5 ms·

The FDA needs to regulate supplements. At the very least they need more random spot checking and stiff fines for misrepresenting ingredients. It's absurd that

The FDA needs to regulate supplements. At the very least they need more random spot checking and stiff fines for misrepresenting ingredients. It's absurd that you can't trust that the ingredients list on something as mundane as a multi vitamin is accurate.

choko 8y ago
The article calls out sexual performance and muscle building supplements (many of which are snake oil). The word vitamin doesn't appear in the article.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  Which has zero bearing on the parent's point: supplements (which includes vitamins) aren't regulated making them less safe. There's an incentive to adulterate these products with anything producing noticable positive short-term effects. There's no reason to believe vitamins are exceptional here - if you start taking a multivitamin that seems to improve your focus and energy slightly, you're more likely to continue buying that vitamin. A small addition of Amphetamine salts or even caffeine would do the trick.
xenadu02 8y ago
The FDA is prohibited by law from regulating "dietary supplements", much of that thanks to Orin Hatch. A concerted campaign (largely effective) stripped the FDA's ability to regulate many forms of snake oil, "alternative medicine", and other quackery.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00110 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
- bokchoi 8y ago
  Don't forget to thank Mel Gibson! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLGNm8_y6yU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLGNm8_y6yU
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    The real villain here is Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-hatch-20180105-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-hatch-... Strangely enough, his Wikipedia article doesn't mention his championship of the natural health industry, the word "supplement" doesn't show up even once. It must be that even his supporters find the "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994", which he sponsored, too blatantly in favour of the industry and too damaging to public health.
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Snake oil is so 1900's. Now it's fish, coconut and other types of oil.
  - gnulinux 8y ago
    There is a certain sense fish oil is snake oil (because they're marketed as something they're not) but evidence suggests fish oil supplements do have some health benefits to humans. [1] >High doses of omega-3s can reduce levels of triglycerides.. Omega-3 supplements may help relieve symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. My understanding is that there is no evidence suggesting fish oil is beneficial for humans other than these two things. However, regularly eating fish has a few more benefits. So, instead of taking fish oil pills, it probably makes more sense to eat fish once a week. [1]: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/omega3/introduction.htm https://nccih.nih.gov/health/omega3/introduction.htm
    - LinuxBender 8y ago
      Agreed. I have been studying fish oil and coconut oil at great length recently due to affects it had when I was trying to repair gut issues. Many websites give the positive effects of the omega-3's and the MCT's from Cocnut oil, but leave out important facts such as fish oil being a blood thinner and anticoagulant. This can prevent wounds from healing and even causing significantly greater damage. In my opinion, people should start with topical treatments for arthritis first, such as blue-emu or penetrex cream, as it is safer (not entirely safe, but much safer) than ingesting anything that is a COX-1 or COX-2 inhibitor, or that acts as a blood thinner. I mention Cox-1/2 because many other supplements are in that category (Curcummin, Aloe and many others) but people may not understand what that can mean for them. A lot of folks take Aloe for Arthritis, but not everyone should. It depends heavily on your gut lining and health. I am reaching a point where I can probably debunk most of the health websites and I might make some youtube videos on the topic, since many of these sites are harming people by not giving them all the facts. NIH being the number one offender. For some time, I thought those articles were vetted and peer reviewed. A few of them are, but most are not. Anyone can publish write-ups on PubMed it turns out.
    - benrapscallion 8y ago
- refurb 8y ago
  What do you mean prohibited from regulation? The reason why we know these supplements have unapproved pharmaceuticals in them is because regulations say: 1) you can't, 2) the FDA has the power to test them, 3) the FDA has the power to force a recall. The FDA is prohibited from banning supplements that have been in use prior to 1996 (or so). They are also allowed to restrict what can be said about the supplements (they can't make unsupported medical claims). I don't know about you, but unless a supplement is actually dangerous, I think it's good the FDA can't come in and tell adults what they can and can't put in their own bodies.
  - redler 8y ago
    Even an inert supplement is dangerous if its marketing and labeling leads uninformed people to believe it's a substitute for an actual working pharmaceutical.
    - refurb 8y ago
      The FDA already prohibits efficacy claims on supplements. You can claim it’s used, but t can claim it treats any disease.
  - scott_s 8y ago
    The FDA is prohibited from requiring safety and efficacy evidence before supplements go on the market. This is unlike substances categorized as drugs, which require both safety and efficacy evidence before going on the market. So the FDA won't know if a supplement is actually dangerous until after it is on the market, and then it will have to find that particular supplement among the thousands that exist, as the onus is on the FDA to find and prove it is dangerous.
    - refurb 8y ago
      That’s not accurate. You can’t just create a new chemical and call it a supplement. There has to be pre-existing data indicating that a supplement has been used in the past (prior to the legislation). If data suggests a supplement isn’t safe, the FDA can ban it. Plus, you’re not allowed to make specific safety or efficacy claims when selling a supplement. You can be vague about “It’s been used for insomnia”. But that’s about it.
- paulgrant999 8y ago
  ... by making sure you could get access to supplements without some bureacrat unilaterally decide, "no.". ...and the FDA does regulate dietary supplements.
virmundi 8y ago
Could the market solve this problem better than the goverment? https://labdoor.com https://labdoor.com. What's missing now is enough people to negatively review products on Amazon and the like. Perhaps that could be automated.
- gnulinux 8y ago
  I check labdoor every time I'll get something relevant (protein powder, chocolate, multivitamin) as a psychological reference, but I can't find any convincing evidence why labdoor should be more reliable and correct than the labels on the products. Do they publish their methodologies? Also for some product types all products fail California heavy metal regulations, and they just give everyone 0 points, instead of publishing exact amount of heavy metal in products. Like, I wanna know if I'm gonna get mercury poisoning if I eat two servings, or is it just above the threshold and should be safe...
- pjc50 8y ago
  Positive reviews on Amazon can also be automated. There's a whole industry of gaming reviews. Caveat emptor is never going to work for subtle problems like this.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Most folks buying supplements aren't in a position to perform checks on the ingredients in the actual pills. Not only that, but they aren't always in the position to know which claims are BS and which aren't. It is wonderful that such companies exist, but most folks won't check. And if someone simply doesn't check a product, it'll go undetected. And all it takes for a product to start flying off shelves is someone like Dr Oz mentioning the product and folks deciding he simply wouldn't give bad information. They trust him more than random website. (I should mention that I worked in a pharmacy, and have seen these effects first hand. I've also seen folks completely ignore a pharmacist recommendations for whatever their cousin's husband's mother said). I'll add that I wouldn't trust such an agency to tell me my actual, FDA-approved medications are safe, and we are basically talking about folks using products for health reasons.
refurb 8y ago
Is that exactly what the FDA is doing here? Spot checking and enacting penalties for violations. Note that the paper used the FDA's own wesbite for it's analysis.
stevenwoo 8y ago
As other people have noted, there is a symbiotic relationship between Orrin Hatch and the supplements industry. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/politics/21hatch.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/politics/21hatch.html Many of the companies involved in supplements manufacture are based in Utah, and many of the MLM companies involved in supplement distribution are based in Utah, most of the employees would be Mormon and the companies would be Mormon owned just based on probability so there is a captive audience of two Senators and four House members ready to defend the Wild West of supplements in the USA, Senators being able to influence bills to a much greater extent, given that Utah would probably never elect a Democrat to office it's going to take something like a 60-40 Democratic majority in the US Senate for this to ever change.
- paulgrant999 8y ago
  ... might be "Brigham's tea". Or as you know it, "mahuang". You know what that is? If you don't, you might look up the legal casework, before you start damning Orrin Hatch. He did, what he was supposed to. Preserve the rights of his constituents. And yes, "Brigham's tea" is specific to Utah.

choko 8y ago

The article calls out sexual performance and muscle building supplements (many of which are snake oil). The word vitamin doesn't appear in the article.

newnewpdro 8y ago
Which has zero bearing on the parent's point: supplements (which includes vitamins) aren't regulated making them less safe. There's an incentive to adulterate these products with anything producing noticable positive short-term effects. There's no reason to believe vitamins are exceptional here - if you start taking a multivitamin that seems to improve your focus and energy slightly, you're more likely to continue buying that vitamin. A small addition of Amphetamine salts or even caffeine would do the trick.

xenadu02 8y ago

The FDA is prohibited by law from regulating "dietary supplements", much of that thanks to Orin Hatch. A concerted campaign (largely effective) stripped the FDA's ability to regulate many forms of snake oil, "alternative medicine", and other quackery.

kevin_b_er 8y ago
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00110 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
bokchoi 8y ago
Don't forget to thank Mel Gibson! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLGNm8_y6yU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLGNm8_y6yU
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  The real villain here is Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-hatch-20180105-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-hatch-... Strangely enough, his Wikipedia article doesn't mention his championship of the natural health industry, the word "supplement" doesn't show up even once. It must be that even his supporters find the "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994", which he sponsored, too blatantly in favour of the industry and too damaging to public health.
LinuxBender 8y ago
Snake oil is so 1900's. Now it's fish, coconut and other types of oil.
- gnulinux 8y ago
  There is a certain sense fish oil is snake oil (because they're marketed as something they're not) but evidence suggests fish oil supplements do have some health benefits to humans. [1] >High doses of omega-3s can reduce levels of triglycerides.. Omega-3 supplements may help relieve symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. My understanding is that there is no evidence suggesting fish oil is beneficial for humans other than these two things. However, regularly eating fish has a few more benefits. So, instead of taking fish oil pills, it probably makes more sense to eat fish once a week. [1]: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/omega3/introduction.htm https://nccih.nih.gov/health/omega3/introduction.htm
  - LinuxBender 8y ago
    Agreed. I have been studying fish oil and coconut oil at great length recently due to affects it had when I was trying to repair gut issues. Many websites give the positive effects of the omega-3's and the MCT's from Cocnut oil, but leave out important facts such as fish oil being a blood thinner and anticoagulant. This can prevent wounds from healing and even causing significantly greater damage. In my opinion, people should start with topical treatments for arthritis first, such as blue-emu or penetrex cream, as it is safer (not entirely safe, but much safer) than ingesting anything that is a COX-1 or COX-2 inhibitor, or that acts as a blood thinner. I mention Cox-1/2 because many other supplements are in that category (Curcummin, Aloe and many others) but people may not understand what that can mean for them. A lot of folks take Aloe for Arthritis, but not everyone should. It depends heavily on your gut lining and health. I am reaching a point where I can probably debunk most of the health websites and I might make some youtube videos on the topic, since many of these sites are harming people by not giving them all the facts. NIH being the number one offender. For some time, I thought those articles were vetted and peer reviewed. A few of them are, but most are not. Anyone can publish write-ups on PubMed it turns out.
  - benrapscallion 8y ago
refurb 8y ago
What do you mean prohibited from regulation? The reason why we know these supplements have unapproved pharmaceuticals in them is because regulations say: 1) you can't, 2) the FDA has the power to test them, 3) the FDA has the power to force a recall. The FDA is prohibited from banning supplements that have been in use prior to 1996 (or so). They are also allowed to restrict what can be said about the supplements (they can't make unsupported medical claims). I don't know about you, but unless a supplement is actually dangerous, I think it's good the FDA can't come in and tell adults what they can and can't put in their own bodies.
- redler 8y ago
  Even an inert supplement is dangerous if its marketing and labeling leads uninformed people to believe it's a substitute for an actual working pharmaceutical.
  - refurb 8y ago
    The FDA already prohibits efficacy claims on supplements. You can claim it’s used, but t can claim it treats any disease.
- scott_s 8y ago
  The FDA is prohibited from requiring safety and efficacy evidence before supplements go on the market. This is unlike substances categorized as drugs, which require both safety and efficacy evidence before going on the market. So the FDA won't know if a supplement is actually dangerous until after it is on the market, and then it will have to find that particular supplement among the thousands that exist, as the onus is on the FDA to find and prove it is dangerous.
  - refurb 8y ago
    That’s not accurate. You can’t just create a new chemical and call it a supplement. There has to be pre-existing data indicating that a supplement has been used in the past (prior to the legislation). If data suggests a supplement isn’t safe, the FDA can ban it. Plus, you’re not allowed to make specific safety or efficacy claims when selling a supplement. You can be vague about “It’s been used for insomnia”. But that’s about it.
paulgrant999 8y ago
... by making sure you could get access to supplements without some bureacrat unilaterally decide, "no.". ...and the FDA does regulate dietary supplements.

virmundi 8y ago

Could the market solve this problem better than the goverment? https://labdoor.com https://labdoor.com. What's missing now is enough people to negatively review products on Amazon and the like. Perhaps that could be automated.

gnulinux 8y ago
I check labdoor every time I'll get something relevant (protein powder, chocolate, multivitamin) as a psychological reference, but I can't find any convincing evidence why labdoor should be more reliable and correct than the labels on the products. Do they publish their methodologies? Also for some product types all products fail California heavy metal regulations, and they just give everyone 0 points, instead of publishing exact amount of heavy metal in products. Like, I wanna know if I'm gonna get mercury poisoning if I eat two servings, or is it just above the threshold and should be safe...
pjc50 8y ago
Positive reviews on Amazon can also be automated. There's a whole industry of gaming reviews. Caveat emptor is never going to work for subtle problems like this.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Most folks buying supplements aren't in a position to perform checks on the ingredients in the actual pills. Not only that, but they aren't always in the position to know which claims are BS and which aren't. It is wonderful that such companies exist, but most folks won't check. And if someone simply doesn't check a product, it'll go undetected. And all it takes for a product to start flying off shelves is someone like Dr Oz mentioning the product and folks deciding he simply wouldn't give bad information. They trust him more than random website. (I should mention that I worked in a pharmacy, and have seen these effects first hand. I've also seen folks completely ignore a pharmacist recommendations for whatever their cousin's husband's mother said). I'll add that I wouldn't trust such an agency to tell me my actual, FDA-approved medications are safe, and we are basically talking about folks using products for health reasons.

refurb 8y ago

Is that exactly what the FDA is doing here? Spot checking and enacting penalties for violations. Note that the paper used the FDA's own wesbite for it's analysis.

stevenwoo 8y ago

As other people have noted, there is a symbiotic relationship between Orrin Hatch and the supplements industry. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/politics/21hatch.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/politics/21hatch.html Many of the companies involved in supplements manufacture are based in Utah, and many of the MLM companies involved in supplement distribution are based in Utah, most of the employees would be Mormon and the companies would be Mormon owned just based on probability so there is a captive audience of two Senators and four House members ready to defend the Wild West of supplements in the USA, Senators being able to influence bills to a much greater extent, given that Utah would probably never elect a Democrat to office it's going to take something like a 60-40 Democratic majority in the US Senate for this to ever change.

paulgrant999 8y ago
... might be "Brigham's tea". Or as you know it, "mahuang". You know what that is? If you don't, you might look up the legal casework, before you start damning Orrin Hatch. He did, what he was supposed to. Preserve the rights of his constituents. And yes, "Brigham's tea" is specific to Utah.