A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

jonnythan

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

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:

Logic isn't your strong point is it?

So now the lab that he visits is full of liars and frauds? Is that your stance? Everyone lies, except bureaucrats?

Your posts are generally a bunch of emotional knee-jerk reactions that have very little do with the content of the posts that you are responding to. Hence my observation.

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

stumblinthrulife

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Actually, you can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That's the incredible thing about this amazing nation in which you live.

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

stumblinthrulife

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

jonnythan

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Ahh now we get to the bottom of your anger at the government.

richardheath

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Serious question here, and I'm not a lawyer or anything, but is this true?

There are laws regulating fodds, and there are laws regulating medicines. But supplements are not regulated as food OR as medicine - they have carefully positioned themselves in a no-mans land. So would you be able to sue them? What law would they have broken if there are no laws regulating their sale?

Alternatively - look at the Ford Pinto. Ford decided, from a risk benefit analysis, that they would be better off not fixing the fuel tank and pay the law suits rather than have a recall. How do you know some of the Supplement companies aren't doing the same? It is in their shareholder's interest to maximize profits, after all.

tigersword

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:

Logic isn't your strong point is it?

So now the lab that he visits is full of liars and frauds? Is that your stance? Everyone lies, except bureaucrats?

Your posts are generally a bunch of emotional knee-jerk reactions that have very little do with the content of the posts that you are responding to. Hence my observation.

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

Who ensures the laboratory is "real?" Where does that physician get his "license" from?

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Actually, you can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That's the incredible thing about this amazing nation in which you live.

You may want to research that a bit further.

tigersword

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Your suit would go nowhere, because without any safety regulation, there would be no evidence that the cancer/death was caused by the supplement, hence, no law suit would stand.

But wait, doesn't a law suit rely on using the court system? But you can't trust the government!

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:

Logic isn't your strong point is it?

So now the lab that he visits is full of liars and frauds? Is that your stance? Everyone lies, except bureaucrats?

Your posts are generally a bunch of emotional knee-jerk reactions that have very little do with the content of the posts that you are responding to. Hence my observation.

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

Who ensures the laboratory is "real?" Where does that physician get his "license" from?

I only provided those details for the ones who are in love with government control.

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Your suit would go nowhere, because without any safety regulation, there would be no evidence that the cancer/death was caused by the supplement, hence, no law suit would stand.

Interesting comment....I guess you don't keep up on such things. *shrugs*

rml_16

My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness.

Out of curiosity, does Crohn's disease prevent the body from converting sunlight into vitamin D?

Even the strongest supplement won't give you the amount of vitamin D 10 minutes in the sun without sunscreen does and the D from the sun is more easily used by the body in most cases.

I don't know a lot about Crohn's, though, so I guess if it interferes with that process, it would make sense to take supplements.

tigersword

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:

Logic isn't your strong point is it?

So now the lab that he visits is full of liars and frauds? Is that your stance? Everyone lies, except bureaucrats?

Your posts are generally a bunch of emotional knee-jerk reactions that have very little do with the content of the posts that you are responding to. Hence my observation.

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

Who ensures the laboratory is "real?" Where does that physician get his "license" from?

I only provided those details for the ones who are in love with government control.

Exactly the point, the GOVERNMENT regulates both laboratories, and physician licenses.

WendyTerry420

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

Not intended to be a retort. I just thought that was hilarious to believe that they are selling chalk pills.

jonnythan

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

Not intended to be a retort. I just thought that was hilarious to believe that they are selling chalk pills.

Yeah, no company would ever lie about what they're selling.

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Your suit would go nowhere, because without any safety regulation, there would be no evidence that the cancer/death was caused by the supplement, hence, no law suit would stand.

But wait, doesn't a law suit rely on using the court system? But you can't trust the government!

I should clarify:

I think courts are the appropriate tool here. There is a big difference between a judge and jury hearing facts and a bureaucracy spun out of control, drunk on power. The purpose of court is supposed to be justice. The purpose of regulatory agencies is control.

jwdieter

I only provided those details for the ones who are in love with government control.

The problem is that every aspect of your knowledge and security relies on a government guarantee. Any legal recourse. Any information technology. Your ability to get to a doctor. The doctor's degree. Everything. It's all part of the social compact that is western civilization.

WendyTerry420

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

Not intended to be a retort. I just thought that was hilarious to believe that they are selling chalk pills.

Yeah, no company would ever lie about what they're selling.

\

Not for long.

stumblinthrulife

Knee-jerk reaction? My husband has Crohn's disease. If he does not take certain vitamins as supplements, it will exacerbate his illness. He has his blood and urine examined every three months by a *real* laboratory, recommended by his *licensed* physician and paid for through Humana, to ensure that he is maintaining his health. This is truth, but believe what you will. (I'm not a politician so I must be lying. *eye roll*) If the companies that put these out were defrauding him, it would be evident in his test results. And at that time, we would file suit against the company for fraud.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

Not intended to be a retort. I just thought that was hilarious to believe that they are selling chalk pills.

A company has been shown to be selling rice pills labeled 'St. John's Wort'.

So why such a stretch to think that they might do the same with Vitamin D? Or anything else?