A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

wheird

Thanks for the suggestion. But I'll stick with what I've already researched.

I believe you missed my point.

jwdieter

Thanks for the suggestion. But I'll stick with what I've already researched.

Seems like you've researched some talking points? There's a huge functional problem with what you're suggesting.

Who pays the private company to take over the FDA? The corporations that produce the drugs (direct conflict of interest) or taxpayers (oh hi back to step 1)?

FerretBuellerr

Bumping to read more later.

Very interesting discussion going here.

ReadynWillin

Thanks for the suggestion. But I'll stick with what I've already researched.

I believe you missed my point.

There are some fine models of would-be independent FDA-esque organizations. I'd link if I had the time and I thought linking would do any good. Since neither of those conditions are met, I decided to bow out with that comment. No offense or anything. :flowerforyou:

brower47

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

Presented without comment.

Firstly, that's my first time visiting the Al Jazeera America website.

Secondly, if people want to throw their money at supplements that have no record of doing anything, let them. I consider it an idiot tax. If they aren't willing to do a bit of research but are willing to buy into snake oil, let them. If they turn out to be harmful, I'll consider it a Darwinian tax and hope that the human race get a little smarter as far as the genetic pool is concerned.

jonnythan

Thanks for the suggestion. But I'll stick with what I've already researched.

I believe you missed my point.

There are some fine models of would-be independent FDA-esque organizations. I'd link if I had the time and I thought linking would do any good. Since neither of those conditions are met, I decided to bow out with that comment. No offense or anything. :flowerforyou:

Who would this organization be accountable to? What independent entity or person or agency would be able to inspect their finances and employees? How does involving a profit motive in a regulatory body, whose profits will presumably come from the very companies they're regulating, improve things?

Such an entity would have every reason in the world to make the regulated companies happy. Unless you're proposing that their profits come from the populace? How would that work?

jonnythan

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

Presented without comment.

Firstly, that's my first time visiting the Al Jazeera America website.

Secondly, if people want to throw their money at supplements that have no record of doing anything, let them. I consider it an idiot tax. If they aren't willing to do a bit of research but are willing to buy into snake oil, let them. If they turn out to be harmful, I'll consider it a Darwinian tax and hope that the human race get a little smarter as far as the genetic pool is concerned.

What about when it's your mother drinking tons of colloidal silver because someone convinced her it's great for her health, and she won't listen to you? What about when it's your daughter buying 5-Hour Energy (Now With Crystal Meth!) at the convenience store because the company says it's great?

It's all well and good to just write off "idiots" and let them die/hurt themselves/end up in the hospital, but it's more difficult to write these people off when it happens to people we love.

wheird

Thanks for the suggestion. But I'll stick with what I've already researched.

Seems like you've researched some talking points? There's a huge functional problem with what you're suggesting.

Who pays the private company to take over the FDA? The corporations that produce the drugs (direct conflict of interest) or taxpayers (oh hi back to step 1)?

If I am not mistaken, don't the drug companies already fund a large part of the FDA?

And to those saying "who watches the watchmen", there are both governmental and non-governmental agenciez that give the FDA oversight.

ldrosophila

What about when it's your mother drinking tons of colloidal silver because someone convinced her it's great for her health, and she won't listen to you?

Bwahahahahahaha I'd have a smurf for a Mom, and now that I think about it that's pretty awesome.

jonnythan

Thanks for the suggestion. But I'll stick with what I've already researched.

Seems like you've researched some talking points? There's a huge functional problem with what you're suggesting.

Who pays the private company to take over the FDA? The corporations that produce the drugs (direct conflict of interest) or taxpayers (oh hi back to step 1)?

If I am not mistaken, don't the drug companies already fund a large part of the FDA?

And to those saying "who watches the watchmen", there are both governmental and non-governmental agenciez that give the FDA oversight.

Such companies are called "users" (which is kinda funny) and they pay fees. They are required to pay these fees. They have to pay them whether they like the FDA or not, whether they want the FDA or not. The FDA collects those fees whether they approve drugs or not.

wheird

Key words in bold. Look at it this way: The only income of the FDA is government money. As such, they have to go with the government's agendas. They haven't got the alternative source of income that a private organization does.

This is the statement I was suggesting that you check your premises on and look at root causes.

The FDA is partially funded by the industries it oversees. I believe roughly a third of their budget.

In reference to them going with the governments agendas: Dig a little deeper. What are the governments agendas and how are they set? Lobbyists from those companies that the FDA oversees exert a good bit of infuence over government agenda. Why are those lobbyists there? To curry political favor in order to increase their company's profit.

wheird

Thanks for the suggestion. But I'll stick with what I've already researched.

Seems like you've researched some talking points? There's a huge functional problem with what you're suggesting.

Who pays the private company to take over the FDA? The corporations that produce the drugs (direct conflict of interest) or taxpayers (oh hi back to step 1)?

If I am not mistaken, don't the drug companies already fund a large part of the FDA?

And to those saying "who watches the watchmen", there are both governmental and non-governmental agenciez that give the FDA oversight.

Such companies are called "users" (which is kinda funny) and they pay fees. They are required to pay these fees. They have to pay them whether they like the FDA or not, whether they want the FDA or not. The FDA collects those fees whether they approve drugs or not.

That is what I thought. They have to pay for the FDA to go through its approval process.

stumblinthrulife

Has no one suggested an independent company for the testing and investigation of supplement products before release to the general public?

A private, for-profit organization is far less likely to give in to those ever-enticing government bribes--I mean, subsidies.

Big government is getting bigger. It's first concern is power and gaining more power, not consumer safety. Politicians' care only about popular public opinion as it affects their place in office. Sad, but true. If possible, it'd be great if the FDA could be replaced with by a private sector counterpart who actually does their own homework, lab studies and all. At least then consumers could get their money's worth out of the products passed.

Edit: darn typos

Think about this for a while longer.

If it hasn't clicked, perhaps a slight rewrite will help.

"A private organization motivated solely by money is far less likely to accept offers of money to pass a product."

How much sense does that statement make now?

For-profit companies wouldn't dare do anything bad because their reputations are everything.

Oh yes, I forgot, there are no for-profit companies still doing business with bad-reputations. Silly me.

richardheath

So basically you're saying that you, and most other Americans need a babysitter?

Rigger

So what is the purpose of the Navy. if not to "babysit" the civilian population and keep us safe from harm?

The FDA does the same, only for food and drugs.



eta typo

Clearly you're ignorant about both.

Rigger

I'll see your empty statement and raise you a "nope". Your turn.

Or you could, you know, actually answer the question...

Okay, the FDA does not keep people safe, what it does do is raise the cost of consumer products, enhance revenue to the government and basically stands in the way of the free market. It also provides a crutch that Americans lean on so they don't have to do their due diligence.

I think you have an ideological misunderstanding of what it is that the FDA does.

They ensure that drugs that reach the market have demonstrated a certain level of efficacy and safety in clinical trials. i.e. that these drugs work and don't kill us. If it isn't safe (or doesn't work) then the FDA don't allow it to be sold. They also monitor the drugs after release so that side effects can be better established. However safe a drug appears to be in trials, there is always the possibility that the sample size was too small to detect some side effects. So, constant monitoring allows the FDA to pull drugs that fail to live up to the promise. This is keeping us, the consumer, safe.

Supplements are not tested for safety OR efficacy and are not regulated by the FDA or anyone.

The New York Times report shows that MANY supplements are contaminated or worse. That is what you get when there is no oversight or regulation. All the people posting here who say we don't need regulation - do you want that type of situation in your regular drug supply? Do you want an antibiotic that doesn't contain any actual antibiotic? Because, you know, those things are expensive, and if the company, driven purely by profit could get away with it, they'd reduce the amount of drug at the expense of the cheap fillers. And, without monitoring, how would you know that 100s or 1,000s of people were dying from these pills?

It isn't a "crutch" in any way - you can't run clinical trials yourself, or monitor every drug for interactions with other drugs or do any of the other things the FDA does by yourself. To suggest it is a crutch is to show a profound lack of understanding of how drugs work and need to be tested.

So yes, the FDA protects people.

The navy's stated purpose is the defense of the nation, and of it's shipping avenues. What it actually does is force projection, humanitarian aid, and a slew of other things that it shouldn't and are of no benefit to the American people.

Right - they defend the nation. i.e the people.

So basically, they are both a waste of taxpayer money and of little benefit to the average citizen, and they both represent a huge blockade to liberty. Next.

Rigger

A "huge blockade to liberty"? I guess being alive (FDA) and not overrun by a foreign power (Navy & other armed forces) is a huge blockade to liberty. Oh well.

Derpes

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.

Manufacturers have a reason to get it right: repeat business. Government has no reason to get it right and no accountability when they get it wrong.

MrsBingley

Snark ()
(
We ALL have a right to be swindled.
In fact, dairy companies should be able to adulterate their product with clay,
And brand the result "Now with extra Iron and Magnesium"
)

Seriously, the consumer should be able to be aware of what is actually in anything that is to be swallowed. The customer should also be able to be aware if health claims are backed up by research or if the product has been shown to cause harm.

The placebo effect is a thing and companies have learned how to cash in on it.

stumblinthrulife

Snark ()
(
We ALL have a right to be swindled.
In fact, dairy companies should be able to adulterate their product with clay,
And brand the result "Now with extra Iron and Magnesium"
)

Seriously, the consumer should be able to be aware of what is actually in anything that is to be swallowed. The customer should also be able to be aware if health claims are backed up by research or if the product has been shown to cause harm.

The placebo effect is a thing and companies have learned how to cash in on it.

I can't tell if you are pro-FDA, as the providers of this transparency, or anti-FDA, and saying that consumers should find this information out for themselves.

MrsBingley

Snark ()
(
We ALL have a right to be swindled.
In fact, dairy companies should be able to adulterate their product with clay,
And brand the result "Now with extra Iron and Magnesium"
)

Seriously, the consumer should be able to be aware of what is actually in anything that is to be swallowed. The customer should also be able to be aware if health claims are backed up by research or if the product has been shown to cause harm.

The placebo effect is a thing and companies have learned how to cash in on it.

I can't tell if you are pro-FDA, as the providers of this transparency, or anti-FDA, and saying that consumers should find this information out for themselves.

Pro regulation. Harmful products should not be allowed, and ineffective products should be clearly labeled as such. At that point, if a customer wants to buy a tic tac, believing that it will magically help somehow, so be it. (We Allow homeopathy, after all

in_the_stars

http://gettingstronger.org/2013/08/the-case-against-nutritional-supplements/

stumblinthrulife

You know the really sad thing?

If the FDA proved categorically that a product did nothing - say St. John's Wort, for example - and required manufacturers to cease all claims of efficacy, plenty of people would still buy it.

There are lots people who distrust the government automatically and implicitly. The intersection between this population and the population of people who buy herbal remedies is quite large, I strongly suspect. They would claim the FDA was in bed with big pharm. This would just be the proof they needed that this was the herbal remedy that 'the pharmaceutical industry (and now the government!!!!) don't want you know about!'.

So you'd have it sold with no claims at all, and a wink and a nod from the sales person directing them to read xyz blog where the 'real truth' is told.