Skip to main content
  • Research article
  • Published:

Health food store recommendations: implications for breast cancer patients



Many breast cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). We aimed to determine what advice health food store employees present to individuals seeking treatment options for breast cancer.


Eight data gatherers asked employees of all retail health food stores in a major Canadian city, what they recommended for a patient with breast cancer. The data gatherers inquired about product safety, potential drug interactions, costs and efficacy. They also enquired about employee training related to the products.


Thirty-four stores were examined. A total of 33 different products were recommended, none of which are supported by sufficient evidence of efficacy. The average cost of the products they recommended was $58.09 (CAD) (minimum $5.28, median $32.99, maximum $600) per month. Twenty-three employees (68%) did not ask whether the patient took prescription medications. Fifteen employees (44%) recommended visiting a healthcare professional (naturopaths (9), physicians (5), nutritionists (1). Three employees (8.8%) discussed potential adverse effects of the products. Eight employees (23.5%) discussed the potential for drug interactions. Two employees (5.9%) suggested a possible cure with the products and one employee (2.9%) suggested discontinuing Tamoxifen. Four employees (11.8%) recommended lifestyle changes and three employees (8.8%) recommended books for further reading on the products.


This study draws attention to the heterogeneity of advice provided by natural health food stores to individuals seeking treatments for breast cancer, and the safety and cost implications of some of the products recommended. Physicians should enquire carefully about the use of natural health food products by patients with breast cancer. Regulators need to consider regulations to protect vulnerable patients from incurring significant costs in their purchasing of natural health food products lacking evidence of benefit and of questionable safety.


The use of natural health products (NHPs) is increasing [1]. Reasons for the increased public use of NHPs vary from individual involvement in health decisions to distrust in medical organisations [2, 3]. With increasing research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) comes an increase in public health awareness of social and safety concerns [4, 5]. This is particularly true in terminal diseases, in which patients may seek out marketed cures and treatments based on folklore [6].

Breast cancer patients might be particularly vulnerable to the use of NHPs because women are large consumers of them [7]. Several public health concerns arise about the use of NHPs. The potential for drug interactions with chemotherapy might reduce or exacerbate the effectiveness of prescription drugs [8, 9]. The potential for harm increases when large doses of products are used chronically and when multiple NHPs are used simultaneously [10]. Additionally, patients might delay or discontinue orthodox treatment at the advice of a CAM practitioner because the discussion of CAM use with physicians is limited [11]. NHPs and CAM usage might also prove to be an expensive treatment option for breast cancer patients.


We conducted a field study to determine what health food store employees recommended to individuals seeking treatments for breast cancer. We focused on identifying what products were recommended and the cost of these products. We also examined the education of these employees and their knowledge of drug interactions and adverse effects.

We identified all health food stores in a major Canadian city through the local business pages and yellow pages of telephone directories. Further stores were located through word of mouth. In total, 34 stores met our inclusion criteria of being a retail NHP sales outlet. We specifically excluded Asian herbal stores because of language difficulties.

This study received ethical approval by the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine Ethical Review Board and approved with reference to Office for Protection from Research Risks Regulations under section 46.116(d).


Eight research assistants (six female, two male) of various ages and appearances were recruited and trained to portray customers ('participants-as-observers'). The participants entered individually into assigned stores; they had been informed to browse in the store until approached by an employee. At this time the participants would declare that their mother has breast cancer. The participants disclosed information on their mother's condition, use of chemotherapy (Tamoxifen) and physician visits, only if asked. The participants would then ask what the employee recommended for this condition. All participants followed a structured, memorized, pretested questionnaire that asked about product usage, dosage, cost, employee education and product safety or potential for drug interactions. No further information about the condition was divulged.

The data gatherers recorded which products were recommended by natural health food store employees, along with the recommended dose and price per product as well as price per month. Data gatherers inquired about safety issues and drug interactions with each recommended product. Additionally, they inquired about where the employee had obtained information on the recommended products. They also noted whether the employees referred them on to CAM specialists or recommended that they consult further with a physician. Additional suggestions by the employees were recorded.

Full notes on the encounters were recorded immediately after leaving the store. All data were transcribed according to the research questions. The research assistants specifically recorded the various products recommended, including their costs and dosage. We summarised the data with descriptive statistics. We have disclosed the results of our audit to each health food store.


Of the 34 stores that met our inclusion criteria, 27 recommended NHPs; a total of 33 different products were recommended (see Table 1). The mean cost of product per month was $58.09 (CAD) (minimum $5.28, median $32.99, maximum $600). Twenty-three employees (68%) did not ask whether the patient took prescription medications. Fifteen (44%) employees recommended visiting a healthcare professional; these included: naturopaths (9), physicians (5) and nutritionists (1). Health food store employees relied on a variety of sources of information. Twelve employees (35%) received their information from books, 5 (15%) from a supplier, 3 (9%) had a formal education in CAM, 2 (6%) had in-store training and 12 (35%) did not disclose their sources of information.

Table 1 Frequency, dosage and monthly cost of products recommended by 34 natural health food store employees

Potential adverse effects of recommended products were discussed by three employees (8.8%). The potential for drug interactions was discussed by eight employees (23.5%). Two (5.9%) suggested that the products might offer the potential for cure. One employee (2.9%) suggested discontinuing Tamoxifen. Four employees (11.8%) suggested lifestyle changes and three (8.8%) recommended books for further reading on the products.


Several important messages emerge from this analysis of advice provided to breast cancer patients in health food stores. These stores are recommending a variety of products, none of which is supported by evidence of benefit. In many instances the stores do not discuss the potential for adverse effects of these products or the possibility of drug interactions. In addition, in at least one instance in this study, an employee recommended that a conventional medical therapy (Tamoxifen) be discontinued. The findings of our study are consistent with previous reports on the practice of natural health food stores [1219]. Other studies examining advice provided about CAM on the Internet, another readily available source, find that this advice can also be misleading and could seriously harm consumers [20].

All these findings highlight the importance of physicians' awareness of the possibility that their breast cancer patients are seeking advice and treatment from alternative medical sources such as natural health food stores. Patients might not disclose this information to their traditional health care providers. However, the advice they seek could have a negative effect on their response to medical treatment and be the source of unexplained reactions [21]. This study also highlights the vulnerability of patients with breast cancer to potentially misleading information from health food employees. Advice presented by health food employees was authoritative and could be misconstrued by patients as evidence-based, particularly when books are consulted or literature is provided on the products. This was illustrated by the two employees who suggested that their recommended products could cure the patient of cancer. It is important to note that, with the exception of small trials examining the efficacy of coenzyme Q10 [22, 23] and vitamin C [24], there is no evidence from clinical trials to support the use of the recommended products by patients with breast cancer [2527]. The distrust of conventional medical treatments by individuals who seek CAM might also be reinforced by dispensers of CAM [28, 29]. This was illustrated in our study by the single employee who suggested that the patient discontinue her chemotherapeutic drug (Tamoxifen) because it was 'poisonous'.

Many patients are attracted to NHP use because it is natural, which is suggestive that this is less toxic than prescription medication. Recent reports on adverse effects of NHPs identify that several products once considered safe might be harmful [5, 10, 30]. These risks are increased when the products are used in large doses or chronically. The heterogeneity of information about dosages increases the likelihood for misuse. Recommendations such as 'immune-boosting' and 'cleansing' can be misleading to patients as to the aetiology of their disease. The education of employees about NHPs was also variable, with several employees indicating that formal education was unnecessary. Others considered that working in the health food environment for several years was experience enough.

Breast cancer patients are susceptible not only to adverse health effects owing to advice and treatments provided by natural health food stores but also to incurring significant costs from purchasing natural health food products. The monthly cost of products ranged from $5.28 (CAD) to $600 (mean $58.09). The products that were most expensive, such as the herbal teas and mushroom extracts, rely on insufficient or questionable research and evidence based on folklore.

Our study has some important limitations. The consistency of data might be limited by approaching only one employee at each store; however, we believe that this is the closest to a real-life situation that can be replicated for a study. It is difficult to measure employees' knowledge of cancer through a brief encounter, and the quality of informative literature varies substantially. It is possible that the responses from employees varied according to each data gatherer. It might be that gatherers presenting themselves as breast cancer patients would have elicited different recommendations. Although this study was conducted in one city in Canada, we believe that the results could be widely transferable, because several of the stores were national chains. All research assistants were trained and had followed a structured questionnaire; they had completed the questionnaire immediately after leaving the store, to avoid inter-observer variation in collection and recall.

A potential concern to the conduct of this study relates to its ethical implications. In essence, this was an investigation on human subjects without consent. Informed consent is the cornerstone of research ethics [31]. However, there are situations in which informed consent is not a necessary precondition. This study might be such an exception: first, there is little conceivable harm in not obtaining consent in this particular setting; second, with informed consent the investigation would not have been possible; third, our aim was to investigate an area of potential harm to consumers, which can be viewed as overriding concerns about the potential of harm to shop assistants in this setting. We therefore feel that, on balance, the study was ethically justifiable, a judgement shared by the review board that approved it.


Governing bodies should consider health food stores as commonly used, yet unregulated, sections of the health care system. Educational interventions aimed at employees might help to facilitate cooperation rather than stimulate antagonism [12]. Education about safety and drug interactions as well as regulations about the extent of advice might best help to coordinate a move towards a safer and more evidence-based health food business. Concerned physicians and regulating bodies should be aware of the variety of advice that breast cancer patients receive about NHP use. Discussions about efficacy, safety and cost should be initiated to be consistent with the health beliefs and expectations of the patients and providers.



complementary and alternative medicine


natural health products.


  1. Berger E: Berger Population Health Monitor. Toronto: Hay Associates. 2002

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alferi SM, Antoni MH, Ironson G, Kilbourn KM, Carver CS: Factors predicting the use of complementary therapies in a multi-ethnic sample of early-stage breast cancer patients. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2001, 56: 120-123.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jonas WB: Alternative medicine – learning from the past, examining the present, advancing to the future. JAMA. 1998, 280: 1616-1618. 10.1001/jama.280.18.1616.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. US Food and Drug Administration: Risk of drug interactions with St. John's Wort. JAMA. 2000, 283: 1679-

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cassileth BR: Evaluating complementary and alternative therapies for cancer patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 1999, 49: 362-375.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ernst E, Cassileth BR: The prevalence of complementary/alternative medicine in cancer: a systematic review. Cancer. 1998, 83: 777-782. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980815)83:4<777::AID-CNCR22>3.0.CO;2-O.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Morris KT, Johnson N, Homer L, Walts D: A comparison of complementary therapy use between breast cancer patients and patients with other primary tumor sites. Am J Surg. 2000, 179: 407-411. 10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00358-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mathijssen RH, Verweij J, de Bruijn P, Loos WJ, Sparreboom A: Effects of St. John's wort on irinotecan metabolism. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002, 94: 1247-1249. 10.1093/jnci/94.16.1247.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Spaulding-Albright N: A review of some herbal and related products commonly used in cancer patients. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997, 97: S208-S215. 10.1016/S0002-8223(97)00767-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Izzo AA, Ernst E: Interactions between herbal medicines and prescribed drugs: a systematic review. Drugs. 2001, 61: 2163-2175.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Adler SR, Fosket JR: Disclosing complementary and alternative medicine use in the medical encounter: a qualitative study in women with breast cancer. J Fam Pract. 1999, 48: 453-458.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gotay CC, Dumitriu D: Health food store recommendations for breast cancer patients. Arch Fam Med. 2000, 9: 692-699. 10.1001/archfami.9.8.692.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stoffer S, Szpunar W, Coleman B, Mallos P: Advice from some health food stores. JAMA. 1980, 244: 2044-2046.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Aigner C: Advice in healthfood stores. Nutr Forum. 1998, 5: 1-4.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haidet JM: Poor advice plus doubletalk: a probe of 'health food' stores in Central Ohio. Nutr Forum. 1992, 9: 6-9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. US Food and Drug Administration: Unsubstantiated Claims and Documented Health Hazards in the Dietary Supplement Marketplace. Rockville, Maryland: Food and Drug Administration. 1993

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mills EJ, Singh R, Bast L, Kiani P, Hart J, Majlesi A, Kawasaki M, Wilson K: Emerging issues associated with HIV patients seeking advice from Health Food Stores. In International Scientific Conference on Complementary, Alternative & Integrative Medicine Research: April 13, 2002; Harvard Medical School, Boston. Can J Pub Health. 2003,

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mills EJ, Singh R, Ross CP, Ernst E, Ray JG: Impact of Federal Safety Advisories of health food store advice. CMAJ. 2003,

    Google Scholar 

  19. Phillips LG, Nichols MH, King WD: Herbs and HIV: the health food industry's answer. South Med J. 1995, 88: 911-913.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ernst E, Schmidt K: Health risks over the Internet: advice offered by 'medical herbalists' to a pregnant woman. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2002, 152: 190-192. 10.1046/j.1563-258X.2002.01113.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Geyer C, Hammond L, Johnson T, Smetzer L, Coyle J, Drengler R, Von Hoff D, De Jager R, Rowinsky E: Dose-schedule optimization the hexacyclic camptothecin (CPT) analog dx-8951f: a phase I and pharmacokinetic study with escalation of both treatment duration and dose [meeting abstract]. Proc Ann Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1999, A813-

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lockwood K, Moesgaard S, Folkers K: Partial and complete regression of breast cancer in patients in relation to dosage of coenzyme Q10. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1994, 199: 1504-1508. 10.1006/bbrc.1994.1401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lockwood K, Moesgaard S, Yamamoto T, Folkers K: Progress on therapy of breast cancer with vitamin Q10 and the regression of metastases. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1995, 212: 172-177. 10.1006/bbrc.1995.1952.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Babu JR, Sundravel S, Arumugam G, Renuka R, Deepa N, Sachdanandam P: Salubrious effect of vitamin C and vitaminE on tamoxifen-treated women in breast cancer with reference to plasma lipid and lipoprotein levels. Cancer Lett. 2000, 151: 1-5. 10.1016/S0304-3835(99)00340-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaegi E: Unconventional therapies for cancer: 1. Essiac. The Task Force on Alternative Therapies of the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative. CMAJ. 1998, 158: 897-902.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Jain M, Miller AB: Tumor characteristics and survival of breast cancer patients in relation to premorbid diet and body size. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997, 42: 43-55. 10.1023/A:1005798124538.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Miller DR, Anderson GT, Stark JJ, Granick JL, Richardson D: Phase I/II trial of the safety and efficacy of shark cartilage in the treatment of advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998, 16: 3649-3655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Passalacqua R, Campione F, Caminiti C, Salvagni S, Barilli A, Bella M, Barni S, Barsanti G, Caffo O, Carlini P, Cinquemani G, Di Costanzo F, Giustini L, Labianca R, Mazzei A, Olmeo N, Paccagnella A, Toscano L, Cocconi G: Patients' opinions, feelings, and attitudes after a campaign to promote the Di Bella therapy. Lancet. 1999, 353: 1310-1314. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)10253-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Montbriand MJ: Abandoning biomedicine for alternate therapies: oncology patients' stories. Cancer Nurs. 1998, 21: 36-45. 10.1097/00002820-199802000-00005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. US Food and Drug Administration: Letter to Health Care Professionals FDA Issues Consumer Advisory That Kava Products May be Associated with Severe Liver Injury. Rockville, Maryland: US Food and Drug Administration, Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements. 2002

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ernst E, Cohen MH: Informed consent in complementary and alternative medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2001, 161: 2288-2292. 10.1001/archinte.161.19.2288.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Cinzia Genuardi, Laura Imola, Orest Szczurko, Andrea Kenny, Stella Nonis, Tina Konstantinow, Camille Nghiem-Phu and Sarah Dash-Arbuckle for participation in data gathering.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Mills.

Additional information

Competing interests

None declared.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mills, E., Ernst, E., Singh, R. et al. Health food store recommendations: implications for breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res 5, R170 (2003).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: