The recent position paper by Azzi et al. [1] in this journal opens a discussion forum dedicated to a scientific debate on Vitamin E nomenclature. In this position paper the authors postulate information in favor of revising the nomenclature of vitamin E. The authors argue that only RRR-α-tocopherol has been medically used to protect against deficiency disease in humans, and therefore, it would - according to their view - be appropriate to restrict the term vitamin E to RRR-α-tocopherol. However, this argumentation is false, as we will prove herein based on case reports and the available clinical trial in AVED patients.

Firstly, we would like to point out that the role and use of vitamins is not limited to medical applications in case of deficiency. The view taken in the position paper of Azzi et al. is too narrow. Vitamins are essential micronutrients and are required by humans as well as animals for growth, health, and well-being. A low status of vitamins results in a deficiency disease; however, the deficiency disease is not the first symptom of a lack but the final physiological “collapse”, a premortal syndrome and there is a wide gap between the deficiency disease and optimum health. To adequately assess the role of a vitamin in humans, the full scope of vitamin function must be considered.