*please* check out new law about buying supplements

And btw, insurance companies pick up the tab to help the user where prescriptions are concerned. Supplements will never be covered by insurance (another reason it wouldn't be affordable for many).
Don't be so sure... Supplement maker lobbyists have been working hard to try to get coverage mandated by slipping it into certain large pieces of proposed legislation... and they've been finding sympathetic lawmakers.
 
It would be nice if the FDA allowed the sale of certain drugs with a disclaimer noting that its testing was incomplete instead of forcing them all to pass the same standards before release - even with lives on the line.
Interesting notion, but think "Vioxx liability... times 100". Won't happen. This sort of thing won't extend beyond Phase III clinical trials.
 
Interesting notion, but think "Vioxx liability... times 100". Won't happen. This sort of thing won't extend beyond Phase III clinical trials.

I know that it won't happen, but it should (IMO)...
 
While you may be fortunate enough to have the ability to pay more, not everyone would (we are talking a HUGE increase, not a measly $0.02 per dose).
So how much will they go up. $0.04? Can you give some specifics here. You started off talking about vitamins. Exactly how much is that bottle of Flintstones chewable increasing?
 

I suspect that "safety" is a fig leaf being used to hide the real purpose of the bill - reducing competition. I would love for the FDA to switch from restricting sales to being more of a stamp of approval. FDA approved food, drugs, and supplements could all be sold with a nice, shiny "FDA approved" logo on them. Non-FDA approved stuff could be forced to include a large disclaimer saying that "Health claims have not been validated and are likely to be untrue. This product is probably not effective and may not be safe. Consume only at your own risk." With that system, no one unknowingly buys anything dangerous, but everyone is still free to buy what they want.
 
There's also one major flaw in the "This bill will make your Beta Prostate (supports a healthy prostate, urinary tract, bladder and sexual functioning!) cost $150 a bottle just like some prescription drugs!" meme... the FDA doesn't just regulate Rx products, they also regulate OTC drugs. If you want a real comparison to what would happen, go looks the cost of store-brand hydrocortisone cream, or ibuprofen tablets, or cough and cold medicine in your grocery store HBA section. The FDA publishes what are called "monographs" for each type of OTC product that describes what it must contain ingredient-wise, may be advertised to treat, dosage information, and warnings. As long as a drug maker sticks to the monograph, it's simple and easy for a drug maker to market it's own version of the product. This is why if you look at the packaging of generic OTC products the text on the bottles or boxes are so much alike (often word for word).

Mark, look for the official "FDA seal of approval" on packages of store brand versions of Prilosec OTC the next time you're in the store.

If you want to properly position this proposed new law, I'd call it the "'Smiling Bob' Act of 2010" after the Enzyte spokesman for their "dietary supplement" that promises "natural male enhancement". As of now, unless the product harms people, or the maker explicitly says what "enhancement" means exactly using medical language, the FDA just has to sit on their hands and let the quackery continue.
 
There's also one major flaw in the "This bill will make your Beta Prostate (supports a healthy prostate, urinary tract, bladder and sexual functioning!) cost $150 a bottle just like some prescription drugs!" meme... the FDA doesn't just regulate Rx products, they also regulate OTC drugs. If you want a real comparison to what would happen, go looks the cost of store-brand hydrocortisone cream, or ibuprofen tablets, or cough and cold medicine you your grocery store HBA section. The FDA publishes what are called "monographs" for each type of OTC product that describes what it must contain ingredient-wise, may be advertised to treat, dosage information, and warnings. As long as a drug maker sticks to the monograph, it's simple and easy for a drug maker to market it's own version of the product. This is why if you look at the packaging of generic OTC products the text on the bottles or boxes are so much alike (often word for word).

Mark, look for the official "FDA seal of approval" on packages of store brand versions of Prilosec OTC the next time you're in the store.

If you want to properly position this proposed new law, I'd call it the "'Smiling Bob' Act of 2010" after the Enzyte spokesman for their "dietary supplement" that promises "natural male enhancement". As of now, unless the product harms people, or the maker explicitly says what "enhancement" means exactly using medical language, the FDA just has to sit on their hands and let the quackery continue.

Sorry, there is no real harm. Fools and their money will soon be parted. This law will not change that. The FDA makes America the most difficult place in the world to buy drugs. Are we safer? Ask the people who are suffering because they cannot get drugs available everywhere else that would help them...
 
I think supplements need more regulation!!!!!!! I think people would benefit from more regulation on what they cna buy and ingest OTC.
 
I agree 100%... It's about time. It's amazing to walk trough a health food store and look at all of the products for sale that get to make quasi-medical claims with zero proof of efficacy just because they can slap the title of "dietary supplement" on them! This is an overdue correction of the 1994 law that let the "health food" industry run wild and largely avoid regulation.



(In the interest of disclosure, lest I be accused to trying to hide it... even tough I'm open about it... I work for a company that is covered by those pesky FDA regulations.)

I read your post to my husband who works in pharm and his response to you is, misery loves company.;)
 
Thanks, but I'd rather pay more and know that a product has met FDA standards.
Considering the FDA's track record with arthritis pain medication and, more recently, the diabetic pills causing heart attacks, I'm not going to rely on their stamp of approval.

I'll educate myself about the actual ingredients listed on the supplement before taking it. IMO, those who don't educate themselves are responsible for their own issues that arise from foolishly ingesting a product before finding out what's in it.
 
, those who don't educate themselves are responsible for their own issues that arise from foolishly ingesting a product before finding out what's in it.

My in-laws were taken advantage of by a home health worker who signed them up for expensive products that she promised could help with my MIL's MS and my FIL's emphysema. These were vulnerable people with chronic problems who were preyed upon by someone who was supposed to be changing their bed linen and helping with range of motion exercises. There are numerous vitamin/supplement companies that operate as pyramid schemes and this is where I think this kind of legislation could make a difference.
 
Considering the FDA's track record with arthritis pain medication and, more recently, the diabetic pills causing heart attacks, I'm not going to rely on their stamp of approval.
So who has a better track record that you are going to trust instead? The FDA ain't perfect, but they are in better position to evaluate these things than anyone else.
 
While you may be fortunate enough to have the ability to pay more, not everyone would (we are talking a HUGE increase, not a measly $0.02 per dose). A bill like this would put many companies out of business. The process is way too elaborate for many of these companies to run these types of trials and then actually make a profit at the end of the day.

Perhaps you shouldn't be taking them if you feel this strongly about them?

I don't take them. And I can't believe anyone would advocate companies NOT testing their products to the highest standards just to save money. I find it incredibly sad that you have no problem with potential harmful substances being sold just for the sake of saving yourself money.
 
Considering the FDA's track record with arthritis pain medication and, more recently, the diabetic pills causing heart attacks, I'm not going to rely on their stamp of approval.

I'll educate myself about the actual ingredients listed on the supplement before taking it. IMO, those who don't educate themselves are responsible for their own issues that arise from foolishly ingesting a product before finding out what's in it.

I agree.. There is a "personal responsibility" factor here.. Every medication - OTC or prescribed - and every supplement I take - is researched thoroughly by me before I ingest it.. I have had FDA "approved" medications make me deathly ill - and we all know that there are prescriptions out there right now that carry some dire consequences that patients have not been made aware of..

If a person is going to take any kind of medication or supplement, they have a responsibility to themselves to research the product extensively before using it.. If they don't, they should not be "shifting the blame" elsewhere..

I have one supplement that I take that contains nothing more than the same ingredient that is found in yogurt - it's just in a "pill" form instead - which is more convenient for me - as well as a better option for people with IBS and/or lactose issues.. I currently spend about $10 for a months supply.. Get the FDA involved and I'm sure the cost would go up dramatically..

The other item I mentioned is Boost - to help me maintain my weight - and could also be considered a "dietary supplement".. I drink this at least 3 times a day - per my doctors orders - and the price is already quite costly.. Again - get the FDA involved and I probably wouldn't even be able to afford it..

Are there some "wacky" supplements out there? For sure.. Are there some that don't live up to their promises? Yup.. Are there others that could actually be dangerous - for one reason or another? Certainly.. But ALL of that information is readily available - to anyone who cares enough about their own health to do the research before ingesting those items..

Bottom line is that I would hate to see something like this cause a dramatic price increase - or even end up being available by "prescription only" - because that would leave a lot of informed people "up the creek without a paddle"..:sad2:
 
I'm personally more libertarian than most people, however its kind of like not being able to design and build your own home without getting an engineer to sign off on it. I would love to say that everyone in this country is completely intelligent enough to follow research/etc to determine whether or not a supplement will help their specific issue or promote their general wellness, but we've certainly seen products (anyone remember stacker2) that are dangerous. While without a doubt there are products that are helpful. Right now there is no independent source of review for any claims made by a supplement company, they can put whatever they want on the labelling and product information as long as it does not say it cures a specific disease. I think that is BS unless there is some sort of independent agency verifying whether or not their claims have even the slightest hint of truth. Currently any supplement can be released onto the market with next to no review (simply the fact that you're not trying to sell an obvious poison - no selling mercury tablets for example). The only thing the FDA can do is remove it if it is a serious danger. There is no requirement about efficacy, simply the fact that its not a poison. I think having independent scientific reviews to determine efficacy in various diseases would be a big boost for the industry in the long term. They'll actually become more mainstream as the products are known to go through both safe and consistent manufacturing methodologies as well as efficacy reviews. I think nature does have a lot to offer us in terms of treatments for our various ailments, I just dont think a company whose only motive is profit will necessarily not try to sell you a placebo claiming to treat a condition or improve something.
 
I think they need some more regulation OR people who actually know what they are peddling to people. My pharmacology instructor told us a story about one lady who was a health nut who came into the ER and they found out she was taking an herbal supplement that as causing her to become SEVERELY anemic , and she had to have a blood transfusion. She just picked up a bottle of don quoi from otc cause she read over the internet it would help with muscle cramps. :sad2:
 
Get the FDA involved and I'm sure the cost would go up dramatically..
You are "sure". Not just think. Not just speculate. You are sure. Why?

Again - get the FDA involved and I probably wouldn't even be able to afford it..
Again I ask... what makes you say that. As pointed out, the FDA is involved in tons of OTC products that you can afford.
 
Okay, donning my "tin foil" hat here...;)

I have *heard* that one of the reasons for this bill is that it is being pushed by pharmaceutical companies. There are various supplements (Vitamin D comes to mind as well as probiotics) that they are chomping at the bit to have pulled off the shelves from the average person so that they can market a "drug" for it and make tons of money. As you know, the Vitamin D market and it costs pennies to treat people with this. Pribiotics are the same. If the FDA doesn't regulate it, they can't *study* it and make a wildly expensive drug for it.

The active ingredient in Red Yeast Rice is the same. For the most part, it's been pulled from U.S. shelves because it was competing with Zocor and Crestor and the like. Even docs were advising patients to use it when they were having side effects from the stronger, prescriptions forms.
 
You are "sure". Not just think. Not just speculate. You are sure. Why?

Again I ask... what makes you say that. As pointed out, the FDA is involved in tons of OTC products that you can afford.

The post below sums it up nicely - as does "history".. As I said in my previous post, "research, research, research".. It's personal responsibility..

Okay, donning my "tin foil" hat here...;)

I have *heard* that one of the reasons for this bill is that it is being pushed by pharmaceutical companies. There are various supplements (Vitamin D comes to mind as well as probiotics) that they are chomping at the bit to have pulled off the shelves from the average person so that they can market a "drug" for it and make tons of money. As you know, the Vitamin D market and it costs pennies to treat people with this. Pribiotics are the same. If the FDA doesn't regulate it, they can't *study* it and make a wildly expensive drug for it.

The active ingredient in Red Yeast Rice is the same. For the most part, it's been pulled from U.S. shelves because it was competing with Zocor and Crestor and the like. Even docs were advising patients to use it when they were having side effects from the stronger, prescriptions forms.
 
The post below sums it up nicely - as does "history".. As I said in my previous post, "research, research, research".. It's personal responsibility..
Here's the problem... your philosophy totally rests on a "caveat emptor" approach to separating the safe and effective products from the dangerous and/or ineffective ones. It's not the maker's responsibility to offer products that actually work and are known to be safe, it's the "personal responsibility" of each consumer. If a supplement maker rips you off, sells you a product that contained things not listed on the label, or makes you sick, hey, then you should have done your homework first or you can only chalk it up as a learning experience... shame on you!

The active ingredient in Red Yeast Rice is the same. For the most part, it's been pulled from U.S. shelves because it was competing with Zocor and Crestor and the like. Even docs were advising patients to use it when they were having side effects from the stronger, prescriptions forms.
I wasn't familiar with this issue, so I did a bit of digging. Not surprising, the story behind the banning of certain types of Red Yeast Rice isn't as intriguing as it may sound. Red Yeast Rice didn't contain some natural alternative that worked like a cholesterol lowering statin drug... it contained a statin drug itself. Certain processed forms of the rice contains monacolin K. This is same as mevinolin or lovastatin, which is the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the prescription drug Mevacor. So the FDA ruled that when health food stores were found to be selling red yeast rice extract marketed as a cholesterol lowering agent, they weren't really selling a "dietary supplement", they were selling the prescription drug itself and making a drug claim to boot!

Okay, donning my "tin foil" hat here...
If you want to look beyond conspiracy for the reasons of the proposed legislation, you may want to look at this GAO report: DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS, FDA Should Take Further Actions to Improve Oversight and Consumer Understanding. The study and report were prompted by an alarming increase in the number of adverse reaction reports received by the FDA in recent years relating to dietary supplements. Here's the summary of the report:
Dietary supplements and foods with added dietary ingredients, such as vitamins and herbs, constitute multibillion dollar industries. Past reports on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulation of these products raised concerns about product safety and the availability of reliable information. Since then, FDA published draft guidance on requirements for reporting adverse events--which are harmful effects or illnesses--and Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations for dietary supplements. GAO was asked to examine FDA's (1) actions to respond to the new serious adverse event reporting requirements, (2) ability to identify and act on concerns about the safety of dietary supplements, (3) ability to identify and act on concerns about the safety of foods with added dietary ingredients, and (4) actions to ensure that consumers have useful information about the safety and efficacy of supplements.

FDA has made several changes in response to the new serious adverse event reporting requirements and has subsequently received an increased number of reports. For example, FDA has modified its data system, issued draft guidance, and conducted outreach to industry. Since mandatory reporting went into effect on December 22, 2007, FDA has seen a threefold increase in the number of all adverse event reports received by the agency compared with the previous year. For example, from January through October 2008, FDA received 948 adverse event reports--596 of which were mandatory reports submitted by industry--compared with 298 received over the same time period in 2007. Although FDA has received a greater number of reports since the requirements went into effect, underreporting remains a concern, and the agency has further actions planned to facilitate adverse event reporting. FDA has taken some steps to identify and act upon safety concerns related to dietary supplements; however, several factors limit the agency's ability to detect concerns and remove products from the market. For example, FDA has limited information on the number and location of dietary supplement firms, the types of products currently available in the marketplace, and information about moderate and mild adverse events reported to industry. Additionally, FDA dedicates relatively few resources to oversight activities, such as providing guidance to industry regarding notification requirements for products containing new dietary ingredients. Also, once FDA has identified a safety concern, the agency's ability to remove a product from the market is hindered by a lack of mandatory recall authority and the difficult process of demonstrating significant or unreasonable risk for specific ingredients. Although FDA has taken some actions when foods contain unsafe dietary ingredients, certain factors may allow potentially unsafe products to reach consumers. FDA may not know when a company has made an unsupported or incorrect determination about whether an added dietary ingredient in a product is generally recognized as safe until after the product becomes available to consumers because companies are not required to notify FDA of their self-determinations. In addition, the boundary between dietary supplements and conventional foods containing dietary ingredients is not always clear, and some food products could be marketed as dietary supplements to circumvent the safety standard required for food additives. FDA has taken limited steps to educate consumers about dietary supplements, and studies and experts indicate that consumer understanding is lacking. While FDA has conducted some outreach, these initiatives have reached a relatively small proportion of dietary supplement consumers. Additionally, surveys and experts indicate that consumers are not well-informed about the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements and have difficulty interpreting labels on these products. Without a clear understanding of the safety, efficacy, and labeling of dietary supplements, consumers may be exposed to greater health risks associated with the uninformed use of these products.
As you can see, one of the report's concerns is the lack of information that consumers need in order to do some of that personal research about a supplement that is recommended above.

Here were the recommended actions:
- To enhance FDA's oversight of dietary supplements and foods with added dietary ingredients, and to improve the information available to FDA for identifying safety concerns and better enable FDA to meet its responsibility to protect the public health, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to request authority to require dietary supplement companies to (1) identify themselves as a dietary supplement company as part of the existing registration requirements and update this information annually, (2) provide a list of all dietary supplement products they sell and a copy of the labels and update this information annually, and (3) report all adverse events related to dietary supplements.

- To enhance FDA's oversight of dietary supplements and foods with added dietary ingredients, and to better enable FDA to meet its responsibility to regulate dietary supplements that contain new dietary ingredients, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to issue guidance to clarify when an ingredient is considered a new dietary ingredient, the evidence needed to document the safety of new dietary ingredients, and appropriate methods for establishing ingredient identity.

- To enhance FDA's oversight of dietary supplements and foods with added dietary ingredients, and to help ensure that companies follow the appropriate laws and regulations and to renew a recommendation we made in July 2000, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to provide guidance to industry to clarify when products should be marketed as either dietary supplements or conventional foods formulated with added dietary ingredients.

- To enhance FDA's oversight of dietary supplements and foods with added dietary ingredients, and to improve consumer understanding about dietary supplements and better leverage existing resources, we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should direct the Commissioner of FDA to coordinate with stakeholder groups involved in consumer outreach to (1) identify additional mechanisms--such as the recent WebMD partnership--for educating consumers about the safety, efficacy, and labeling of dietary supplements; (2) implement these mechanisms; and (3) assess their effectiveness.
A lot of the recommendations have to do with giving the FDA the information needed to properly evaluate the adverse reporting data it receives. It's hard to spot a problem by looking at the reporting data if you don't have a complete picture of what products contain which ingredients. And when a problem is reported, it's hard to order recalls of products if you don't know which ones contain the offending item. In the recommendations, you'll also see the need pointed out for more information for consumer education (research). No doubt some of this will add a regulatory burden on supplement makers, but the alternative is to continue the "caveat emptor" or "trust us" model with the explosion of dietary supplement products on the market. The report noted: "In 1994, there were approximately 4,000 dietary supplement products on the market, whereas an industry source estimated that, in 2008, about 75,000 dietary supplement products were available to consumers." In 2007 dietary supplements tallied $23.7B in sales.
 





Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom