Letters
Complementary therapies Pharmacology
Volume 192 - Issue 11

Hydroxycut hepatotoxicity

Author:  Ken J Harvey

Med J Aust 2010; 192 (11): 669-670. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03677.x
Published online: 7 June 2010
Download PDF (58 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: In their letter in the 1 February 2010 issue of the Journal, Rashid and Grant reported the first Australian case of hepatotoxicity associated with the weight-loss product Hydroxycut.1 They noted that, in May 2009, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised consumers to stop using Hydroxycut products on the basis of 23 reports linking them to serious injury, including one fatal case of liver failure.

In response, the Australian sponsor, Export Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd told the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) that there were differences between the US and Australian formulations of Hydroxycut products. As the TGA had received no reports of adverse reactions similar to those reported in the US, they allowed local marketing to continue. The TGA website advised consumers to exercise caution when using Australian Hydroxycut products;2 however, no such warnings appeared in local promotional material.

In contrast, despite also being told that products marketed in the United Kingdom had different formulations, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) said:

The specific ingredient or dosage which might be causing health problems has not yet been identified. However, as a precautionary measure, the FSA is warning people not to take them. There are no reported illnesses in the UK related to these products.

. . . Hydroxycut products have been withdrawn from sale in the USA, Finland and Canada. Ireland has also advised retailers to withdraw the product and consumers to discontinue use of the products.3

Meanwhile, there have been three complaints upheld about the promotion of Australian Hydroxycut products, with another in progress.4 In 2008, the Complaints Resolution Panel (CRP) requested that the sponsor, retailers and website publishers withdraw any representations that the advertised product(s) has benefits in relation to fat-burning, weight loss, or weight management. Regardless, these claims continue to be made by numerous Australian internet pharmacies, and supplement and health food sites. This highlights the impotence of the CRP (which lacks the power to impose sanctions), the ineffectiveness of the TGA (which can impose sanctions, but apparently declines to do so) and the need for regulatory reform.5

A reformulated Hydroxycut is back on the shelves in the US. An FDA spokesperson said: “The only ingredient left in from the original formulation is caffeine. We do not have any evidence that caffeine causes liver toxicity.”6

However, on 14 February 2010, I had no difficulty in purchasing Hydroxycut (AUST L 154243) from a local pharmacy. This product has a similar formulation to products withdrawn overseas.

Rashid and Grant called on the TGA to re-examine the continued availability of these products in Australia.1 I reiterate their call. Why is the TGA out of step with other regulators? Why are these products still on the Australian market if their benefits are negligible or absent, if unethical promotion continues despite CRP determinations, and when the risks are clear?

Author

  • Ken J Harvey1
  • 1. School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: ken.harvey@latrobe.edu.au

Competing interests

I have submitted a complaint to the Complaints Resolution Panel about these products (in progress).

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library