Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ANH is a crackpot organization funded by supplement companies. They exist to promote supplements and rail against any control over quality.
Supplements presently have very little oversight. The only thing consumers have to protect them, presently, is the truth in advertising laws. There exists no legislation guaranteeing that if I buy a bottle of multivitamins, there won't also be a little arsenic in the bottle. The proposed legislation will not only require it, but will also require the manufacturer to put a label warning me that there's a possibility of risk involved in consuming the product due to one of the ingredients. It would also require that the manufacturer be able to back up the claim that the multivitamin supports bone and joint health, if it makes such a claim on the bottle or any of the packaging. They would no longer be allowed to make that claim without having some actual proof that the claim is true.
The ANH doesn't want consumers to know what's really in the supplements, because the ANH gets paid by the supplement manufacturers to lobby against any such legislation.
Have you actually read Durbin's proposal? It's pretty benign, on the supplement company's end, and pretty helpful, on the consumer's end. It doesn't give the FDA more "control" so much as it requires the supplement manufacturers to be held more accountable for their claims and the stuff they put in their packages. It gives the FDA the ability to enforce such accountability, that's all.
Of course - for all those people who don't want to know what's in their bottles, who don't care that what they're taking might be -causing- whatever is wrong with them..and whatever they're taking -might- even be killing them...well y'all go right on ahead and ignore any warning labels that pop up in the future. Just pretend they don't apply to you.
The ANH is a crackpot organization funded by supplement companies. They exist to promote supplements and rail against any control over quality.
Supplements presently have very little oversight. The only thing consumers have to protect them, presently, is the truth in advertising laws. There exists no legislation guaranteeing that if I buy a bottle of multivitamins, there won't also be a little arsenic in the bottle. The proposed legislation will not only require it, but will also require the manufacturer to put a label warning me that there's a possibility of risk involved in consuming the product due to one of the ingredients. It would also require that the manufacturer be able to back up the claim that the multivitamin supports bone and joint health, if it makes such a claim on the bottle or any of the packaging. They would no longer be allowed to make that claim without having some actual proof that the claim is true.
The ANH doesn't want consumers to know what's really in the supplements, because the ANH gets paid by the supplement manufacturers to lobby against any such legislation.
Have you actually read Durbin's proposal? It's pretty benign, on the supplement company's end, and pretty helpful, on the consumer's end. It doesn't give the FDA more "control" so much as it requires the supplement manufacturers to be held more accountable for their claims and the stuff they put in their packages. It gives the FDA the ability to enforce such accountability, that's all.
Of course - for all those people who don't want to know what's in their bottles, who don't care that what they're taking might be -causing- whatever is wrong with them..and whatever they're taking -might- even be killing them...well y'all go right on ahead and ignore any warning labels that pop up in the future. Just pretend they don't apply to you.
There is no legislation that guarantees you will not have arsenic in the bottle and there NEVER will be legislation that can guarantee that. Not even the FDA would ever say they could guarantee that if they were given all the legislation they desired. And the consumers already do have MORE than the Truth in Advertising laws. The FDA oversees the GMP program which many supplement manufacturers follow and addresses most of the things you already described above. The concern here is that the FDA can burden or eliminate supplements that may compete against prescribed drugs.
Think about this for a moment. If the FDA is so concerned about our health and product labeling then why don't they already require labels for GLUTEN FREE products? There is a pandemic of problems in this country stemming from Gluten intolerance to Celiac Disease resulting in possible links to lupus, leaky gut syndrom, chronic fatigue syndrom, viligo, and much more.
Regarding whether I read Rich Durbin's proposal, I have an email directly from him explaining it to me.
Now you said the following:
Quote:
The ANH doesn't want consumers to know what's really in the supplements, because the ANH gets paid by the supplement manufacturers to lobby against any such legislation.
You do realize that the FDA gets paid to test big pharmas drugs, and not just them but also any company including existing supplement manufacturers getting GMP certifications.
There is no legislation that guarantees you will not have arsenic in the bottle and there NEVER will be legislation that can guarantee that. Not even the FDA would ever say they could guarantee that if they were given all the legislation they desired. And the consumers already do have MORE than the Truth in Advertising laws. The FDA oversees the GMP program which many supplement manufacturers follow and addresses most of the things you already described above. The concern here is that the FDA can burden or eliminate supplements that may compete against prescribed drugs.
Think about this for a moment. If the FDA is so concerned about our health and product labeling then why don't they already require labels for GLUTEN FREE products? There is a pandemic of problems in this country stemming from Gluten intolerance to Celiac Disease resulting in possible links to lupus, leaky gut syndrom, chronic fatigue syndrom, viligo, and much more.
Regarding whether I read Rich Durbin's proposal, I have an email directly from him explaining it to me.
Now you said the following:
You do realize that the FDA gets paid to test big pharmas drugs, and not just them but also any company including existing supplement manufacturers getting GMP certifications.
With products that are designated as food supplements, the FDA pretty much does nothing unless reports of injuries appear.
Why shouldn't supplement manufacturers be required to show their products live up to the claims for them? Why shouldn't they have to show a product is actually beneficial? Right now, anyone can put something in a bottle and claim it "supports" an organ. That means absolutely nothing.
As far as the contents of vitamin products are concerned, choosing one vetted by the U S Pharmacopeia can provide assurance that what is on the label truly describes what is in the container.
For a supplement to compete with a prescription drug, shouldn't there be some evidence that it actually works?
With products that are designated as food supplements, the FDA pretty much does nothing unless reports of injuries appear.
Why shouldn't supplement manufacturers be required to show their products live up to the claims for them? Why shouldn't they have to show a product is actually beneficial? Right now, anyone can put something in a bottle and claim it "supports" an organ. That means absolutely nothing.
As far as the contents of vitamin products are concerned, choosing one vetted by the U S Pharmacopeia can provide assurance that what is on the label truly describes what is in the container.
For a supplement to compete with a prescription drug, shouldn't there be some evidence that it actually works?
There is nothing requiring Gluten Free to be put on the labels. The definition above for Gluten Free is only if the term is going to be applied. Nothing is requiring the label. And even with their definitioni s NOT gluten free. It is actually a mislabeling requirement if you ask me.
Regarding whether the FDA collects FEES for testing drugs:
Also, I have no problem with those things being put on the label. However, I don't think we need further legislation for the FDA to do this. I believe the cons at this time are a bigger concern than the pros.
There is nothing requiring Gluten Free to be put on the labels. The definition above for Gluten Free is only if the term is going to be applied. Nothing is requiring the label. And even with their definitioni s NOT gluten free. It is actually a mislabeling requirement if you ask me.
Regarding whether the FDA collects FEES for testing drugs:
Also, I have no problem with those things being put on the label. However, I don't think we need further legislation for the FDA to do this. I believe the cons at this time are a bigger concern than the pros.
Why would the FDA require a label for a gluten free product if there was no need for one? That makes no sense. The only products that will be labeled are the ones that might normally be expected to contain gluten, do not, and the manufacturer wishes it to be marketed as such. The rule took two years to develop. The amount of gluten is an amount that would not be expected to cause a problem for folks who are sensitive to it. People who are interested in gluten free products just need to know the definition being used to permit the labeling. The point is that you asked why has the FDA not addressed gluten. It has.
You said the FDA conducts drug studies. It does not. The fees you linked to are to cover the cost of evaluating the studies, not for conducting the studies themselves.
Why should supplement producers not be held responsible for providing evidence that their supplements do what they are claimed to do? If they work, produce support for the claims made. If they do not work, why should anyone spend money on them?
Why would the FDA require a label for a gluten free product if there was no need for one? That makes no sense. The only products that will be labeled are the ones that might normally be expected to contain gluten, do not, and the manufacturer wishes it to be marketed as such. The rule took two years to develop. The amount of gluten is an amount that would not be expected to cause a problem for folks who are sensitive to it. People who are interested in gluten free products just need to know the definition being used to permit the labeling. The point is that you asked why has the FDA not addressed gluten. It has.
You said the FDA conducts drug studies. It does not. The fees you linked to are to cover the cost of evaluating the studies, not for conducting the studies themselves.
Why should supplement producers not be held responsible for providing evidence that their supplements do what they are claimed to do? If they work, produce support for the claims made. If they do not work, why should anyone spend money on them?
There is a need for a Gluten Free label. Many people are having problems related to Gluten Intolerance. Many don't even know it. Many products that have ingredients that are not associated with Gluten but may have been fried or cooked with products they have resulting in "cross contamination". Some ingredients are just too vague such as "Flavoring". Therefore, consumers with serious Gluten intolerance need help.
Ok, regarding the Drug testing vs Studies it implies the same to me. The point is that the FDA gets money from the drug company to do any testing or studies.
There is a need for a Gluten Free label. Many people are having problems related to Gluten Intolerance. Many don't even know it. Many products that have ingredients that are not associated with Gluten but may have been fried or cooked with products they have resulting in "cross contamination". Some ingredients are just too vague such as "Flavoring". Therefore, consumers with serious Gluten intolerance need help.
Ok, regarding the Drug testing vs Studies it implies the same to me. The point is that the FDA gets money from the drug company to do any testing or studies.
So orange juice needs a gluten free label? How about water? Fruits and vegetables? Does the person with gluten intolerance bear no responsibility for learning to read a label and identify ingredients that contain gluten? Folks who are undiagnosed aren't going to know to look for gluten, so a label will not help them.
We get back to your original point. You said the FDA has not addressed the gluten issue. It has. If a product is advertised as gluten free, it must contain less than a certain amount of gluten. The nature of food production is such that it may not be possible to produce something like bread that contains not even a trace of gluten. The new label will let customers know that the product does not contain significant amounts of gluten. The customer can choose to buy it or not.
The FDA does not conduct drug studies. It does not get money from drug companies to do any testing or studies. The drug companies do the testing and studies. The FDA charges fees to pay for the expense of evaluating the studies and deciding whether to approve the drugs. Would you rather that tax money be used to do that?
All of this deflects from the original topic. Why shouldn't supplement manufacturers have to show their products are useful? Either they work or they don't. If they don't, isn't it a form of fraud to sell them? If the products work, why be afraid of regulations?
Durbin's proposal is benign? Bullbleep. This clown has re-introduced this legislation because he wouldn't know what to do with himself if he weren't regulating and ultimately banning things. Yes, that's the agenda--Codex Alimentarius has been around a long time and it's being pushed here, too. The aim is to regulate vitamins and supplements gradually, by initially restricting the dosage available over the counter, to ultimately banning them entirely. Forget the ANA and consider the lobbying done by the "Big Pharmaceuticals" whose goal it is to push more pills on Americans. I guess that's okay.
Memo to gub-ment:
Get out of our refrigerators, get out of our cars, get out of our homes, and get out of our cabinets. It's nobody's damn business what supplements I choose to take.
Durbin's proposal is benign? Bullbleep. This clown has re-introduced this legislation because he wouldn't know what to do with himself if he weren't regulating and ultimately banning things. Yes, that's the agenda--Codex Alimentarius has been around a long time and it's being pushed here, too. The aim is to regulate vitamins and supplements gradually, by initially restricting the dosage available over the counter, to ultimately banning them entirely. Forget the ANA and consider the lobbying done by the "Big Pharmaceuticals" whose goal it is to push more pills on Americans. I guess that's okay.
Memo to gub-ment:
Get out of our refrigerators, get out of our cars, get out of our homes, and get out of our cabinets. It's nobody's damn business what supplements I choose to take.
Supplement makers don't push pills?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
