A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

ldrosophila

Homeopathic factory?

You mean the sugar mill, or the bottled water facility?

They made homepathic tinctures and pills a lot of pure supplements like ginseng, kava kava, um what is the other one that they eat in south africa...most of it got sold to the local wild oats or other health food stores.

My class was pretty cool though in was a phytochemical class and one of our sections was on the regulation (or lack there of) and manufactures of supplements. So we got to take a little field trip, and see the making of supplements in action.

ldrosophila

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/11/vitamins-herbal-dietarysupplementsregulatefda.html

Presented without comment.

I'm thinking we need to more heavily regulate the meal replacement bar industry, amirite?

lol

wheird

I have no problem with the people buying bee jelly covering the cost of bee jelly safety and efficacy studies.

The people buying bee jelly just might. If you're not not one of them, then what business is it of yours? More importantly, as a non bee jelly consumer, what exactly is it you think gives you the right to force the bee jelly consumers to pay higher prices for their products to help get a bee out of your bonnet (pun intended)? The world in general would be a lot better off without busy bodies running around sticking the government's nose into things because they get an itch.

Government is by FAR responsible for more death, pain, misery AND snake oil in the world than a billion supplement companies. Hell, government has caused more death and injury than all diseases combined. Yet we never seem to run out of busy bodies calling for government to "fix" something new.

This...was an interesting rant. It is completely off base and nonsensical, but quite entertaining.

brower47

If something is proven to cause irreparable harm, then get it pulled from the market (like they did with ephedra containing products)

It was the FDA that banned ephedra, against the strong opposition of the companies selling it.

I'm not sure why you would make that comment concerning what you quoted? I don't have a problem with the government (FDA) banning harmful products of this nature since we have the precedent already of making other harmful substances illegal (heroin, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamines, etc.). I don't care if the company strongly opposed it. What I don't want is for the government to decide that it needs to investigate each and every dietary supplement on the market or all of the future products (99% of which are harmless snakeoil) because to do so would be a massive waste of resources.

No one is saying the government should do the investigation.

I said it was a massive waste of resources. I never specified whose resources would be wasted. But no matter what, there would be taxpayer money used if the supplement industry became more heavily regulated. Someone would have to sort through and verify the testing and claims presented by each company. The products won't just magically make it onto the shelves if the company provides enough evidence to show it has beneficial and non harmful effect. When the term 'regulation' is used, it's talking about government oversight unless there's some private regulatory agency that I'm unaware of doing this pro bono.

A lot of the work has already been done. Believe it or not, people in the biomedical sciences take notice of health claims. We test them. Pharma looks at "traditional" medicine to see if they do, in fact, have any efficacy. But why should they do that if they don't have to? They (Pharma) can sell this stuff without having to prove it works. [Read the article in the OP. Many of these supplement companies are already owned by big Pharma companies.]

If someone wants to prove their supplement works, the mechanism is in place.

That's great. I read the OP's link. I'm not sure what your comment had to do with the last comment I made because you didn't address a single one of its points. Let me bold what you didn't address as a response to what you just wrote.

If every supplement that currently is on shelves suddenly needed to get passed through a government agency (assuming FDA) that agency will have to employ X number of people to field the sudden influx of applications submitted immediately and in the future. The more red tape you add to a process, the more the product will cost and the greater drain of government on taxpayers. And for what? Verifying that 99% of the products do little to nothing? I don't want to add millions or billions of dollars to the cost of the government just so I can rest easy knowing that the government has given it's stamp of "this products does nothing" to things like greet bean extract and raspberry keytones. If something is dangerous, spend the money to deal with that, not the tons of non harmful crap.

Edit: can't stop making typos today

ldrosophila

I am in the industry, (I manage a supplement company) and dearly wish there was more regulation. The claims made by some are outrageous. Inspection is skimpy. Supplement facts are not verified. Ingredient point of origin not specified.

Toothpaste and shampoo and cosmetics are more strongly regulated than supplements. Imagine that something used orally is lesser than topical application.

I got the pleasure of touring a local homeopathic factory when I was in college. The mindset of our tour guide was much like yours he wanted to see more regulation in his industry. He is competing with companies that are not as ethical and can out sell him because of the strict regulations they had put onto their own business.

This company took pride in their products they sold. They provided us with some of the clinical studies that they had done using their own money. We got a tour of how they chose the products to make into the tinctures and powders. Something as simple as ginseng the steps involved to procure the right plants, the timing of harvest, the location, and even how they were stored was astounding.

I was very impressed sadly they do not distribute to my area, but yes the ones who adhere to standards want regulation they want to be monitored. It's much like a hospital getting accreditation even though it is a cost they can show to the public that certain standards are met and maintained.

Not to be picky, but ginseng isn't used in homeopathy, to my knowledge.

Are you sure it wasn't just every day herbals they were making?

IDK they called themselves homeopathic they made tinctures and stuff

brower47

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/11/vitamins-herbal-dietarysupplementsregulatefda.html

Presented without comment.

I'm thinking we need to more heavily regulate the meal replacement bar industry, amirite?

^

I think the government needs to spend money investigating the health claims of coconut oil, pomegranate seeds, kale, cauliflower, chia seeds, and every other supposed miracle food fad out there. After all, someone might be duped into thinking those foods are the answer to all their health concerns out there. Can't have the public misinformed with potentially incorrect claims. That's the job of the government, right? To make sure that, despite anyone's ability to do even a tiny amount of personal research, they don't get duped.

The government: Saving people from making their own decisions and choices since (fill in your own date here).

jonnythan

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/11/vitamins-herbal-dietarysupplementsregulatefda.html

Presented without comment.

I'm thinking we need to more heavily regulate the meal replacement bar industry, amirite?

^

I think the government needs to spend money investigating the health claims of coconut oil, pomegranate seeds, kale, cauliflower, chia seeds, and every other supposed miracle food fad out there. After all, someone might be duped into thinking those foods are the answer to all their health concerns out there. Can't have the public misinformed with potentially incorrect claims. That's the job of the government, right? To make sure that, despite anyone's ability to do even a tiny amount of personal research, they don't get duped.

The government: Saving people from making their own decisions and choices since (fill in your own date here).

Those are food, not supplements.

unclehammy

I have no problem with the people buying bee jelly covering the cost of bee jelly safety and efficacy studies.

The people buying bee jelly just might. If you're not not one of them, then what business is it of yours? More importantly, as a non bee jelly consumer, what exactly is it you think gives you the right to force the bee jelly consumers to pay higher prices for their products to help get a bee out of your bonnet (pun intended)? The world in general would be a lot better off without busy bodies running around sticking the government's nose into things because they get an itch.

Government is by FAR responsible for more death, pain, misery AND snake oil in the world than a billion supplement companies. Hell, government has caused more death and injury than all diseases combined. Yet we never seem to run out of busy bodies calling for government to "fix" something new.

Maybe the investigation would show that bee jelly does precisely squat, and the bee jelly buying public can save themselves the cost of regulation and the cost of bee jelly. Just sayin'

Or maybe the bee jelly buying public can figure that out for themselves when there's no evidence that they're benefiting from the jelly. Then they can save themselves the costs of regulation and bee jelly, and society can be spared the (incalculable) of further empowering the government.

jonnythan

I have no problem with the people buying bee jelly covering the cost of bee jelly safety and efficacy studies.

The people buying bee jelly just might. If you're not not one of them, then what business is it of yours? More importantly, as a non bee jelly consumer, what exactly is it you think gives you the right to force the bee jelly consumers to pay higher prices for their products to help get a bee out of your bonnet (pun intended)? The world in general would be a lot better off without busy bodies running around sticking the government's nose into things because they get an itch.

Government is by FAR responsible for more death, pain, misery AND snake oil in the world than a billion supplement companies. Hell, government has caused more death and injury than all diseases combined. Yet we never seem to run out of busy bodies calling for government to "fix" something new.

Maybe the investigation would show that bee jelly does precisely squat, and the bee jelly buying public can save themselves the cost of regulation and the cost of bee jelly. Just sayin'

Or maybe the bee jelly buying public can figure that out for themselves when there's no evidence that they're benefiting from the jelly. Then they can save themselves the costs of regulation and bee jelly, and society can be spared the (incalculable) of further empowering the government.

Turns out the public is extraordinarily bad at separating marketing claims from scientific fact

toddis

It seems to me when an industry is fearful of being regulated they come up with self-regulation. Supplements have testing agencies that they hire to state that their product is true to the label. This, one would assume, would increase the cost the consumer pays for the product. I'm not sure how one could verify the veracity of the claims of the testing agencies though...

I believe you can use other countries food/supplement issues as an example of what happens in an unregulated/overregulated environment.

unclehammy

I have no problem with the people buying bee jelly covering the cost of bee jelly safety and efficacy studies.

The people buying bee jelly just might. If you're not not one of them, then what business is it of yours? More importantly, as a non bee jelly consumer, what exactly is it you think gives you the right to force the bee jelly consumers to pay higher prices for their products to help get a bee out of your bonnet (pun intended)? The world in general would be a lot better off without busy bodies running around sticking the government's nose into things because they get an itch.

Government is by FAR responsible for more death, pain, misery AND snake oil in the world than a billion supplement companies. Hell, government has caused more death and injury than all diseases combined. Yet we never seem to run out of busy bodies calling for government to "fix" something new.

Maybe the investigation would show that bee jelly does precisely squat, and the bee jelly buying public can save themselves the cost of regulation and the cost of bee jelly. Just sayin'

Or maybe the bee jelly buying public can figure that out for themselves when there's no evidence that they're benefiting from the jelly. Then they can save themselves the costs of regulation and bee jelly, and society can be spared the (incalculable) of further empowering the government.

Turns out the public is extraordinarily bad at separating marketing claims from scientific fact

That's their problem, not yours or the government's.

brower47

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/11/vitamins-herbal-dietarysupplementsregulatefda.html

Presented without comment.

I'm thinking we need to more heavily regulate the meal replacement bar industry, amirite?

^

I think the government needs to spend money investigating the health claims of coconut oil, pomegranate seeds, kale, cauliflower, chia seeds, and every other supposed miracle food fad out there. After all, someone might be duped into thinking those foods are the answer to all their health concerns out there. Can't have the public misinformed with potentially incorrect claims. That's the job of the government, right? To make sure that, despite anyone's ability to do even a tiny amount of personal research, they don't get duped.

The government: Saving people from making their own decisions and choices since (fill in your own date here).

Those are food, not supplements.

Satire.

jonnythan

I have no problem with the people buying bee jelly covering the cost of bee jelly safety and efficacy studies.

The people buying bee jelly just might. If you're not not one of them, then what business is it of yours? More importantly, as a non bee jelly consumer, what exactly is it you think gives you the right to force the bee jelly consumers to pay higher prices for their products to help get a bee out of your bonnet (pun intended)? The world in general would be a lot better off without busy bodies running around sticking the government's nose into things because they get an itch.

Government is by FAR responsible for more death, pain, misery AND snake oil in the world than a billion supplement companies. Hell, government has caused more death and injury than all diseases combined. Yet we never seem to run out of busy bodies calling for government to "fix" something new.

Maybe the investigation would show that bee jelly does precisely squat, and the bee jelly buying public can save themselves the cost of regulation and the cost of bee jelly. Just sayin'

Or maybe the bee jelly buying public can figure that out for themselves when there's no evidence that they're benefiting from the jelly. Then they can save themselves the costs of regulation and bee jelly, and society can be spared the (incalculable) of further empowering the government.

Turns out the public is extraordinarily bad at separating marketing claims from scientific fact

That's their problem, not yours or the government's.

It's OUR problem. Pretending we all live in an isolated environment where the actions of people around us only affect them is foolish.

unclehammy

I have no problem with the people buying bee jelly covering the cost of bee jelly safety and efficacy studies.

The people buying bee jelly just might. If you're not not one of them, then what business is it of yours? More importantly, as a non bee jelly consumer, what exactly is it you think gives you the right to force the bee jelly consumers to pay higher prices for their products to help get a bee out of your bonnet (pun intended)? The world in general would be a lot better off without busy bodies running around sticking the government's nose into things because they get an itch.

Government is by FAR responsible for more death, pain, misery AND snake oil in the world than a billion supplement companies. Hell, government has caused more death and injury than all diseases combined. Yet we never seem to run out of busy bodies calling for government to "fix" something new.

Maybe the investigation would show that bee jelly does precisely squat, and the bee jelly buying public can save themselves the cost of regulation and the cost of bee jelly. Just sayin'

Or maybe the bee jelly buying public can figure that out for themselves when there's no evidence that they're benefiting from the jelly. Then they can save themselves the costs of regulation and bee jelly, and society can be spared the (incalculable) of further empowering the government.

Turns out the public is extraordinarily bad at separating marketing claims from scientific fact

That's their problem, not yours or the government's.

It's OUR problem. Pretending we all live in an isolated environment where the actions of people around us only affect them is foolish.

Pretending you know how someone else should live their life or spend their money better than they do is just arrogant.

jonnythan

That's their problem, not yours or the government's.

It's OUR problem. Pretending we all live in an isolated environment where the actions of people around us only affect them is foolish.

Pretending you know how someone else should live their life or spend their money better than they do is just arrogant.

This is about limiting how much corporations can prey on people who lack the scientific literacy and research capability to personally investigate supplements.

wheird

That's their problem, not yours or the government's.

It's OUR problem. Pretending we all live in an isolated environment where the actions of people around us only affect them is foolish.

Pretending you know how someone else should live their life or spend their money better than they do is just arrogant.

This is about limiting how much corporations can prey on people who lack the scientific literacy and research capability to personally investigate supplements.

And also it is a system currently in place being applied to a heavily abused industry.

primal_cupcakes

There are a number of reputable third-party testing agencies that evaluate supplements for safety and potency. Supplements that have been verified by a reputable third-party testing agency are more expensive than unverified supplements but if you are willing to spend money on a supp in the first place, you should take the time and pick a good brand that has undergone testing and verification.

dbmata

My toe itches, can I get the nanny.gov to scratch it for me?

rml_16

It is kind of funny, considering that I am a staunch Libertarian, but I do believe in the necessity of regulating medicines, supplements, and food. Testing whether a product is safe, contains what it says it does, and is not contaminated are not things that an average citizen can do through due diligence. Without these regulations, and if no independent lab has verified has tested them and publishec their results, they are at the mercy of the manufacturer.

This. Exactly all of this.

You are speaking for me today (or ysterday, I suppose).

rml_16

Honestly, why do people *WANT* a nanny to tell them how to live their life? Are you admitting to being a dummy or just lazy or what?

I am not in favor of overregulation.

I am, however, in favor of some entity ensuring the things we ingest are safe to ingest.

I am in favor of freedom and responsibility for your own body, your own health, your own choices.

So if you have a peanut allergy and there isn't a law that a manufacturer has to say there might be peanuts in something and they don't and there is and you eat it, you didn't take responsibility for that?

That's my point. Manufacturers are not always honest about these things unless they HAVE to be. Am I supposed to run scientific experiments on my own food to make sure it is what someone claims it is? I don't really have the ability to do that. Most people don't. And even if I knew HOW, I wouldn't have access or means to acquire the correct equipment to do so.

A little regulation is perfectly fine with me when it comes to actual safety.

I don't take any supplements, but I don't think just because someone is dumb enough to buy into this kind of thing that person deserves to get ill or die on top of being fleeced monetarily.

Carnivor0us

Honestly, why do people *WANT* a nanny to tell them how to live their life? Are you admitting to being a dummy or just lazy or what?

I am not in favor of overregulation.

I am, however, in favor of some entity ensuring the things we ingest are safe to ingest.

I am in favor of freedom and responsibility for your own body, your own health, your own choices.

So if you have a peanut allergy and there isn't a law that a manufacturer has to say there might be peanuts in something and they don't and there is and you eat it, you didn't take responsibility for that?

That's my point. Manufacturers are not always honest about these things unless they HAVE to be. Am I supposed to run scientific experiments on my own food to make sure it is what someone claims it is? I don't really have the ability to do that. Most people don't. And even if I knew HOW, I wouldn't have access or means to acquire the correct equipment to do so.

A little regulation is perfectly fine with me when it comes to actual safety.

I don't take any supplements, but I don't think just because someone is dumb enough to buy into this kind of thing that person deserves to get ill or die on top of being fleeced monetarily.

Companies put warning labels on things because they don't want to get taken to court, which is why they'd be smart to properly label allergens even if that wasn't a legal requirement.

rml_16

Honestly, why do people *WANT* a nanny to tell them how to live their life? Are you admitting to being a dummy or just lazy or what?

I am not in favor of overregulation.

I am, however, in favor of some entity ensuring the things we ingest are safe to ingest.

I am in favor of freedom and responsibility for your own body, your own health, your own choices.

So if you have a peanut allergy and there isn't a law that a manufacturer has to say there might be peanuts in something and they don't and there is and you eat it, you didn't take responsibility for that?

That's my point. Manufacturers are not always honest about these things unless they HAVE to be. Am I supposed to run scientific experiments on my own food to make sure it is what someone claims it is? I don't really have the ability to do that. Most people don't. And even if I knew HOW, I wouldn't have access or means to acquire the correct equipment to do so.

A little regulation is perfectly fine with me when it comes to actual safety.

I don't take any supplements, but I don't think just because someone is dumb enough to buy into this kind of thing that person deserves to get ill or die on top of being fleeced monetarily.

Companies put warning labels on things because they don't want to get taken to court, which is why they'd be smart to properly label allergens even if that wasn't a legal requirement.

True. But they don't. Especially the supplement industry because they so often lie about what's in the supplements in order to sell them to stupid people.

jonnythan

Honestly, why do people *WANT* a nanny to tell them how to live their life? Are you admitting to being a dummy or just lazy or what?

I am not in favor of overregulation.

I am, however, in favor of some entity ensuring the things we ingest are safe to ingest.

I am in favor of freedom and responsibility for your own body, your own health, your own choices.

So if you have a peanut allergy and there isn't a law that a manufacturer has to say there might be peanuts in something and they don't and there is and you eat it, you didn't take responsibility for that?

That's my point. Manufacturers are not always honest about these things unless they HAVE to be. Am I supposed to run scientific experiments on my own food to make sure it is what someone claims it is? I don't really have the ability to do that. Most people don't. And even if I knew HOW, I wouldn't have access or means to acquire the correct equipment to do so.

A little regulation is perfectly fine with me when it comes to actual safety.

I don't take any supplements, but I don't think just because someone is dumb enough to buy into this kind of thing that person deserves to get ill or die on top of being fleeced monetarily.

Companies put warning labels on things because they don't want to get taken to court, which is why they'd be smart to properly label allergens even if that wasn't a legal requirement.

A lot of those warning labels are actually mandated by the government, just like nutrition labels and ingredient labels.

Manufacturers aren't in the habit of putting ingredient and nutritional information unless mandated by law.

Rynatat

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

stumblinthrulife

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state, do we really need someone regulating more & more of what can, can't, will, won't be done?

We're all able to make our own judgement calls. If someone chooses to try something, let them. The world has been this way since the dawn of time: everyone can make their own choice based on what is provided. We CAN say yes or no, depending on what we want and/or need.

Nature provides and Technology has just taken it to the next level of chemical nature. If one chooses to go the chemical way, let them: it's their choice. I personally, stick to what nature intended as natural - avoiding artificiality that I feel may harm me in any way. Someone else may prefer chemicals to aid them. So be it.

Do you actually know what a police state is?

jonnythan

Couldnt read it all but my 2-cents..

We already live in a police state,

Stopped reading.

QuietBloom

So I take it you chew willow bark (which contains the chemical salycilic acid) when you get a head ache? Or perhaps smoke a poppy to obtain the chemical morphine?

ETA: This was in response to the poster who said he/she chooses to go natural when needing chemical assistance as apposed to, um.... chemicals.

rml_16

So I take it you chew willow bark (which contains the chemical salycilic acid) when you get a head ache? Or perhaps smoke a poppy to obtain the chemical morphine?

I kinda prefer Exedrin, Aleve or in extreme cases, Maxalt.

And Maxalt, BTW, stopped my mother's days-long, debilitating migraines and allowed her to have a life again. (I know you were being sarcastic, QB. That was directed at the other person.)

ryry_

Not sure if Jonnythan is getting trolled or people are serious

Rynatat

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.