A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

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.

WendyTerry420

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?

I don't care whether or not i am eating GMO. I most likely am. I don't believe that GMO is the big, bad, boogy-man that people make it out to be.

QuietBloom

Try re-reading: all that was stated is why regulate something when all have the choice to either take it or not.

Some prefer natural - and that doesn't allude to any altered state of mind from certain compounds provided by nature that may breakdown into another chemical state - natural or synthetic.

And yes, I am well aware of what a police state is. Just not everyone is aware of how much regulation is already out there apparently.

I don't really care if some people prefer what they perceive to be 'natural' vs 'synthetic'. It's just that a chemical is a chemical, and structurally identical, whether gotten directly from a seed pod (by chewing, or whatever) or built in a lab. The chemical structure is exactly the same.

richardheath

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.

Not my post, but no it doesn't.

If I chose to consume St John's wort thinking it will help depression, that is my choice.

If I buy a bottle labeled St John's Wort, I should be getting St John's Wort, not some filler of unknown origin that the company decided to use instead because it was cheaper.

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.

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.

I just go out in the sunshine, which is free and unregulated. :-)

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with companies being required to label things accurately so people who want to make informaed choices can.

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.

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.

That is likely true as well. Street drugs are the most likely to be adulterated because the market itself is criminal rather than legitimate. If we ended drug scheduling, people could good pure cocaine if they wanted it, without the worries of adulteration.

QuietBloom

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?

Yes, actually. Heroin is an excellent painkiller for someone in the final throws of terminal cancer.

http://healthyone.org/medical-uses-of-heroin/

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.

I just go out in the sunshine, which is free and unregulated. :-)

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with companies being required to label things accurately so people who want to make informaed choices can.

That doesn't work too well for folks with chronic medical conditions. Some folks, my husband for example, needs vitamin supplements. The Vitamin D prescription example is a true story. My husband also takes a Vitamin B supplement as well. It's cheaper at the Vitamin Shoppe than to fill the prescription his doctor gave him.

jwdieter

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.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

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.

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?

Yes, actually. Heroin is an excellent painkiller for someone in the final throws of terminal cancer.

http://healthyone.org/medical-uses-of-heroin/

And the Bayer Corporation was legally marketing heroin back when they first pulled aspirin from the shelves, since aspirin causes brain aneurysm in large dosages.

richardheath

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.

No they don't! There is no regulation and no testing. The company could be putting anything in that pill and calling it Vitamin D. And how is the consumer to know?


Not Vit. D directly, but the point is the same:

Two bottles labeled as St. John’s wort, which studies have shown may treat mild depression, contained none of the medicinal herb. Instead, the pills in one bottle were made of nothing but rice, and another bottle contained only Alexandrian senna, an Egyptian yellow shrub that is a powerful laxative. Gingko biloba supplements, promoted as memory enhancers, were mixed with fillers and black walnut, a potentially deadly hazard for people with nut allergies.

Of 44 herbal supplements tested, one-third showed outright substitution, meaning there was no trace of the plant advertised on the bottle — only another plant in its place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=1&

RivenV

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.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

jonnythan

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.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

How are you supposed to know the supplement is harmful when you don't know what's in it or where it comes from?

jwdieter

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.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

Thalidomide was a product marketed to treat morning sickness, that caused birth defects. Your stance is insane.

QuietBloom

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.

I just go out in the sunshine, which is free and unregulated. :-)

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with companies being required to label things accurately so people who want to make informaed choices can.

That doesn't work too well for folks with chronic medical conditions. Some folks, my husband for example, needs vitamin supplements. The Vitamin D prescription example is a true story. My husband also takes a Vitamin B supplement as well. It's cheaper at the Vitamin Shoppe than to fill the prescription his doctor gave him.

Cheaper, but you don't actually know that what is in those supplements is what they say. Because it's not regulated. I'd prefer to go with the prescription, rather than risk my health.

RivenV

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.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

Thalidomide was a product marketed to treat morning sickness, that caused birth defects. Your stance is insane.

Let's talk crazy, then.

There are plenty of foods and chemicals that don't have many (or sometimes any) redeeming qualities. Alcohol has shown to have similar effects, but you're not advocating removing it from the market, just to name one example. Since you're specifically talking about a product that was meant for a pregnant market and it causes severe issues for that market, I would agree that it's probably not the best thing for consumers in that market to purchase. I would argue that it shouldn't need to be taken off the market by a regulatory agency at that point, since they'd already failed. At the point where everyone realized the adverse effects it had, I'm betting the market looking at purchasing it reconsidered their decision. Taking it a step further, with no customers interested in purchasing it, it would swiftly fail in any market.

WendyTerry420

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.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

No, it's nonsensical to control someone else's body. That's a form of slavery.

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.

No they don't! There is no regulation and no testing. The company could be putting anything in that pill and calling it Vitamin D. And how is the consumer to know?


Not Vit. D directly, but the point is the same:

Two bottles labeled as St. John’s wort, which studies have shown may treat mild depression, contained none of the medicinal herb. Instead, the pills in one bottle were made of nothing but rice, and another bottle contained only Alexandrian senna, an Egyptian yellow shrub that is a powerful laxative. Gingko biloba supplements, promoted as memory enhancers, were mixed with fillers and black walnut, a potentially deadly hazard for people with nut allergies.

Of 44 herbal supplements tested, one-third showed outright substitution, meaning there was no trace of the plant advertised on the bottle — only another plant in its place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=1&

That's absurd.


Also, Vitamin D is *not* an herb, and my husband has regular blood and urine tests, so he is quite positive that he is actually taking the vitamins he needs. :laugh:

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.

I just go out in the sunshine, which is free and unregulated. :-)

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with companies being required to label things accurately so people who want to make informaed choices can.

That doesn't work too well for folks with chronic medical conditions. Some folks, my husband for example, needs vitamin supplements. The Vitamin D prescription example is a true story. My husband also takes a Vitamin B supplement as well. It's cheaper at the Vitamin Shoppe than to fill the prescription his doctor gave him.

Cheaper, but you don't actually know that what is in those supplements is what they say. Because it's not regulated. I'd prefer to go with the prescription, rather than risk my health.

See my comment above. Blood and urine analysis proves he is getting what he is supposed to be getting.