A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

mammamaurer

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

but they also have to state both in the add and on the bottle er whatever that "theese statment have not been evaluated by fda" ... you got to look for it but its there

Carnivor0us

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

In that case, people need to use the most powerful educational tool to ever exist in the history of mankind - that's likely on their cell phone - and do a little research on those claims before blindly buying it.

jonnythan

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

Or just things like "Immune support" or "For mood" or "digestive health" or whatever. They list a medical condition/concern without saying "this product cures it." But it's clearly implied, and people believe it.

Carnivor0us

oh god i just took a supplement, i think i'm going to die now

Can I have your stuff?

Considering how unregulated the supplement market is, you will likely get a lot of stuff.

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.

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

They don't classify as food. If they did, they would already be regulated as food by the FDA, and this discussion wouldn't be necessary.

stumblinthrulife

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

Yep, that's exactly what I used to do. The words "was thought to [insert claim] by [insert indigenous people of some far off country]...." and "may help with symptoms of...." are your friends when you work in the supplement industry. Just never claim anything directly.

jonnythan

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

In that case, people need to use the most powerful educational tool to ever exist in the history of mankind - that's likely on their cell phone - and do a little research on those claims before blindly buying it.

"Research" is an incredibly difficult thing, when marketers are allowed to say almost anything they want about a product.

The industry is full of "experts" linking to "research" and saying this and that. It's pretty much impossible for a layperson to sort through the noise and separate fact from marketing claims.

wheird

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

In that case, people need to use the most powerful educational tool to ever exist in the history of mankind - that's likely on their cell phone - and do a little research on those claims before blindly buying it.

You and I know to do this, but elderly people (who I suspect are the largest sales demographic), do not.

Carnivor0us

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

In that case, people need to use the most powerful educational tool to ever exist in the history of mankind - that's likely on their cell phone - and do a little research on those claims before blindly buying it.

"Research" is an incredibly difficult thing, when marketers are allowed to say almost anything they want about a product.

The industry is full of "experts" linking to "research" and saying this and that. It's pretty much impossible for a layperson to sort through the noise and separate fact from marketing claims.

Well, that's a positive attitude.

RivenV

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

To be fair, they are using the word "may." I could make a really long parallel to Magic the Gathering, and how the words on the cards have to be scrutinized closely since the difference between "may" and "must" can often influence who ultimately takes the day. ... But some cards are as hotly debated as vaccines--even though time has proven the troof.

Rage_Phish

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&

glad someone called out that terrible claim about vitamin D.

RivenV

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

In that case, people need to use the most powerful educational tool to ever exist in the history of mankind - that's likely on their cell phone - and do a little research on those claims before blindly buying it.

"Research" is an incredibly difficult thing, when marketers are allowed to say almost anything they want about a product.

The industry is full of "experts" linking to "research" and saying this and that. It's pretty much impossible for a layperson to sort through the noise and separate fact from marketing claims.

So... What separates you and your research from other people? Are they less capable than you've been? Perhaps they're incapable of using some common sense?

jonnythan

The bottom line is that the market is NOT taking care of these things. The market has largely NOT taken care of purity, content, efficacy, and safety. The market has NOT taken care of scientifically establishing efficacy. The market has NOT taken care of scientifically establishing side effects. The market has NOT taken care of misleading labeling.

These things are - right now - actual problems. People are spending billions of dollars a year on unregulated supplements being marketed to them for essentially specious purposes. The market has not fixed this.

Rage_Phish

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?

lol, nail on head

RivenV

Obviously GIFs are more important than content. With that, have a nice day!

Hey...

You, too! Never mind that my posts had actual words that meant things in them also. I included a picture, so obviously it was all nonsense.

QuietBloom

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.

Um...actually isn't paranoia a well known side effect of 'ahem' medical marijuana use?

That's why I stay away from the medical stuff.

ETA: Obviously sarc. ... Or is it?

By all means, don't make Johnnythan wonder about you, or he might start applying stereotypes and initiating personal attacks, then feign indigence when the gifs come out. (like he never posted any)

I hate when people pretend to be poor too. Especially when the gifs come out.

ROTFL

You win the internet.

jonnythan

I am not saying that a company shouldnt be able to sell whatever herb/supplement they wish. Just that laws and regulations be in place that:

-Ensure they are not making false claims (Like Extenz, the male enhancement supplement, NOT ONE DAMN INCH!!!)
-Ensure that they contain exactly what they claim.
-Ensure a minimum purity standard.

This is pretty damn basic.

I know right?

I agree that the label ought to be consistent with what is actually in the product; I think the purity standard you speak of rolls into the previous statement. As far as I know, there already are some regulations regarding what these companies can and cannot claim (i.e. they cannot claim to cure, treat, or prevent illnesses).

They largely get around that sort of thing by alluding to it helping with something. "Ancient Chinese herbalists used x to treat y." or "X may be useful in preventing Y."

In that case, people need to use the most powerful educational tool to ever exist in the history of mankind - that's likely on their cell phone - and do a little research on those claims before blindly buying it.

"Research" is an incredibly difficult thing, when marketers are allowed to say almost anything they want about a product.

The industry is full of "experts" linking to "research" and saying this and that. It's pretty much impossible for a layperson to sort through the noise and separate fact from marketing claims.

So... What separates you and your research from other people? Are they less capable than you've been? Perhaps they're incapable of using some common sense?

I'm rather highly educated. I have college-level education in multiple disciplines of science and research. I have a degree in a hard science (biology). I have professional experience with actual live clinical research. I am a graduate student in public health. I am, forgive me for my arrogance, rather more intelligent than the vast majority of Americans.

I have a rather higher ability to sort out "science" from "marketing" than most people, yes.

Carnivor0us

The bottom line is that the market is NOT taking care of these things. The market has largely NOT taken care of purity, content, efficacy, and safety. The market has NOT taken care of scientifically establishing efficacy. The market has NOT taken care of scientifically establishing side effects. The market has NOT taken care of misleading labeling.

These things are - right now - actual problems. People are spending billions of dollars a year on unregulated supplements being marketed to them for essentially specious purposes. The market has not fixed this.

I wouldn't either if people are happy to spend billions on my crap.

Rage_Phish

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?

Lol, the more i read, the more terrible arguments i see from wendy