to a hundred dollars for a bottle, that may or may not contain resveratrol, is par for the course. Since resveratrol is difficult to preserve, chances are that the customer isn’t even getting what he thinks he is getting. The hucksters are shameless, even lying that their product is supported by Dr. Sinclair. One actually features a photo of Sinclair with the words: “If you have been following 60 minutes, you would have seen my segment on resveratrol, and everything it can do for you. I take resveratrol myself and love it.” Sinclair never said such a thing and he and Glaxo are looking into possible legal action.
One more thing, if you order resveratrol on the web by credit card, you better read the fine, fine print. It may tell you that unless you cancel you’ll be sent bottles of the useless stuff forever! And it may well turn out to be useless. A recent trial investigating the effects of resveratrol on patients suffering from multiple myeloma, a type of cancer, had to be stopped because of an adverse effect on the kidneys. This compound which is supposed to prevent heart attacks, fight cancer, lead to weight loss and add years to the human life span may be no more than produce a big scientific fizzle.