Studies of dietary supplements have come under growing scrutiny ever since Cytodyne Technologies, maker of Xenadrine RFA-1, was found liable in a class-action lawsuit and ordered to pay $12 million for making exaggerated and false claims about its product’s safety and effectiveness.

The New York Times reported that Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Styn said in ruling over the class-action suit, that Cytodyne had not just exaggerated the findings of clinical trials it commissioned, but had also persuaded some researchers into fudging results in published scientific articles.

According to the New York Times, the Cytodyne case “is part of a swelling tide of litigation that is raising serious questions about the way makers of ephedra and other dietary supplements use - and often misuse - the promise of scientific proof to market their products.”

The practice apparently stems from a 1994 law that exempts makers of dietary supplements from having to prove, as pharmaceuticals do, that their products are harmless and effective. But then why conduct the research? Economics. Weight-loss products that claim to be “clinically proven” sell more units.

The growing negative hype on ephedra has encouraged a number of manufacturers of dietary supplements, including Cytodyne, to reformulate their weight-loss products with a substance called synephrine.

Experts are concern about the switch in supplements because little is known about the new ephedra substitute.

(via New York Times)