Should the FDA regulate supplements?

[MonkeyFunk]

Every few weeks or so, somebody here posts a panicked email about attempts to "ban" supplements, vitamins, minerals, etc.

Of course, there is no such effort to do any such thing. What there is, though, is an effort to regulate supplements (vitamins and minerals are already regulated) to ensure that they contain what the labels say they contain, and that the ingredients aren't contaminated.

Some here seem to think allowing the government to do such a thing is outlandish, and is just a play by "big pharma" to destroy the "mom & pop" supplement suppliers (you know, the multi-billion companies that make such items).

So how is that we can simultaneously DEMAND that the FDA be far more restrictive in regulating cat food, while being outraged that they would dare give similar attention to nutritional supplements?

[and-justice-for-all]

1. FDA should not 'regulate' them...

..but have 'some' oversite as to what is going into them, if thats even possible. If left to 'regulate' them, in a short time there will be no more suppliments, other then what is percribed by a Doctor who is on BigPharma payroll.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Why?

they regulate vitamins, and we can still buy vitamins.

What's wrong with requiring manufacturers to ensure that their capsules contain exactly (and only) what the labels say they contain?

[and-justice-for-all]

4. I was thinking 'supplements' & vitamins were the same..

..am I mistaken?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. vitamins are supplemants, not all supplemants are vitamins.

[and-justice-for-all]

11. Oh the maddness!! nt

[Mz Pip]

3. The problem with supplements

is that the makers can make all kinds of claims that aren't backed up by research. I don't think they should be banned but there should be some truth in advertising regulations. There are serious issues here. People believe taking some supplement will prevent a heart attack or high blood pressure and end up dead because they believed all the phony claims.

Look at all of the "diet aid" supplements. They are all bullshit. Any company who could produce a weight loss supplement that really worked would win the Nobel Prize.

My sister-in-law is a nurse and told me of an incident where a woman had surgery and started bleeding. Her blood wouldn't clot. She nearly died. Turns out she was taking Ginseng because some health foods store worker told her it would speed up her recover. She didn't tell the doctor and nearly died because of it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[MonkeyFunk]

10. True

do people here object to regulating the claims made by manufacturers?

If Merck made a drug they claimed could cure dropsy, but didn't, they should be made to take it off the market, right?

So if somebody claims their herb can cure something, shouldn't they be held to the same standards?

[Faux pas]

5. Cr*p, they can't make sure our food is safe. Just another reason

for tax payers to shell out money for services not rendered.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. so we should give up all efforts

entirely? If they're not perfect, don't do anything at all? Is that your position?

[Faux pas]

13. Assume much? I mean they should take care of what they

are already supposed to be responsible for. You sure read a lot into very little. I've gotten into it with you before, not biting after this FINAL comment. Have a nice evening.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. sorry

you're leaving so soon.

I'm asking for clarification.

Do you believe that the FDA should NOT regulate supplements at all? Precision isn't a fault, you know.

[gravity]

21. Imagine life without the FDA

Be happy we don't live in China.

The FDA isn't perfect, but they do a reasonable good job at protecting the consumers from corporations. Hell, most of their problems could be solved if we just funded them better with the rest of the regulatory agencies.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Yup!

The idea that because they're less-than-perfect, they're useless, is nonsensical.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. They regulate drugs, they regulate food...

I don't mind sticking supplemants somewhere in between drugs and food.

[tammywammy]

9. I'd like to have someone regulating this stuff

There's no telling what's in some of those jars.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. exactly

and when it comes to herbs, wouldn't it be nice to ensure that the herbs still contain whatever active ingredient they're claimed to have?

[uppityperson]

14. yup

oh darn, last time this came through I told myself I wouldn't get involved again. Shame. Yes, I think it is fine for supplements to be regulated.

[nam78_two]

15. Well for starters it would be nice if they were doing their job at regulating what

they are supposed to be regulating right now (forget supplements etc.) The FDA, the USDA and the EPA have been in a race to the bottom since this the beginning of this adminstration :

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/health/policy/27fda.html?ex=1179892800&en=899dc16db4730628&ei=5070
>>
WASHINGTON, June 26 — A 15-month inquiry by a top House Democrat has found that enforcement of the nation's food and drug laws declined sharply during the first five years of the Bush administration.

For instance, the investigation found, the number of warning letters that the Food and Drug Administration issued to drug companies, medical device makers and others dropped 54 percent, to 535 in 2005 from 1,154 in 2000.

The seizure of mislabeled, defective or dangerous products dipped 44 percent, according to the inquiry, pursued by Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee.

The research found no evidence that such declines could be attributed to increased compliance with regulations. Investigators at the F.D.A. continued to uncover about the same number of problems at drug and device companies as before, Mr. Waxman's inquiry found, but top officials of the agency increasingly overruled the investigators' enforcement recommendations.

The biggest decline in enforcement actions was found at the agency's device center, where they decreased 65 percent in the five-year period despite a wave of problems with devices including implantable defibrillators and pacemakers.
>>

These agencies are becoming such a farce.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. well,

somebody above already left the thread because I asked for clarification.

Is it your position that because there are still problems with the food/drug supply that they shouldn't attempt to regulate supplements?

Should we require that they be 100% efficient in what they already do before adding supplements to their mandate?

Wouldn't it be nice if they were 99% efficient in regulating all of it?

[nam78_two]

22. Well its more that

they are very far from even close to 100% efficient. It is getting to be more and more of a bogus entity (like most government agencies under Bush).

I guess it was more of an aside to your question rather than an answer. My mind was more sort of drifting along the lines that FDA certification means less and less these days, given how many drugs they clear too soon, which then have to be recalled, due to major problems with them. Regulating supplements would certainly be good, but the regulations themselves are getting rather meaningless imo, which is pretty sad.

I work in Biotech. research and I heard about a drug/supplement for intestinal issues that a lab adjoining ours is getting a go-ahead for from the FDA despite the fact that even the PIs involved admit (informally)that they haven't done at least 4-5 different tests relating to the drug's potential ill effects on liver function. But, they have pushed it through anyway-that sort of thing makes me wonder. And I see too much involvement by some of the big pharmaceutical companies in the kind of research I do.

[SidDithers]

18. Yes, yes, of course yes...

I was reading in the paper this weekend about Health Canada's Natural Health Products Directorate http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/index_e.html and was amazed to hear that there was no equivalent body as part of the FDA.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Sid

[gravity]

19. If they make medical claims, then they should be regulated

The FDA was created in the first place to protect the consumers from snake oil salesmen.

Now, especially with the Internet, these snake oil salesmen convinced people that their is a conspiracy set by Big Pharma and the FDA against their products, even though their is no objective evidence supporting their medical claims. They say that Big Pharma is just concerned with profits, while these guys are selling stuff for profit at the same time.

I don't think that vitamins should be held to the same standards as drugs, but if you want to make medical claims, there needs to be an objective evidence to back them up.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. I agree entirely....

but for some reason, people think a claim by a 'pharmaceutical' is always suspicious, but a 'supplement' maker is always true and pure.