A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry
Options
Replies
-
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.
Assuming these are all adults, I can only inform.
My mom eats too much candy and thus she eats at a caloric surplus most of the time. She's clinically obese because of this. I tell her she should stop for logical reasons x, y and z. She continues to eat too much candy. She's an adult and she makes her own decisions. I don't want to regulate the food industry to protect my mother from herself.
I'll inform my daughter of products I think could be harmful to her health. If I'm really concerned and I'm still financially responsible for her (or she's under 18), then I'll try to make sure she doesn't buy it. Could she still sneak it? Yup. She could sneak a lot of things that aren't legal too. She could drive recklessly when I'm not with her too. In fact, over the course of her life, she'll have to make thousands of decisions that, if she chooses poorly, could negatively impact her. All I can do is provide guidance and act as a role model. I cannot hold her hand or force the rest of the world to conform to what I think is best for her. It's unrealistic and a waste of lawmaker's time and our money to try and keep people from doing stupid, misinformed things.
I will write off the idiots (including my own kin) because I can't do anything about other people's stupidity. All I can do is attempt to mitigate my own.
I'll still make my own mistakes from time to time. I took Alli many years ago. I learned and came away a little smarter. I drove too fast on an icy road once. I lived, I learned and I came away a little safer. That's what it takes for me. Others will either never make mistakes like these (or dietary supplement ones of a similar caliber-some minor, some major) because they are inherently more cautious or curious to start with and others will make the same mistakes over and over again, never learning. There is no changing that. Regulating the snake oil salesmen won't make people smarter. It won't even make them safer because as soon as one 'get thin quick' or 'stay healthy and young' gimmick goes away, another one will take its place.
If something is proven to cause irreparable harm, then get it pulled from the market (like they did with ephedra containing products) but the time and expense it would take to comb over the thousands of relatively harmless and completely useless products out there isn't worth it. The potential cost is far greater than any of the perceived benefits.0 -
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.0 -
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.
Clearly, had sufficient numbers of people died, the companies would have pulled it voluntarily to avoid further erosion of their customer base.0 -
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.
Clearly, had sufficient numbers of people died, the companies would have pulled it voluntarily to avoid further erosion of their customer base.
Just as meth dealers stop selling meth when too many tweakers die
Which I assume was your point
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Frankly, if anything, I think government should start regulating cokes and other junk food..
Oh wait IT HAPPENED!
I am not a fan of big government myself but go back to my first statement.0 -
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.0 -
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.
The infrastructure is already there. Supplement companies would largely fund it through FDA fees etc.0 -
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/11/vitamins-herbal-dietarysupplementsregulatefda.html
Presented without comment.
I get the good intentions, but as long as people are going to insist on searching for a silver bullet, there is no regulation that can stop them from wasting their money.0 -
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.
The infrastructure is already there. Supplement companies would largely fund it through FDA fees etc.
Did you actually say that with a straight face? In the same way companies don't pay taxes, companies, don't pay FDA fees...0 -
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.
The infrastructure is already there. Supplement companies would largely fund it through FDA fees etc.
Did you actually say that with a straight face? In the same way companies don't pay taxes, companies, don't pay FDA fees...
They don't pay FDA fees? Huh?0 -
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.
The infrastructure is already there. Supplement companies would largely fund it through FDA fees etc.
Did you actually say that with a straight face? In the same way companies don't pay taxes, companies, don't pay FDA fees...
They don't pay FDA fees? Huh?
Nope, I'll let let you dwell on that for a while
0 -
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.0 -
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.
The infrastructure is already there. Supplement companies would largely fund it through FDA fees etc.
Did you actually say that with a straight face? In the same way companies don't pay taxes, companies, don't pay FDA fees...
They don't pay FDA fees? Huh?
Nope, I'll let let you dwell on that for a while
I don't really dwell on nonsense very much.0 -
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.
The infrastructure is already there. Supplement companies would largely fund it through FDA fees etc.
There's no free lunch. So now the small number of supplements that make it though, along with anything else that company produces will be far more expensive than they would be otherwise without heavy regulations in place. Consumers will pay those costs, even the ones that thought the regulations were silly to begin with.
Also, the infrastructure may or may not already be there but the sheer number of government employees that would be needed to process the products, are not.0 -
Lol. I like you!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 all0 -
wow, half way down the first page and i'm already overwhelmed by stupid posts.0
-
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.
The infrastructure is already there. Supplement companies would largely fund it through FDA fees etc.
Did you actually say that with a straight face? In the same way companies don't pay taxes, companies, don't pay FDA fees...
They don't pay FDA fees? Huh?
Nope, I'll let let you dwell on that for a while
I don't really dwell on nonsense very much.
Perhaps you should? If you did, you'd not make silly statements like "FDA fees will cover the costs". You've probably made similar statements like "increased business taxes will cover the costs". So let me ask you, when you apply more (any) fees to those "big bad companies", do you truly believe THEY pay them, or do you intellectually understand that they simply pass them right on to you. Hence, my statement, companies don't pay FDA fees....YOU do.0 -
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.
The infrastructure is already there. Supplement companies would largely fund it through FDA fees etc.
Did you actually say that with a straight face? In the same way companies don't pay taxes, companies, don't pay FDA fees...
They don't pay FDA fees? Huh?
Nope, I'll let let you dwell on that for a while
I don't really dwell on nonsense very much.
Perhaps you should? If you did, you'd not make silly statements like "FDA fees will cover the costs". You've probably made similar statements like "increased business taxes will cover the costs". So let me ask you, when you apply more (any) fees to those "big bad companies", do you truly believe THEY pay them, or do you intellectually understand that they simply pass them right on to you. Hence, my statement, companies don't pay FDA fees....YOU do.
I have no problem with the people buying bee jelly covering the cost of bee jelly safety and efficacy studies.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions