A call to more heavily regulate the supplement industry

RivenV

I balk at the idea of giving the FDA (or any other regulatory agency) enough power that they can outright ban certain foods or chemicals, even those that have potentially harmful effects.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

How are you supposed to know the supplement is harmful when you don't know what's in it or where it comes from?

Oh Jonny I did already say that I would support some types of regulation that dictate that companies must publish what is in their products.

tigersword

I balk at the idea of giving the FDA (or any other regulatory agency) enough power that they can outright ban certain foods or chemicals, even those that have potentially harmful effects.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

Thalidomide was a product marketed to treat morning sickness, that caused birth defects. Your stance is insane.

Let's talk crazy, then.

There are plenty of foods and chemicals that don't have many (or sometimes any) redeeming qualities. Alcohol has shown to have similar effects, but you're not advocating removing it from the market, just to name one example. Since you're specifically talking about a product that was meant for a pregnant market and it causes severe issues for that market, I would agree that it's probably not the best thing for consumers in that market to purchase. I would argue that it shouldn't need to be taken off the market by a regulatory agency at that point, since they'd already failed. At the point where everyone realized the adverse effects it had, I'm betting the market looking at purchasing it reconsidered their decision. Taking it a step further, with no customers interested in purchasing it, it would swiftly fail in any market.

Without government oversight and regulation compiling the statistics, how long do you think it will take individual people WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE TAKING IN THEIR DAY TO DAY LIVES to figure out that the rash of birth defects was caused by that one particular product? If nobody is regulating it, then there's no record of it happening, and the company can just continue happily selling their product.

jwdieter

I balk at the idea of giving the FDA (or any other regulatory agency) enough power that they can outright ban certain foods or chemicals, even those that have potentially harmful effects.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

Thalidomide was a product marketed to treat morning sickness, that caused birth defects. Your stance is insane.

Let's talk crazy, then.

There are plenty of foods and chemicals that don't have many (or sometimes any) redeeming qualities. Alcohol has shown to have similar effects, but you're not advocating removing it from the market, just to name one example. Since you're specifically talking about a product that was meant for a pregnant market and it causes severe issues for that market, I would agree that it's probably not the best thing for consumers in that market to purchase. I would argue that it shouldn't need to be taken off the market by a regulatory agency at that point, since they'd already failed. At the point where everyone realized the adverse effects it had, I'm betting the market looking at purchasing it reconsidered their decision. Taking it a step further, with no customers interested in purchasing it, it would swiftly fail in any market.

Letting the market resolve the situation would have led to additional tens or hundreds of thousands of children born with missing/tiny arms and legs.

You're lucky to live in a society where people like you have not been in power.

QuietBloom

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?

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

WendyTerry420

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?

QuietBloom

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.

richardheath

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?

What she said

Your husband's Vit D may contain sufficient Vit D. Good for him. But "I'm OK Jack" isn't an attitude I prefer for myself.

So what else does his Vit D contain that you don't know about?

Does everybody who takes Vit D have blood/urine tests to check their levels?

What about supplements other than Vit D?

And no - its not a herb. But it is a supplement.

Oh, and (from OP's link)...

Quality control is also a concern. Many vitamins that appear in the U.S. — in everything from soft drinks to breakfast cereal — are made in China, where standards are lax. When consumers buy children's chewables, they fail to realize that the lack of uniform manufacturing rules can result in mislabeling or contamination.

jonnythan

I balk at the idea of giving the FDA (or any other regulatory agency) enough power that they can outright ban certain foods or chemicals, even those that have potentially harmful effects.

Hmm. That's kinda beyond crazy. Completely nonsensical stance. Products like Thalidomide have to be taken off the market.

Hmm. It's kinda not, actually. If a product is known to be harmful and someone who knows this still wishes to consume it, I say all power to them. Why are you trying to protect people from themselves? That's kinda beyond crazy, possibly bordering on completely nonsensical.

Thalidomide was a product marketed to treat morning sickness, that caused birth defects. Your stance is insane.

Let's talk crazy, then.

There are plenty of foods and chemicals that don't have many (or sometimes any) redeeming qualities. Alcohol has shown to have similar effects, but you're not advocating removing it from the market, just to name one example. Since you're specifically talking about a product that was meant for a pregnant market and it causes severe issues for that market, I would agree that it's probably not the best thing for consumers in that market to purchase. I would argue that it shouldn't need to be taken off the market by a regulatory agency at that point, since they'd already failed. At the point where everyone realized the adverse effects it had, I'm betting the market looking at purchasing it reconsidered their decision. Taking it a step further, with no customers interested in purchasing it, it would swiftly fail in any market.

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

I see.

WendyTerry420

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.

jwdieter

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

richardheath

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

False dichotomy and a straw man.

jonnythan

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

WendyTerry420

But "I'm OK Jack" isn't an attitude I prefer for myself.

Everyone is "OK Jack" until their liberty is taken.

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

richardheath

But "I'm OK Jack" isn't an attitude I prefer for myself.

Everyone is "OK Jack" until their liberty is taken.

And now we can add cherry picking too.

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

False dichotomy and a straw man.

It might be considered a straw man, but I'm positive that it's a truth. People who advocate for government regulation tend to do so because they feel that government can be trusted and that the regulation will somehow solve a problem.

stumblinthrulife

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.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

WendyTerry420

But "I'm OK Jack" isn't an attitude I prefer for myself.

Everyone is "OK Jack" until their liberty is taken.

And now we can add cherry picking too.

I hate cherries, but more so, I hate the FDA's attack against cherry companies.

jonnythan

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

WendyTerry420

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.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

stumblinthrulife

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Actually, you can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That's the incredible thing about this amazing nation in which you live.

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

stumblinthrulife

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.

It's great that your husband can have this kind of certainty.

For everyone else, quarterly blood analysis should not be necessary. If a company says it's vitamin D in the bottle, I should be able to depend on it being vitamin D in the bottle and not just chalk pills. That's the point here.

LOL@ "chalk pills"

Strong retort.

jonnythan

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Ahh now we get to the bottom of your anger at the government.

richardheath

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Serious question here, and I'm not a lawyer or anything, but is this true?

There are laws regulating fodds, and there are laws regulating medicines. But supplements are not regulated as food OR as medicine - they have carefully positioned themselves in a no-mans land. So would you be able to sue them? What law would they have broken if there are no laws regulating their sale?

Alternatively - look at the Ford Pinto. Ford decided, from a risk benefit analysis, that they would be better off not fixing the fuel tank and pay the law suits rather than have a recall. How do you know some of the Supplement companies aren't doing the same? It is in their shareholder's interest to maximize profits, after all.

tigersword

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?

WendyTerry420

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Actually, you can sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That's the incredible thing about this amazing nation in which you live.

You may want to research that a bit further.

tigersword

This all pretty much boils down to folks that trust government way too much. The idea that government can solve our problems is pure fantasy.

The idea that government can regulate supplements in a fashion similar to every other product intended for human use or consumption isn't much of a fantasy.

Oh, they *can* most certainly do so. Trusting them to get it right is the fantasy.

But you trust supplement companies.

Huh.

It's not about trust, but about remedy. When the government lies, I can do nothing. If a company lies, I can sue them. There is a remedy for it. Blind trust is foolish, but more so when there is no recourse to remedy it.

Well you can't sue them if you're dead. And you can't sue them if you have no idea whether the royal jelly pills you bought actually have any royal jelly. And you can't sue them if the royal jelly doesn't "boost your immune system" as it says on the bottle because there's no way to establish that.

And you certainly can't sue them if it turns out the supplement you've been taking for 10 years has actually given you cancer, because no one ever required them to do any safety studies.

My family would sure for wrongful death.

Can I sue the feds for banning my husband's primary medication (cannabis)? Hell to the no. They would rather he be sick and waste away from the Crohn's. For that matter, no one can sue government for ANYthing. For that reason alone, they have NO business having the final say-so.

Your suit would go nowhere, because without any safety regulation, there would be no evidence that the cancer/death was caused by the supplement, hence, no law suit would stand.

But wait, doesn't a law suit rely on using the court system? But you can't trust the government!