A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

WendyTerry420

Needs to be repeated:

People in this thread claim to care about the well-being of others, but show they don't give two $hits about the chronically ill.

QuietBloom

Why can't your husband get a prescription for medical marijuana?

10 minutes rotating for exposure to all 4 sides will net him ~10,000 IU vitamin D3. And allowing it to remain on the skin for 48 hours without soaping. FYI.

Carnivor0us

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Maybe should check out the link on the first post?

Too lazy. Sorry.

WendyTerry420

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Maybe should check out the link on the first post?

You are having trouble following Carnivor0us's logic? That's happening a lot in this thread.

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.

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.

See? There you go again. A gigantic knee jerk reaction to something I never said, implied or even thought privately to myself.

Then what was your point?

"
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."

tigersword

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.

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Technically, it's not illegal, as there is no regulation preventing it. False advertising doesn't include labeling.

WendyTerry420

Why can't your husband get a prescription for medical marijuana?

Because there is no such thing.

10 minutes rotating for exposure to all 4 sides will net him ~10,000 IU vitamin D3. And allowing it to remain on the skin for 48 hours without soaping. FYI.

I'm not sure why this sounds like a better solution than a pill. Naked sunbathing and never using soap? If he didn't put soap on his skin, he would be awfully smelly, not a good quality of life there.

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.

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.

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Technically, it's not illegal, as there is no regulation preventing it.

Fraud is illegal. It always has been.

WendyTerry420

Then what was your point?

"
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."

Those companies ought to be boycotted/sued.

jwdieter

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Maybe should check out the link on the first post?

You are having trouble following Carnivor0us's logic? That's happening a lot in this thread.

... he didn't read the OP, and simply doesn't understand the subject matter of the thread. There's no logic to "follow".

Carnivor0us

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.

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Technically, it's not illegal, as there is no regulation preventing it.

That makes no sense. Regulation doesn't prevent companies from disobeying the law, enforcement of the law or said regulation does. Since it is illegal to mislabel a product, ANY product, then there is some oversight. (Not much, but something).

Carnivor0us

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Maybe should check out the link on the first post?

You are having trouble following Carnivor0us's logic? That's happening a lot in this thread.

... he didn't read the OP, and simply doesn't understand the subject matter of the thread. There's no logic to "follow".

I was addressing the specific post I quoted, not the OP directly.

jwdieter

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Maybe should check out the link on the first post?

You are having trouble following Carnivor0us's logic? That's happening a lot in this thread.

... he didn't read the OP, and simply doesn't understand the subject matter of the thread. There's no logic to "follow".

I was addressing the specific post I quoted, not the OP directly.

Fair enough. Check out the OP though - it's pretty interesting and provides context. I'd recommend it over the back and forth here

Carnivor0us

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Maybe should check out the link on the first post?

You are having trouble following Carnivor0us's logic? That's happening a lot in this thread.

... he didn't read the OP, and simply doesn't understand the subject matter of the thread. There's no logic to "follow".

Supplement companies mislabeling their products is illegal, and you would have recourse if they did that to you. I don't need to read the OP for that logic to stand.

Edit: But I'll check it out anyway.

QuietBloom

Why can't your husband get a prescription for medical marijuana?

Because there is no such thing.

10 minutes rotating for exposure to all 4 sides will net him ~10,000 IU vitamin D3. And allowing it to remain on the skin for 48 hours without soaping. FYI.

I'm not sure why this sounds like a better solution than a pill. Naked sunbathing and never using soap? If he didn't put soap on his skin, he would be awfully smelly, not a good quality of life there.

http://medicalmarijuana.com/medical-marijuana-laws

You don't have to use soap except in the obvious areas, to have clean skin.

I thought you might be happy to have a natural alternative that wouldn't require your husband taking a pill he may or may not be able absorb.

Carnivor0us

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.

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Technically, it's not illegal, as there is no regulation preventing it. False advertising doesn't include labeling.

Mislabeling is mislabeling. That is not false advertising, that's different.

jonnythan

Needs to be repeated:

People in this thread claim to care about the well-being of others, but show they don't give two $hits about the chronically ill.

Not sure how you figure that. Cannabis should be legal.

And regulated.

Carnivor0us

Naked sunbathing and never using soap?

Sounds like a fun weekend.

jonnythan

I have no chronic illness.

Cute.

Why is that "cute?"

It's cute because I obviously meant "your use" in contrast to "his use" from your post and you're doing everything you can to keep from either admitting you smoke or lying about it.

You're so obviously a pot smoker, despite not having any chronic illness.

tigersword

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.

Since your second example is already illegal (labeling something as A when it's really what is being argued here?

Technically, it's not illegal, as there is no regulation preventing it. False advertising doesn't include labeling.

Mislabeling is mislabeling. That is not false advertising, that's different.

There's no regulation requiring supplement labels to be accurate, therefore, they cannot be mislabeled. That's the entire point of the article. As it stands now, it would be considered false advertising, but false advertising specifically excludes labels. This is why supplement companies are getting away with these practices, otherwise they would have been shut down, fined, and people probably jailed after this independent testing was done.