A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

stumblinthrulife

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

-_-

No. People have a choice to purchase or not to purchase products from various markets, illegal or above-board.

True. But the subject of heroin came up and the idea put forth was that everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The argument against it was people already have a choice between the black market and the regulated stuff. But they don't, really. None of that stuff is regulated. Including the supplements.

So you can buy it and take your chances or not buy it at all. I personally have no interest in it, but the people who DO want to buy it might like the choice of knowing some of it is at least regulated so that the company can get in trouble for false claims.

I can appreciate that some people might enjoy some extra regulation; I am not one of them. Simple trial and error by the consumer would determine if a company is making false claims, though; then the consumer could simply choose not to support that business anymore by not purchasing the garbage it produces. I also don't care much for the vitamins/supplements we're talking about, and I agree that people should weigh their options carefully when considering their health. I just don't think that regulation and taxation is a good option for facilitating that.

Good plan. Next time I die of E.Coli from some tainted Chinese chicken, I'll buy chicken from a different country next time. Oh wait, there's no regulation, so they don't have to publish the origin of the chicken any more. Darn.

jonnythan

That's a sad story. Reality is harsh. Maybe they should have done some more research.

Fortunately we can make it a little less harsh. We can outlaw murder, we can enforce food safety regulations, we can make cars safer.

rml_16

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

-_-

No. People have a choice to purchase or not to purchase products from various markets, illegal or above-board.

True. But the subject of heroin came up and the idea put forth was that everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The argument against it was people already have a choice between the black market and the regulated stuff. But they don't, really. None of that stuff is regulated. Including the supplements.

So you can buy it and take your chances or not buy it at all. I personally have no interest in it, but the people who DO want to buy it might like the choice of knowing some of it is at least regulated so that the company can get in trouble for false claims.

I can appreciate that some people might enjoy some extra regulation; I am not one of them. Simple trial and error by the consumer would determine if a company is making false claims, though; then the consumer could simply choose not to support that business anymore by not purchasing the garbage it produces. I also don't care much for the vitamins/supplements we're talking about, and I agree that people should weigh their options carefully when considering their health. I just don't think that regulation and taxation is a good option for facilitating that.

My main concern is safety. It's a matter of companies putting things in supplements that are potentially harmful to pepole and not listing the ingredients because they don't have to and they're claiming what they're selling is something other than what it is.

I just don't think death or severe illness should be a consequence of stupid choices by clearly gullible people.

I don't like the amount of regulation we have and I'd like to see less overall. But I do think there are specific areas where regulation is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't want to see the government telling people what they can and cannot eat (sodium, trans fats, Big Gulps), but I want to at least KNOW what I'm ingesting.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

Do you actually know what a police state is?

Thank god somebody asked that question.

RivenV

That's a sad story. Reality is harsh. Maybe they should have done some more research.

Fortunately we can make it a little less harsh. We can outlaw murder, we can enforce food safety regulations, we can make cars safer.

Where does it end? When we do stop protecting people from their own choices?

jwdieter

That's a sad story. Reality is harsh. Maybe they should have done some more research.

Fortunately we can make it a little less harsh. We can outlaw murder, we can enforce food safety regulations, we can make cars safer.

Where does it end? When we do stop protecting people from their own choices?

Never and always. If you want to go find rat poison, eat it, and die, you can do that in 5 minutes. But you'll be making an informed decision, because there will be a label.

WendyTerry420

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

rml_16

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Right, but at least they know they're smoking crack.

This isn't about protecting people from stupidity. It's about offering people information so they can make an in formed choice. I like to make informed choices, but if there's no information available, there isn't a way to make an informed choice.

jwdieter

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Robbery and murder shouldn't be illegal, because laws against robbery and murder obviously don't stop these things from happening.

WendyTerry420

I have no problem with the people buying bee jelly covering the cost of bee jelly safety and efficacy studies.

The people buying bee jelly just might. If you're not not one of them, then what business is it of yours? More importantly, as a non bee jelly consumer, what exactly is it you think gives you the right to force the bee jelly consumers to pay higher prices for their products to help get a bee out of your bonnet (pun intended)? The world in general would be a lot better off without busy bodies running around sticking the government's nose into things because they get an itch.

Government is by FAR responsible for more death, pain, misery AND snake oil in the world than a billion supplement companies. Hell, government has caused more death and injury than all diseases combined. Yet we never seem to run out of busy bodies calling for government to "fix" something new.

Maybe the investigation would show that bee jelly does precisely squat, and the bee jelly buying public can save themselves the cost of regulation and the cost of bee jelly. Just sayin'

Or maybe the bee jelly buying public can figure that out for themselves when there's no evidence that they're benefiting from the jelly. Then they can save themselves the costs of regulation and bee jelly, and society can be spared the (incalculable) of further empowering the government.

Turns out the public is extraordinarily bad at separating marketing claims from scientific fact

That's their problem, not yours or the government's.

It's OUR problem. Pretending we all live in an isolated environment where the actions of people around us only affect them is foolish.

No, pretending that it's your job to live someone else's life and make their decisions is foolish.

WendyTerry420

Not sure if Jonnythan is getting trolled or people are serious

No, it's Jonnythan that is trolling here.

richardheath

If something is proven to cause irreparable harm, then get it pulled from the market (like they did with ephedra containing products)

It was the FDA that banned ephedra, against the strong opposition of the companies selling it.

I'm not sure why you would make that comment concerning what you quoted? I don't have a problem with the government (FDA) banning harmful products of this nature since we have the precedent already of making other harmful substances illegal (heroin, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamines, etc.). I don't care if the company strongly opposed it. What I don't want is for the government to decide that it needs to investigate each and every dietary supplement on the market or all of the future products (99% of which are harmless snakeoil) because to do so would be a massive waste of resources.

No one is saying the government should do the investigation.

I said it was a massive waste of resources. I never specified whose resources would be wasted. But no matter what, there would be taxpayer money used if the supplement industry became more heavily regulated. Someone would have to sort through and verify the testing and claims presented by each company. The products won't just magically make it onto the shelves if the company provides enough evidence to show it has beneficial and non harmful effect. When the term 'regulation' is used, it's talking about government oversight unless there's some private regulatory agency that I'm unaware of doing this pro bono.

A lot of the work has already been done. Believe it or not, people in the biomedical sciences take notice of health claims. We test them. Pharma looks at "traditional" medicine to see if they do, in fact, have any efficacy. But why should they do that if they don't have to? They (Pharma) can sell this stuff without having to prove it works. [Read the article in the OP. Many of these supplement companies are already owned by big Pharma companies.]

If someone wants to prove their supplement works, the mechanism is in place.

That's great. I read the OP's link. I'm not sure what your comment had to do with the last comment I made because you didn't address a single one of its points. Let me bold what you didn't address as a response to what you just wrote.

If every supplement that currently is on shelves suddenly needed to get passed through a government agency (assuming FDA) that agency will have to employ X number of people to field the sudden influx of applications submitted immediately and in the future. The more red tape you add to a process, the more the product will cost and the greater drain of government on taxpayers. And for what? Verifying that 99% of the products do little to nothing? I don't want to add millions or billions of dollars to the cost of the government just so I can rest easy knowing that the government has given it's stamp of "this products does nothing" to things like greet bean extract and raspberry keytones. If something is dangerous, spend the money to deal with that, not the tons of non harmful crap.

Edit: can't stop making typos today

I was more using your post to springboard my thought than responding to you directly. Sorry.

But the Gov would not have to spend that much more time/money on it than it does on current drugs. You want to make a health claim on your product; you do the research and present it to the FDA for approval. If you don't, you can't make any health claims - none of this "These statements have not been approved by the FDA" nonsense. Nothing.

And we already test foods to make sure they are not contaminated with things that aren't supposed to be there. We could just expand that to these supplements. If I'm buying St John's Wort, I want to know I'm getting St John's wort, not some other weed I might be allergic to instead. What's wrong with requiring companies to actually make sure they are selling what they say they are selling?

The thing about leaving it to the invisible hand of the market is that simply doesn't work. We see that with the low level of QC going on right now. And we, as consumers, have no way of telling if the St John's Wort we buy is actually St John's Wort or not. Sure, the filler they use probably isn't going to kill us, but don't we deserve to get what we are actually paying for?

WendyTerry420

People should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies.

However, corporations should not be able to market and sell anything they want, unchecked and unregulated. Those are two very different concepts.

Your second sentence here contradicts your first sentence.

RivenV

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

But then people have a choice as to whether they use the tested and regulated product or take their chances with the black market. And if someone wants to take chances, then Darwinism ...

People have a choice now. How does more regulation and taxation change the current situation?

People have a choice between regulated, taxed and tested heroin and black market heroin?

-_-

No. People have a choice to purchase or not to purchase products from various markets, illegal or above-board.

True. But the subject of heroin came up and the idea put forth was that everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The argument against it was people already have a choice between the black market and the regulated stuff. But they don't, really. None of that stuff is regulated. Including the supplements.

So you can buy it and take your chances or not buy it at all. I personally have no interest in it, but the people who DO want to buy it might like the choice of knowing some of it is at least regulated so that the company can get in trouble for false claims.

I can appreciate that some people might enjoy some extra regulation; I am not one of them. Simple trial and error by the consumer would determine if a company is making false claims, though; then the consumer could simply choose not to support that business anymore by not purchasing the garbage it produces. I also don't care much for the vitamins/supplements we're talking about, and I agree that people should weigh their options carefully when considering their health. I just don't think that regulation and taxation is a good option for facilitating that.

My main concern is safety. It's a matter of companies putting things in supplements that are potentially harmful to pepole and not listing the ingredients because they don't have to and they're claiming what they're selling is something other than what it is.

I just don't think death or severe illness should be a consequence of stupid choices by clearly gullible people.

I don't like the amount of regulation we have and I'd like to see less overall. But I do think there are specific areas where regulation is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't want to see the government telling people what they can and cannot eat (sodium, trans fats, Big Gulps), but I want to at least KNOW what I'm ingesting.

Pretty sure you were advocating Darwinism earlier?

Safety is definitely important, and I'm willing to admit that not all regulations are bad or facetious. However, increasing regulations over time will eventually get to the point where the government will tell people what they can and cannot eat. Look at New York's attempted ban on soda or other sugary drinks in excess of a certain quantity. (I forget the actual legislation, but it was something along the lines of: you can't buy more than 16 ounces of soda at a time because sugar is bad, m'kay? Think of the poor, fat chillren!)

I would support regulation that mandates companies must publish what is in their product, since we already have that standard for many foods and drugs already. I balk at the idea of giving the FDA (or any other regulatory agency) enough power that they can outright ban certain foods or chemicals, even those that have potentially harmful effects.

WendyTerry420

While it would be nice to think that regulation and taxation would clear up all of those safety problems, you need look no further than illegal moonshine liquor to see that it's likely a black market would rise out of that solution. I agree with the idea that people ought to be able to imbibe in their chosen chemical (again, supplements, drugs, whatever) safely, knowing full-well what they're putting into their bodies. I disagree that regulation and taxation is the solution since it encourages the growth of illegal markets that operate outside the realm of these regulations.

I really don't see much of a black market for royal jelly or whatever they put in Advocare.

Right now the supplement industry is basically unregulated. You can sell pretty much anything you want, with whatever health claims you want. It's a multi-billion industry where monied corporate interests are trying hard to come up with the next chemical to sell tot he public by telling them it'll make them healthier. It's these corporate interests trying hard to exploit people who are not in a position to know better or to separate marketing from science that need to be regulated.

I understand what you're saying that some people may be exploited since they don't take the time to learn or know any better. But whose fault is that? The company for producing snake oil, or the consumer for not making informed decisions? I'm aware that companies do sometimes use less-than-savory tactics to encourage people to buy their products. ... But no one is forcing anyone's hand, here. No one is holding these poor, disenfranchised folks at gun point and telling them they must purchase these things.

What about the little old couple who get conned out of their retirement funds by someone running a ponzi scheme? What about them? After all, no one held a gun to their head and forced them to buy. Instead they were convinced to buy into something by someone telling lies about the potential benefits.

Other than scale, what's the difference?

There is a huge difference between offering a product for which there is a consumer market, and committing fraud. Fraud is always unacceptable. Markets, on the other hand, should be about consumers and producers, not bureaucrats and self-righteous "do-gooders."

richardheath

This isn't about protecting people from stupidity. It's about offering people information so they can make an in formed choice. I like to make informed choices, but if there's no information available, there isn't a way to make an informed choice.

Right.

How many people in this thread who are arguing that we shouldn't regulate supplements would like to know if the food they are eating is GMO or not? How can you chose if you don't know?

WendyTerry420

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Right, but at least they know they're smoking crack.

This isn't about protecting people from stupidity. It's about offering people information so they can make an in formed choice. I like to make informed choices, but if there's no information available, there isn't a way to make an informed choice.

And people buying Vitamin D know that they are buying Vitamin D.

I use that as an example because in the current market, a supplement of Vitamin D is $6, whereas a prescription for it is running $10 due to over-regulation of prescription drugs.

WendyTerry420

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Robbery and murder shouldn't be illegal, because laws against robbery and murder obviously don't stop these things from happening.

Sorry, that's a poor example. Robbery and murder have victims. Ingesting a pill of your own choosing is a personal choice with no victim.

RivenV

Even an outright ban would *NOT* prevent people from being stupid. Look at how many people still smoke crack, and it's 100% illegal with jail time as a penalty. We can not end stupidity through legislation.

Right, but at least they know they're smoking crack.

This isn't about protecting people from stupidity. It's about offering people information so they can make an in formed choice. I like to make informed choices, but if there's no information available, there isn't a way to make an informed choice.

What if I told you they're actually not smoking crack? There's a big difference between "pure, unadulterated crack" and street-grade crack, which often has many harmful additives that result in all of the awful health effects you hear about crack addicts having. This is tangential, but an interesting illustrative point to your argument that the people who make products ought to be truthful about what's in them.

It's also a nice example for my argument that the government has no qualms about telling you what you can and can't do with your body.

rml_16

Pretty sure you were advocating Darwinism earlier?

Right. But I mean people having enough information making stupid decisions. Like if someone tells you to jump off a bridge and you do, well, you knew that was going to kill you and you did it, anyway.