Cinnamon for for diabetes? Why “natural” doesn’t mean safe or effective

Here’s a scenario I encountered that will be familiar to many pharmacists. It starts with a customer seeking advice at the counter:





Despite pharmacists having training in pharmacology and toxicology, the naturalistic fallacy is common – even among health professionals. There is no reason to believe that just because a substance occurs in nature, that it is beneficial. Anything labelled as “herbal” says nothing about safety or efficacy. Each chemical must be evaluated based on its own properties. Arsenic, lead, malaria, cyanide, and botulism are natural. Importantly, there is no reason to suspect that any herbal product has medicinal value. Natural substances are inherently variable in content – it’s to reduce variability that drug products were developed, letting patients take digoxin tablets instead of taking their chances with foxglove. Once you become attuned to the naturalistic fallacy, you’ll see it everywhere. In particular, purveyors of “alternatives to medicine” leverage the naturalistic fallacy as the marketing strategy of choice for almost all supplements. And it leads to bad health care decisions.


Given the prevalence of diabetes and the chronic nature of the disease, it’s no surprise that CAM is a popular treatment option. I don’t see a lot of CAM use in Type 1 diabetics. Insulin is the primary treatment, it works well, and patients can objectively measure their own blood sugar. Type 1 diabetics don’t seem to experiment with supplements that might alter their blood sugars. Those patients end up hospitalized or dead.



The Evidence for Cinnamon




In this meta-analysis of five randomized placebo-controlled trials, patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes receiving cinnamon did not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in A1C, FBG, or lipid parameters in comparison with subjects receiving placebo.


A total of 6 clinical trials met the strict inclusion criteria and considered a total of 435 patients; follow up between 40 days–4 months, doses ranging from 1 g to 6 g per day. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed a significant decrease in mean HbA1c [0.09%; 95% CI was 0.04–0.14] and mean FPG [0.84 mmol/l; 95% CI was 0.66–1.02].



Not medicinal

The Risks



Cinnamon’s effectiveness as a treatment for diabetes has not been established, and its use for this purpose should not be recommended by health professionals. A prescription drug as ineffective as cinnamon likely wouldn’t pass FDA muster. Existing drug treatments for diabetes, on the other hand, are cheap, effective, and generally well tolerated. Compared to drug therapy, we don’t know if cinnamon can reduce the risk of mortality due to diabetes, or the progression to any of the other serious outcomes of diabetes. For my patients that insist on trying cinnamon, I’d caution them of the risks, and reinforce that cinnamon is no “alternative” to necessary lifestyle changes, and medication if necessary. It may be natural, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s either safe or effective.

Photos from flickr users kobiz7 and I believe I can Fry used under a CC licence.

4 thoughts on “Cinnamon for for diabetes? Why “natural” doesn’t mean safe or effective

  1. Just a quick note on the two kinds of cinnamon that are typically available: most U.S. grocery store cinnamon is really cassia. It has a sharper flavor and the sticks of dried bark are fairly hard. “True cinnamon” is sweeter and milder, and the whole dried bark is more delicate and flaky. If you’re in the U.S. and would like to try “true cinnamon” (for cooking and baking) try a local Hispanic market, or the Hispanic specialty aisle in the grocery store–the cinnamon there is usually “true cinnamon”.

  2. I believe in the adage “the proof is in the pudding.” One person I know who suffers from Type II diabetes recently went off the charts with his sugar numbers. I suggested he sprinkle cinnamon on his food and in his beverages, and in one day his numbers dropped by 175 points. THAT is true evidence of the efficacy of cinnamon. To make the statement, “A prescription drug as ineffective as cinnamon likely wouldn’t pass FDA muster” is ludicrous, since the FDA does none of their own assays or studies, and is nothing more than a clearinghouse for big pharma … giving their rubber stamp approval for harmful drugs after they have accepted payola from the pharmaceutical companies. There is no mystery as to why television drug advertisements are 10 seconds of telling you what it is for, but 50 seconds of all the harmful effects. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that what the body senses as a toxin, it will dispel from itself in short order and in any way it can. Hence, if a drug has serious and life-threatening side effects, that should be a red flag that the body will fight against such harmful invaders to its systems.

    To touch on this site’s constant mentioning of the lack of studies on natural herbs, let’s remember that big pharma pays billions of dollars per year to scientists to perform drug studies that will show them in the best light. Cars, houses, exotic vacations, etc. are heaped upon these “scientists” to ensure a favorable outcome to these studies. Be assured that those who harvest herbs do not have this kind of money to pay for studies that show the efficacy of a natural substance. So they are forced to rely on factual testimonials from people who are realizing true benefits from the use of natural herbs. Thankfully, awareness is finally growing about the hazards of pharmaceuticals, and more people are recognizing that big pharma’s business model is nothing more than making a buck, no matter the harm.

Comments are closed.