What are your thoughts on the FDA and their aggressive actio
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
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
0 -
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 you0 -
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 here0 -
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.0
-
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:0 -
Plain and simple there is no safe get thin quick magic pill or solution. People are always looking for the easy way out, so as long as this is happening and mystery found in the jungle solutions pop up the FDA will be heavily involved.
Comparing fast food to get thin quick schemes is proposterous.0 -
I have a feeling this is a hot button topic and judging by some responses this debate is headed south quickly lol0
-
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:
That's the point I was trying to make. Ephedra actually DID something, HCG doesn't do ANYTHING although the companies like to market it as if it does. Where HCG banning is concerned, I think the FDA is more annoyed with the fact that HCG sellers LIE to the public about their product being effective when it does nothing at all.0 -
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?
Good point.
If you take too much of certain vitamins (good stuff), they can cause bad bad side effects. The instructions say what is "considered" safe. SO, if I get the bottle and take more than what is recommended, or it I cut open the pill and spread the oil on my skin rather than ingesting it, why should I not be allowed access to that product? I mean, HCG is used for other purposes--I'm talking rx, not the homeopathic stuff--so, if I choose to use it for a purpose other than what it is originally intended for, why can't I? I'm not arguing its healthiness or lack of, just my access to it. While it may be "proven" as ineffective for weight loss, it has not been proven to be unsafe for consumption.0 -
I have a feeling this is a hot button topic and judging by some responses this debate is headed south quickly lol
I don't really see it 'going south'. However, I do see that you are refusing to be open-minded about the topic. I've researched how the FDA determines the safety of a product, but you 'respectfully disagreed'. On what basis are you generating your conspiracy theory?0 -
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?
Good point.
If you take too much of certain vitamins (good stuff), they can cause bad bad side effects. The instructions say what is "considered" safe. SO, if I get the bottle and take more than what is recommended, or it I cut open the pill and spread the oil on my skin rather than ingesting it, why should I not be allowed access to that product? I mean, HCG is used for other purposes--I'm talking rx, not the homeopathic stuff--so, if I choose to use it for a purpose other than what it is originally intended for, why can't I? I'm not arguing its healthiness or lack of, just my access to it. While it may be "proven" as ineffective for weight loss, it has not been proven to be unsafe for consumption.
You can take it that way. But HCG shouldn't be MARKETED that way.0 -
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:
That's the point I was trying to make. Ephedra actually DID something, HCG doesn't do ANYTHING although the companies like to market it as if it does. Where HCG banning is concerned, I think the FDA is more annoyed with the fact that HCG sellers LIE to the public about their product being effective when it does nothing at all.
Well that I can certainly agree with.0 -
I have a feeling this is a hot button topic and judging by some responses this debate is headed south quickly lol
I don't really see it 'going south'. However, I do see that you are refusing to be open-minded about the topic. I've researched how the FDA determines the safety of a product, but you 'respectfully disagreed'. On what basis are you generating your conspiracy theory?
lol no it's not going south when people are requiring other peoples credentials to speak on a message board topic or when someone disagrees with you they are automatically considered a conspiracy theorist (note sarcasm) lol. Silly me for thinking folks could have civil discourse.
I respectfully disagreed with your assertion that the FDA is not susceptible to special interest, I wasn't disagreeing with your argument of the FDA process.0 -
I have a feeling this is a hot button topic and judging by some responses this debate is headed south quickly lol
I don't really see it 'going south'. However, I do see that you are refusing to be open-minded about the topic. I've researched how the FDA determines the safety of a product, but you 'respectfully disagreed'. On what basis are you generating your conspiracy theory?
lol no it's not going south when people are requiring other peoples credentials to speak on a message board topic or when someone disagrees with you they are automatically considered a conspiracy theorist (note sarcasm) lol. Silly me for thinking folks could have civil discourse.
I respectfully disagreed with your assertion that the FDA is not susceptible to special interest, I wasn't disagreeing with your argument of the FDA process.
Well... I actually wasn't arguing with you on that. The paper that I wrote discussed how 'Big Pharma' has influenced the FDA to look the other way on certain issues concerning the approval of psychiatric medicine. I was disagreeing that the move to ban a product like HCG is motivated by special interest. This is a capitalist society and the government is more interested in generating the economy, even on false advertising. The government never makes a move or action on a company or product without receiving a complaint from a private citizen first. Remember that every dollar that HCG manufacturer produces is another dollar that can be taxed and is reinvested into the economy.0 -
I agree that personal responsibility is a weird issue in this country (I think of it every time I see CAUTION: CONTENTS MAY BE HOT on a cup of coffee... like, really? No sh&@?). At the same time, though, there are a lot of people who assume that if something is available for purchase, it must be ok. If you go to places like Barbados, where they don't have the same kinds of government regulations, there are all kinds of weird elixirs and tinctures on the drug store shelves because pretty much anyone can market anything and claim that it will make you beautiful and healthy and that, of course, it is perfectly safe to take many, many doses. So I actually LIKE that we have an FDA. I just wish they were less under control of lobbyists.0
-
I have a feeling this is a hot button topic and judging by some responses this debate is headed south quickly lol
I don't really see it 'going south'. However, I do see that you are refusing to be open-minded about the topic. I've researched how the FDA determines the safety of a product, but you 'respectfully disagreed'. On what basis are you generating your conspiracy theory?
lol no it's not going south when people are requiring other peoples credentials to speak on a message board topic or when someone disagrees with you they are automatically considered a conspiracy theorist (note sarcasm) lol. Silly me for thinking folks could have civil discourse.
I respectfully disagreed with your assertion that the FDA is not susceptible to special interest, I wasn't disagreeing with your argument of the FDA process.
Well... I actually wasn't arguing with you on that. The paper that I wrote discussed how 'Big Pharma' has influenced the FDA to look the other way on certain issues concerning the approval of psychiatric medicine. I was disagreeing that the move to ban a product like HCG is motivated by special interest. This is a capitalist society and the government is more interested in generating the economy, even on false advertising. The government never makes a move or action on a company or product without receiving a complaint from a private citizen first. Remember that every dollar that HCG manufacturer produces is another dollar that can be taxed and is reinvested into the economy.
That sounds like an incredibly interesting paper to write! I bet you came up with all kinds of awesome primary sources to use! Good discussion and have a great rest of the day Whitney!0 -
If that was supposed to be a subtle way of getting her to leave the discussion, I have a funny feeling it's not going to have the desired effect..... LOL0
-
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
Well now were getting into hormones in the food supply (and water supply). That does become a slippery slope. I try to eat local, unfortunately finding local sources can be a hastle. I've read the studies about the way that the hormones in mass produced livestock and their biproducts (milk for example) can impact the consumers of those products (acne, breast tissue development at young ages, etc). Testing has been done and the risk deemed inconsequential, while I disagree at least the testing has been done. It's the same for preservatives in our foods. I try to make most of my food with my own 2 hands, but boxes still come into the house. I carefully scan labels, but the testing has been performed on those preservatives as well, and the risk deemed inconsequential or it comes with instructions for proper use.
Sorry, I immediately went to fats in fast food because that's the part that people generally get their panties all in an uproar about, not the hormones and chemicles added to our food supply.0 -
I have a feeling this is a hot button topic and judging by some responses this debate is headed south quickly lol
I don't really see it 'going south'. However, I do see that you are refusing to be open-minded about the topic. I've researched how the FDA determines the safety of a product, but you 'respectfully disagreed'. On what basis are you generating your conspiracy theory?
lol no it's not going south when people are requiring other peoples credentials to speak on a message board topic or when someone disagrees with you they are automatically considered a conspiracy theorist (note sarcasm) lol. Silly me for thinking folks could have civil discourse.
I respectfully disagreed with your assertion that the FDA is not susceptible to special interest, I wasn't disagreeing with your argument of the FDA process.
Well... I actually wasn't arguing with you on that. The paper that I wrote discussed how 'Big Pharma' has influenced the FDA to look the other way on certain issues concerning the approval of psychiatric medicine. I was disagreeing that the move to ban a product like HCG is motivated by special interest. This is a capitalist society and the government is more interested in generating the economy, even on false advertising. The government never makes a move or action on a company or product without receiving a complaint from a private citizen first. Remember that every dollar that HCG manufacturer produces is another dollar that can be taxed and is reinvested into the economy.
That sounds like an incredibly interesting paper to write! I bet you came up with all kinds of awesome primary sources to use! Good discussion and have a great rest of the day Whitney!
Well it would seem that you wish to discuss this with me no further so I will wish you a great day as well.0 -
If that was supposed to be a subtle way of getting her to leave the discussion, I have a funny feeling it's not going to have the desired effect..... LOL
Nah... whatever his reasons are for shutting me down, I won't be the troll!0 -
"FDA hasn’t received specific reports of harm about them but we are very concerned because the products instruct users to take them with a 500 calorie per day diet. This kind of diet should only be done under medical supervision. The risks of such a diet can include things like dizziness, fainting, gal stones or even heart arrhythmias."
From the FDA website. So, it seems to me, their issue isn't even with the HCG, but with the diet that is recommended with it. So, again, I don't see why the product should be banned. But the marketing of these homepathic products should be dealt with.0 -
To be honest ... I don't care much about the government stepping in to control diet suppliments since half of them don't do anything in the first place. The government should find better things to worry about than banning products that have no real effect. I do however think it is responsible for any company to label what is actually in their product. I do not buy diet suppliments because I don't really want to waste my money on a product I may or may not be actually getting but that is a person choice and if someone wants to take pills or drops when there is no real accountability for what is in them well then that is their decision. I kind of hold the belief that if you want to damage your own body then you should have the right to do so.
I wish they would focus more of the attention on forcing restaurants to provide nutrition information for everything they serve. It is insane to me that this is not a legal responsibility of any restaurant owner. How it is okay for them to sell a product to someone without disclosing exactly what is in that product is just strange!
I really try not to put things in my body unless I know what it is so this can make things difficult in today's society of constant eating out. I do try at all cost to avoid places that refuse to list their nutritional information as a matter of belief.0 -
I’m not saying there aren’t problems with food and drug regulations in this country. There certainly are. I don’t think it’s fair to talk about how this is the “land of the free” and therefore we should get to do whatever we want and eat whatever we want. You don’t remove government organizations and de-regulate and suddenly everything is good to go.
Agreed (above).
This is a really interesting topic. Just my opinion: There are a lot of people on these boards who have made it a priority to understand what they're putting into their bodies, and therefore it's annoying and affronting to have government institutions tell us that, even after all of our careful research, we aren't "allowed" to use a product we believe will assist our efforts in being the healthiest we can be. That said, I believe those same institutions are there to help the "masses" of people who are gullible enough to believe that every diet scam that comes along is going to be the panacea for all their problems - this is the flip side.
People who weigh the risks and benefits of a certain supplement or drug based on their own health and needs should be allowed to decide for themselves what to ingest. Unfortunately, the population of ignorant, uncautious folks far outweighs the careful types, and there are definitely companies out there who will prey on such people as a way to make a buck. I think these are people the FDA is trying to protect. (Although I'm not saying that the FDA is some above-reproach, altruistic org.)
That was my high-school debate view of both sides For me personally, I try not to put anything other than food and vitamins in my body because I just don't know what the consequences will truly be. I don't think anyone is telling the god's-honest truth without some sort of spin - Food Inc., FDA, and drug and supplement companies included.
Good topic!!0 -
If you are sources your vitamans from some 3rd world country, you could be doing more damage than good. ie.. vitimans are marketed to have XX ingredients but could have almost anything in them.0
-
At one time Cocaine was thought to be a miracle drug. Advertised, marketed, given to kids.
Imagine no FDA or Pharmacy group or Council making it's use illegal.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions