A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

kenna44cat

Only in the USA do you have people that vote against universal healthcare and regulation of substances we and our children and elderly regularly ingest. I think it's an attitude that goes back to the cowboys or pioneers or something in the past, and this is the 21st century, too bad for the average American who is struggling anyhow.

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.

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.

I am a long-time activist, so there's no need to quote a link on that topic.

Even in the states where it is "legal" by state law, it is not a "prescription," but a "recommendation." And again, this is about half the country where state law permits it. The rest of the states will prosecute, and it is still a schedule 1 substance under the federal law, in all states.

WendyTerry420

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.

So you are just trying to poke fun at me?

WendyTerry420

Naked sunbathing and never using soap?

Sounds like a fun weekend.

Yes, I can't wait until I get home and update my husband on this thread. He will LOL at this one.

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.

So you are just trying to poke fun at me?

No, I was pointing out to the others in this thread where your irrational, paranoid fear of the government comes from.

richardheath

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.

Another strawman. No one every said that. Your husband apparently has a reputable source for his meds. Good for him. But, given the lack of regulation, there is no guarantee that everyone is so lucky. The links presented clearly show that not everybody is so lucky.

This isn't about you (specific). It's about all the other you's out there too.

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. 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

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.

Another strawman. No one every said that. Your husband apparently has a reputable source for his meds. Good for him. But, given the lack of regulation, there is no guarantee that everyone is so lucky. The links presented clearly show that not everybody is so lucky.

This isn't about you (specific). It's about all the other you's out there too.

If you say so.

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.

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.

Dietary supplements appear to fall under the category of food. There is regulation requiring food products to be labeled correctly.

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.

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

And regulated.

Advocating for increased regulation on supplements is the same as advocating for increasing prices, which would be the net result of regulation.

WendyTerry420

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.

So you are just trying to poke fun at me?

No, I was pointing out to the others in this thread where your irrational, paranoid fear of the government comes from.

I have "fear of the government." And I have no fear of corporations either. I am not the one being irrational and paranoid here.

jonnythan

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

The problem is not fraud. It's safety and efficacy. A supplement manufacturer can market pretty much anything they want and say anything they want about it. They can say it's safe.

They don't need to know it's safe. They don't need to know whether it does what they say it does.

The market doesn't simplys olve everything. That's why the FDA has to ban products sometimes. If businesses were so good at safety, the FDA wouldn't need to ban things. We wouldn't need to mandate minimum car safety requirements. The federal government wouldn't have had to mandate air bags and shoulder belts in cars.

You know about air bags and shoulder belts, right? The car manufacturers dragged their feet and fought kicking and screaming against requiring those things. But the government mandated them and now we have them, and now cars are safer than they used to be. That's how this works.

jonnythan

I have "fear of the government." And I have no fear of corporations

I assume there's at least one typo and one missing one word in there. But still, this is pretty much perfect as is.

Hilarious that your accident ends up being infinitely more accurate than what you meant to say.

WendyTerry420

I have "fear of the government." And I have no fear of corporations

I assume there's at least one typo and one missing one word in there. But still, this is pretty much perfect as is.

Hilarious that your accident ends up being infinitely more accurate than what you meant to say.

Oops. :laugh:

Nice catch!~ (at least I can give you credit for *one* good comment)

3foldchord

It would be nice to have some sort of standard and efficacy for the products. Right now we just rely on the manufacturers doing the right thing.

It would be nice if they were all standardized and reliably efficient, but it'd not be good to have more rules and regulations telling us what to do and can't do.
So we research the companies and look through their research/testing and make our own informed decisions.

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. 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

The problem is not fraud. It's safety and efficacy. A supplement manufacturer can market pretty much anything they want and say anything they want about it. They can say it's safe.

They don't need to know it's safe. They don't need to know whether it does what they say it does.

The market doesn't simplys olve everything. That's why the FDA has to ban products sometimes. If businesses were so good at safety, the FDA wouldn't need to ban things. We wouldn't need to mandate minimum car safety requirements. The federal government wouldn't have had to mandate air bags and shoulder belts in cars.

You know about air bags and shoulder belts, right? The car manufacturers dragged their feet and fought kicking and screaming against requiring those things. But the government mandated them and now we have them, and now cars are safer than they used to be. That's how this works.

Obviously it's safe or people would be dropping like flies.

And nothing solves "everything." But the market is better for consumers than bureaucrats. And "banning" solves nothing. Consumers and producers will find ways to meet each other's needs, even when expressly forbidden.

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.

So what you're saying is that thalidomide should be legal.

I see.

It is, actually. It's just hard to get.

Wow. I left for lunch and this thread just blew up!

Thank you for pointing out that this drug is still legal. While I certainly wouldn't advocate that women who are pregnant or are considering becoming pregnant take it, it has been used (with some success, I might add) to treat Cancer patients as well as people with leprosy.

The more you know!

jonnythan

Obviously it's safe or people would be dropping like flies.

And nothing solves "everything." But the market is better for consumers than bureaucrats. And "banning" solves nothing. Consumers and producers will find ways to meet each other's needs, even when expressly forbidden.

People are dropping like flies. How many people die from supplements? How many people have gotten cancer because of supplements? How many people have developed other disorders? Chronic disorders?

No one knows. There's no way to know. No one is doing any testing of these supplements. People buy them, trusting the label. But they don't know. No one does. No one has the mandate or authority to test the supplements. No one has the authority to go in and inspect the facilities where they're made. No one has the authority to set standards on labeling.

The market isn't doing these things. Half the pills on the shelf at Walmart could be adulterated or made of nothing but sugar. Who knows? No one does. Who has the authority to test them and fine the companies? No one does.

The market is not taking care of these problems. As much as you credit the invisible hand/brand reputation/etc for being the ultimate force for good, it's not taking care of these things.

The supplement industry has had many years to take care of these issues, and the only thing it's gotten is worse. It's time for the government to regulate this industry.

If the prescription drug industry were like the supplement industry.... holy crap.

Carnivor0us

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.

So what you're saying is that thalidomide should be legal.

I see.

It is, actually. It's just hard to get.

Wow. I left for lunch and this thread just blew up!

Thank you for pointing out that this drug is still legal. While I certainly wouldn't advocate that women who are pregnant or are considering becoming pregnant take it, it has been used (with some success, I might add) to treat Cancer patients as well as people with leprosy.

The more you know!

Exactly. I dispensed it to several cancer patients when I worked in pharmacy a few years ago. It's a pain in the *kitten* to get though, even for those folks.

Mr_Knight

You can't stop people from ingesting stupid ****. People will ingest stupid **** KNOWING it may well kill them.

You can make it harder to access stupid **** - but you can't stop it.

Anything we choose to do as a society needs to be consistent with that basic reality.