What are your thoughts on the FDA and their aggressive actio

gbgronland

I Agree that the FDA needs to butt out when it comes so some diet pills as well as other medications. As a nurse, I see many people that could really benefit from the drugs and medications that the FDA frequestnly bands due to a small minority of people have an adverse reaction and possibly death from it. In those case, the individuals either had a preexisting condition that they didnt report or werent taking the drug properly. America is fat and getting Fatter. I frequently take care of patients that are over 300 pounds and it's tiring on them and me helping them move. FDA needs to crack down of the way food is made and distributed to the public. Its the food thats poisoning our society not the drugs that they feel they need to ban. If someone is deperate enough to lose weight and drink essentially a pregnant woman's urine to lose weigh, the more power to them.

try2basunbeam

Ephedra is a pretty big stimulant. I used to boil my own tea (tastes like dirt) but I can understand how the FDA frowned on it. HCG is not even supposed to be used for dietary purposes. Preggo piss? Seriously?

FDA has the most strict regulations on the planet and I can see where you are coming from. But these two examples aren't really good ones to use.

Problem is, you need a degree in physiology to know what is good/bad for you. Just because it's on the market and is marketed as "this" or "that" doesn't mean it's healthy or not.

The FDA regulations on supplements is actually very lax vs regulations on things considered "food".

Obviously missing the point of the discussion. Whether you personally believe HCG (which is NOT pee for goodness sake) is good or bad in general is not the point.

There seems to be a problem IMO when the government decides for us competent human beings as to whether it is "good" or "bad". IF I want to use a supplement--whatever it is---should be MY choice. I think a major problem is, though, when people use supplements, have bad results and then sue the place that sold it to them. Then the government decides it is their place to step in, I suppose. If I drink 30 gallons of water a day and drown myself, should I blame God for supplying me with the water? Or if I eat hagen daas all day every day and get sick from some obesity related issue, should I blame hagen daas?

caseyp1122

Jeff only the FDA knows, could be a competing product due to come out in a few months or any number of other things could be the incentive to ban it. Just playing devils advocate here.

AnninStPaul

regardless of the risks involved i still dont think the government should make the decision for me. I believe this with all drugs. if i want to use ectasy and i'm aware of the risks then why shouldnt i be allowed to? its not a drug that woudl hurt anyone but myself. (for the record i'm completely drug free).

The government has become our parents and by doing so has taken away personal responsibility. if i eat something i know doesnt' seem safe for me but the FDA hasn't banned it yet and i get sick i can blame them, when really the responsibility should be on the user since it was their ultimate decision.

Are you really willing to bear responsibility? The costs of the side effects, physical, mental, and economic? If taxpayers are going to be paying the bills (via Medicaid, Medicare, VA, Social Security disability benefits), shouldn't there be some limits?

UsedToBeHusky

Jeff good points but I would argue that just because the FDA says something is bad for you doesn't necessarily make it true either. They are just as susceptible to special interest as any other branch of government.

That is not true. They don't just wait until someone comes around and tells them something is bad. They take legitimate complaints from private citizens, then contract laboratory studies to test the products. If the product does not meet certain predetermined specifications during testing, then the FDA considers a ban. They do not just arbitrarily ban a product because their competitor paid them. Actually, the problem that I have with the FDA is that they do not do enough testing when approving products... for example, they approved several SSRi's to be prescribed to children without fully testing their effects. Later, parents reported an increase in the instance of suicide in children prescribed SSRi's.

Jeff92se

Jeff right but the argument is still the same...If the government was truly concerned with the health of its citizenry then they would regulate them equally.

Essentially, you are asking the Gov't to regulate supplements as strict as food. ie.. MORE regulations.

CMmrsfloyd

Ephedra is a pretty big stimulant. I used to boil my own tea (tastes like dirt) but I can understand how the FDA frowned on it. HCG is not even supposed to be used for dietary purposes. Preggo piss? Seriously?

FDA has the most strict regulations on the planet and I can see where you are coming from. But these two examples aren't really good ones to use.

Problem is, you need a degree in physiology to know what is good/bad for you. Just because it's on the market and is marketed as "this" or "that" doesn't mean it's healthy or not.

The FDA regulations on supplements is actually very lax vs regulations on things considered "food".

Obviously missing the point of the discussion. Whether you personally believe HCG (which is NOT pee for goodness sake) is good or bad in general is not the point.

There seems to be a problem IMO when the government decides for us competent human beings as to whether it is "good" or "bad". IF I want to use a supplement--whatever it is---should be MY choice. I think a major problem is, though, when people use supplements, have bad results and then sue the place that sold it to them. Then the government decides it is their place to step in, I suppose. If I drink 30 gallons of water a day and drown myself, should I blame God for supplying me with the water? Or if I eat hagen daas all day every day and get sick from some obesity related issue, should I blame hagen daas?

If God lied to you and said that drinking 30 gallons of water would be good for you, then yeah you should blame God.

caseyp1122

regardless of the risks involved i still dont think the government should make the decision for me. I believe this with all drugs. if i want to use ectasy and i'm aware of the risks then why shouldnt i be allowed to? its not a drug that woudl hurt anyone but myself. (for the record i'm completely drug free).

The government has become our parents and by doing so has taken away personal responsibility. if i eat something i know doesnt' seem safe for me but the FDA hasn't banned it yet and i get sick i can blame them, when really the responsibility should be on the user since it was their ultimate decision.

Are you really willing to bear responsibility? The costs of the side effects, physical, mental, and economic? If taxpayers are going to be paying the bills (via Medicaid, Medicare, VA, Social Security disability benefits), shouldn't there be some limits?

I think to assume she's a beneficiary of those benefits and thus her choices have a direct affect is a fallacy.

UsedToBeHusky

Jeff only the FDA knows, could be a competing product due to come out in a few months or any number of other things could be the incentive to ban it. Just playing devils advocate here.

I actually wrote an entire college term paper on the process with which the FDA uses for approving and banning products... particularly psychiatric meds. While I can agree that the FDA's processes are somewhat ineffecient, and leave people a little too open to risk, it is certainly not intentional.

Dgaines54

regardless of the risks involved i still dont think the government should make the decision for me. I believe this with all drugs. if i want to use ectasy and i'm aware of the risks then why shouldnt i be allowed to? its not a drug that woudl hurt anyone but myself. (for the record i'm completely drug free).

Well, the good news is that we live in a democracy that (like almost all) dismiss these types of arguments. Illegal drugs are illegal for good reasons, not because the government is just a meanie-poo.

AnninStPaul

they need to stop taking our diet pills away! more people die on the roads so shall we bank them? small minded argument but I'm that way out today x

Keep in mind that when a prescription "diet pill" is approved, the data supporting the approval are in an obese population, and usually the drug isn't super safe but is better for the patient than being obese.

Is that a product that folks who are mildly overweight should be taking? Probably not -- if it were safe enough that taking the drug were safer than being mildly overweight, the drug company would have tested the drug in that population (bigger market than the obese) so that they could sell it more broadly.

CharityEaton

exactly! Maybe the information given to us even isn't accurate. Watch Food Matter documentary or Food INC

Food INC is a real eye-opener on HOW the gov't regulates EVERYTHING we have access to! Yes, the FDA is important but I do believe that the information that is passed on to the general public is not always in our best interest.

I think of it this way:
If the entire American popultaion was able to lose weght and maintain a healthy weight while eating healthy and exercising moderatley look at all of the medicataions that would be no longer needed.....especially considering that once you begin one medication it usually causes another symptom that in turn requires yet another medication and thus starts a never-ending cycle of medicating ourselves.
This is OF COURSE in the best interest of the FDA and gov't because it enables them to drive the costs of medication, insurance, doctor visits...you name it they can charge us for it and we have no choice but pay...or die basically....So, yes, I beleive it is a bit of a control over the general public...kind of like all of the designed in failures on products just to keep the money flowing. Those little energy saving light bulbs are capable of lasting indefinitely yet they have a designed in flaw to MAKE them burn out so we HAVE to replace them.
Just my opinion.

caseyp1122

Jeff right but the argument is still the same...If the government was truly concerned with the health of its citizenry then they would regulate them equally.

Essentially, you are asking the Gov't to regulate supplements as strict as food. ie.. MORE regulations.

I guess my point is getting mixed up here lol. Dang hard trying to emphasis a point online as opposed to in person. I won't muddy the waters by trying to further explain.

Slove009

I think food being sold should be more closely monitored if anything is going to be monitored. A Double Chocolate Fudge milkshake from Steak N Shake has 1140 calories and 39 grams of fat.

Now if you are like me, you aren't going to have just the milkshake. You'll get a burger I'll use the one that has the LEAST amount of calories/fat. The Single Steakburger (Dry, not even lettuce or ketchup) 280/11 . And some fries too: French Fries - Regular 440/21. Now this is one meal, and I'll say I decided to drink water. (gotta be healthy somewhere! )

The totals for this one meal:

1860 calories
71 grams of fat

In one meal I've gone 660 over my entire day's worth of calories and nearly doubled what my fat intake should be for during the day. Anyone else see the problem here?

Jeff92se

Ephedra is a pretty big stimulant. I used to boil my own tea (tastes like dirt) but I can understand how the FDA frowned on it. HCG is not even supposed to be used for dietary purposes. Preggo piss? Seriously?

FDA has the most strict regulations on the planet and I can see where you are coming from. But these two examples aren't really good ones to use.

Problem is, you need a degree in physiology to know what is good/bad for you. Just because it's on the market and is marketed as "this" or "that" doesn't mean it's healthy or not.

The FDA regulations on supplements is actually very lax vs regulations on things considered "food".

Obviously missing the point of the discussion. Whether you personally believe HCG (which is NOT pee for goodness sake) is good or bad in general is not the point.

There seems to be a problem IMO when the government decides for us competent human beings as to whether it is "good" or "bad". IF I want to use a supplement--whatever it is---should be MY choice. I think a major problem is, though, when people use supplements, have bad results and then sue the place that sold it to them. Then the government decides it is their place to step in, I suppose. If I drink 30 gallons of water a day and drown myself, should I blame God for supplying me with the water? Or if I eat hagen daas all day every day and get sick from some obesity related issue, should I blame hagen daas?

Tell me. Do you have the educational background to make an intelligent decesion regarding if a particular product is safe or not? I don't. The problem is a product is MARKETED as safe. Or the marketing is implied that it is safe.

Equating FOOD to supplements in your analogies aren't accurate. In fact, much of the food examples you bring up are only because the FDA HAS deemed these foods as relatively safe. TOOTHPASTE is actually a poison. If you injest enough of it, you will poison yourself. Why hasn't the FDA banned toothpaste?

caseyp1122

Keeley isn't it amazing that they are soo quick to ban supplements deeming them a danger to your life yet a new Mcdonalds or Burger King is built every 2 minutes. Certainly fast food doesn't instantly kill you but in my humble opinion it's way worse of an epidemic for an obese country than supplements used to help folks.

I don't see how these things are similar. In one hand you have chemicles that you are ingesting into your body with side effects, on the other hand you're talking about banning fat . . .
Now, if you went suppliments and other chemicles = tobacco products I'll hear you out on that one.

You don't think there are chemicals in fast food or processed food for that matter? not trying to sound rude

caseyp1122

Jeff good points but I would argue that just because the FDA says something is bad for you doesn't necessarily make it true either. They are just as susceptible to special interest as any other branch of government.

That is not true. They don't just wait until someone comes around and tells them something is bad. They take legitimate complaints from private citizens, then contract laboratory studies to test the products. If the product does not meet certain predetermined specifications during testing, then the FDA considers a ban. They do not just arbitrarily ban a product because their competitor paid them. Actually, the problem that I have with the FDA is that they do not do enough testing when approving products... for example, they approved several SSRi's to be prescribed to children without fully testing their effects. Later, parents reported an increase in the instance of suicide in children prescribed SSRi's.

Whitney I completely BUT RESPECTFULLY disagree with you

Jeff92se

Jeff right but the argument is still the same...If the government was truly concerned with the health of its citizenry then they would regulate them equally.

Essentially, you are asking the Gov't to regulate supplements as strict as food. ie.. MORE regulations.

I guess my point is getting mixed up here lol. Dang hard trying to emphasis a point online as opposed to in person. I won't muddy the waters by trying to further explain.

You either want the Gov't to increase regulations on supplements or reduce the regulations on food. That's the only way to regulate them equally. I guess you have to make a choice here

veganbaum

I love that there's a constant bashing on government when corporations control much more about people's daily lives than the government does, and with their lobbying control a large part of government. (and no, not a huge supporter of the FDA, though some of what they do is needed I think they're terribly inefficient and susceptible to industry influence - like a lot of government agencies; but that leads back to the control corporations have over our daily lives). It could just as easily go the other way - people would be complaining about the FDA not being strict enough if x many people were injured from something the agency didn't ban. As an above poster mentioned - what is the risk most people are willing to take and consider an acceptable level at which the FDA should step in? You can't rely on industry to make sure their products fit within some acceptable level of risk if there isn't an outside level set for them. And as another poster mentioned - homeopathic HCG doesn't do anything - it's the 500 calorie diet that does it. It's false advertising, which is a violation of commercial speech under the first amendment - you can't make false statements about your product.

UsedToBeHusky

There is a big difference between Ephedra and HCG. Mainly that HCG does not DO anything. If it's unsafe AND it doesn't even DO anything like Ephedra did, there's no good reason for it to stay legal. And the fact that the whole marketting premise for HCG is a LIE. The companies say that it does something to aid in weightloss when in fact it does nothing. The FDA does not like companies lying about what their product actually does. Especially when it doesn't do anything.

I'm not saying the FDA is always right in it's decisions, but I completely understand why they are banning HCG.

Ephedra was not banned because it didn't do anything. Ephedra was banned because it is used to make methamphetamines. It actually was commonly used in allergy medicine (and much more effectively than its substitute).

And actually, Ephedra hasn't been banned. It is merely a controlled substance now. :ohwell: