Dietary supplement industry says “no” to more information for consumers (again)

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists-giving-consumers-safety-and-effectiveness-information/

"Once again, the dietary supplement industry is fighting efforts to give consumers more information about the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements.

Big Supp is very clever. It sells consumers on the phony idea that they need dietary supplements for good health. Even as the evidence continues to mount that consumers don’t need supplements and shouldn’t take them, the industry continues to convince the public otherwise. And in 2011 they raked in $30 billion.

The state and federal governments have served as handmaidens to the industry in this clever marketing strategy. Congress’s gift to the supplement industry, the Orwellian-named Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) “effectively excludes manufacturers of these products from virtually all regulations that are in place for prescription and over-the-counter drugs, and puts the requirement to demonstrate harm on the FDA, rather than the onus on the manufacturer to show a product is safe and effective,” as SBM’s Scott Gavura pointed out. DSHEA allows supplements to make “structure and function” claims, although no one seems to know what that means, including the FDA.

States have done their part in granting chiropractors and naturopaths the authority to give “nutritional” advice and recommend dietary supplements, sometimes on the basis of dubious diagnostic testing purporting to reveal imagined nutritional deficiencies. This gives them carte blanche to sell supplements to their patients, a clear conflict of interest.

..."[/I


A very good read.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

1. I think there is a much bigger problem - Can you say GMO's?

What about the toxins in the food supply? Do you think that food should come with labels that tell what chemicals were used in their production?

Do you get paid to post the stuff you bring here?

[SunSeeker]

2. Supplement manufacturers cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

As the article notes, the warnings the manufacturers association, AHPA, offers are not adequate. For example, with regard to St. John's wort:

AHPA Handbook:
Pregnancy and Lactation
Studies on the effect of prenatal consumption of St. John’s wort on pregnancy in mice and rats were generally associated with normal gestation and offspring development. A limited number of human case reports indicated healthy pregnancies and infants when St. John’s wort was used prenatally. In studies of nursing mothers, the compound hyperforin was detected in low concentrations in mother’s milk while the compound hypericin was not detected in milk.

Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database:
PREGNANCY: POSSIBLY UNSAFE …when used orally. Anecdotal evidence suggests that St. John’s wort might be safe for use during pregnancy; however, animal model research has produced contradictory findings. Other preliminary research suggests that constituents of St. John’s wort might have teratogenic effects. Until more is known, St. John’s wort should not be taken during pregnancy.
LACTATION: POSSIBLY UNSAFE …when used orally. Nursing infants of mothers who take St. John’s wort can experience colic, drowsiness, and lethargy; avoid using.

Whose advice would you follow?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/big-supp-resists-giving-consumers-safety-and-effectiveness-information/

As the article notes, Senator Dick Durbin is pushing legislation requiring better information. I salute him.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

6. Pretend that I wrote a bunch of words that sounded like they had real meaning.

No. Really, do not project your weirdness on me.

I did not defend the supplement industry. Your bias lead your there.

My point is . Let people do what they want.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS IN MY FOOD.

Let me choose to know.

How much sweat off your balls is it if some dumb ass buy a bad vitamin????????

Do you want to know what is in your food???????????

I just point out that one of these issues is more important than the other.
Do you agree?????????

[HuckleB]

8. +1

Exactly.

[HuckleB]

4. The shill gambit comes out in defense of scumbag supplement corporations.

That's pretty sad.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

5. Again you prove that you can not understand the written word.

You project you fantasies onto my words and then fight your own twisted views.

I never defended anything.

I simply pointed out that you are moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Feel free to continue.

Still, you don not answer the question.

I love you.

[HuckleB]

7. Keep digging.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

9. non-existent things can be more easily and irresponsibly represented in words than existing things

Something that does not exist in itself can, because it is produced in respect to its form (though not in respect to its existence) by the subject with its form of intuition and thought, be known as an empirical reality.

For although in a certain sense and for light-minded persons non-existent things can be more easily and irresponsibly represented in words than existing things, for the serious and conscientious historian it is just the reverse.

Nothing is harder, yet nothing is more necessary, than to speak of certain things whose existence is neither demonstrable nor probable.

The very fact that serious and conscientious men treat them as existing things brings them a step closer to existence and to the possibility of being born.

[HuckleB]

10. You can keep trying to change the subject all you want.

This thread is about scumbag supplement corporations trying to misinform and not inform consumers.

Are you defending them? If not, cool. If so, well, there you go.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

11. You fail to respone to simple questions.

What are three things that are very important to you?

I see you on a political board pushing your agenda that has nothing to do with the core issues promoting the democratic party.

I see you supporting companies that work hard to elect republicans.

I see you taunting people instead of engaging in intelligent discussions.

I see no thoughts of your own - only cuts that come from questionable sources.

Why? I know! I find it sad.

Do you know of a drug that can cure people who are sociopaths?

[HuckleB]

12. I see that you continue to try to attack me without warrant.

BTW, if you want to discuss the OP, then discuss it. If you don't, then start your own OP discussing what you want to discuss.

BTW, you are new here. I am not.

Again, it appears that you cannot address this issue.

BTW, you do realize that supplement companies love Republicans, right?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

13. I have been here longer than you!

"I see that you continue to try to attack me without warrant."

No, no attack. Just curiosity. You are the person with the mocking emoticons rolling around.
I am just trying to understand how much credence I should give to your post. Do you consider
mandatory labeling of GMO foods more or less important than supplement labeling?????????


"BTW, if you want to discuss the OP, then discuss it. If you don't, then start your own OP discussing what you want to discuss."

OK. Let us discuss you OP. I think that there many choices that one must make. You of all people must agree that there are many people pushing bad information. You ask a good question,"Whose advice would you follow?" Your OP is lifted from the site Science Based Medicine. What do you know about that site? It looks contrived to me. The OP is structured in a suspect way. There are internal inconsistencies in the content. I chose to think that it looks like little useful information has been provided and that this is a broadsided attack against companies that are trying to provide help to people.



"BTW, you are new here. I am not"

I have been here longer than you.


"Again, it appears that you cannot address this issue."

The issue is propaganda. You are the one avoiding the issue.


"BTW, you do realize that supplement companies love Republicans, right"

For some companies that is true. The big corporate supplement providers do love republicans and they would love to kill off the smaller better companies.

[HuckleB]

14. The issue is Supplement Companies.

You keep ignoring that. They ALL want to keep information from the public. Also, you pretend that you did not begin with a personal attack. Something that you continued to do. That, in itself, does not speak well, and no, I don't believe you're curious whatsoever. At this point, I would be a fool to believe anything you have to say. Further, you pretend to have been here longer than me, when you only signed on last Spring. Hmm.

You won't find a better, more honest, more fact-checked source than SBM. Of course, the source has nothing to do with matter at hand. You are simply attempting to divert discussion yet again.

Other than that your claims continue to be off topic, vague and meaningless.

[SunSeeker]

3. K & R