4 ms·

The total lack of regulation for "supplements" is kind of bizarre. Seems to me people shouldn't be able to sell any compound they like as a pseudo-medicine.

Spooky23 4y ago
It shouldn’t be surprising. It’s the typical self-interested “freedom” debate. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah essentially neutered the ability of the federal government to take most any useful action against supplements unless they are proven to cause harm. The rationale is pretty simple. Utah is the center of the MLM universe, and they are big supporters of the Senator. Supplements attract scammers like the flies to light. Herbalife is the best known of these products, but there are dozens of these schemes selling everything from powered bone material to herbal viagra. It’s a common pattern that effective in selling bad ideas.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah essentially neutered the ability of the federal government to take most any useful action against supplements unless they are proven to cause harm. Would you rather that the federal government can shut down any company they want without having to prove harm?
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    I think I’d you’re selling me a cure, you should prove that it cures something and is safe. Safe needs to be defined as well. As we learned during the pandemic, there’s a spectrum of risk tolerance that individuals have.
    - gruez 4y ago
      > I think I’d you’re selling me a cure, you should prove that it cures something and is safe. Are these marketed as a cure? The pictures in the article doesn't seem to indicate that they're claiming to cure something, just a vague label of "dietary supplement".
      - Spooky23 4y ago
        Yes. They’ve lawyered up after “Airborne” was marketed as developed by a teacher to prevent the cold, and subsequently sued. Now, they say “developed by a teacher” and use social media influencers to make or imply health claims. These companies make millions ripping you off. People don’t take blood pressure meds they need, but drop $75 on CoQ10 and cod liver oil.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Would you rather that the federal government can shut down any company they want without having to prove harm? No, not "any". Is that really what you meant to ask? Supplements, though? Whether extracts or synthetic chemicals that don't have evidence of being safe in that form? Yeah probably.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      There is plenty of middle ground. Create a safe harbor for small producers and anyone who voluntarily gets certain certifications, with increased liability and maybe disclosure requirements for those who don’t. Or maybe require a safety study without needing to prove efficacy, et cetera.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Yes. They should be able to take action against false claims of efficacy or purity.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      In theory, they can. Supplements are required to have labeling that "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." And they can't have advertising that says otherwise. In practice, the FDA doesn't even begin to enforce this rule. Even if the company is careful in its language, they're not going to monitor stores to ensure that the staff isn't pushing the product, or contradict social media posts. Smaller companies will just plain defy the rules. If it comes to the FDA's attention, they'll send a letter -- at which point the company will go bankrupt, and a new company will appear selling exactly the same product. The FDA does take a fair bit of action, especially after somebody has gotten hurt, but they don't have anywhere near the budget required to monitor the $40 billion supplement market.
  - fabian2k 4y ago
    Supplements are not really all that different from drugs. And for those you have to prove they're safe before you can sell them. For supplements you have to prove nothing.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
burritas 4y ago
We could look at it as a problem, but if we keep idiots safe from this bullshit, they'll just go do something equally as stupid. If we get rid of this it'll be one less thing we have to thin out the herd. I look at it as a solution. .../s
cpleppert 4y ago
I'm confused about what is actually going on here. The FDA claims [1] that Tianeptine can't be used as a supplement ingredient so selling it should be illegal. That was from 2018 so there is no reason it should still be able to be sold. Notwithstanding, The FDA could simply put Tianeptine on the controlled substances list. 1: https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplement-products-ingredients/tianeptine-dietary-supplements https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplement-products-ingredi...
jimbob45 4y ago
Drug regulation is typically done from the benefit side: prove that your drug has the benefits you say it does or you’re not going to market. I’d be okay with supplements taking the opposite stance: prove that your supplement doesn’t inflict serious harm on your test group and we’ll let you go to market.

Spooky23 4y ago

It shouldn’t be surprising. It’s the typical self-interested “freedom” debate. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah essentially neutered the ability of the federal government to take most any useful action against supplements unless they are proven to cause harm. The rationale is pretty simple. Utah is the center of the MLM universe, and they are big supporters of the Senator. Supplements attract scammers like the flies to light. Herbalife is the best known of these products, but there are dozens of these schemes selling everything from powered bone material to herbal viagra. It’s a common pattern that effective in selling bad ideas.

gruez 4y ago
>Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah essentially neutered the ability of the federal government to take most any useful action against supplements unless they are proven to cause harm. Would you rather that the federal government can shut down any company they want without having to prove harm?
- Spooky23 4y ago
  I think I’d you’re selling me a cure, you should prove that it cures something and is safe. Safe needs to be defined as well. As we learned during the pandemic, there’s a spectrum of risk tolerance that individuals have.
  - gruez 4y ago
    > I think I’d you’re selling me a cure, you should prove that it cures something and is safe. Are these marketed as a cure? The pictures in the article doesn't seem to indicate that they're claiming to cure something, just a vague label of "dietary supplement".
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      Yes. They’ve lawyered up after “Airborne” was marketed as developed by a teacher to prevent the cold, and subsequently sued. Now, they say “developed by a teacher” and use social media influencers to make or imply health claims. These companies make millions ripping you off. People don’t take blood pressure meds they need, but drop $75 on CoQ10 and cod liver oil.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Would you rather that the federal government can shut down any company they want without having to prove harm? No, not "any". Is that really what you meant to ask? Supplements, though? Whether extracts or synthetic chemicals that don't have evidence of being safe in that form? Yeah probably.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    There is plenty of middle ground. Create a safe harbor for small producers and anyone who voluntarily gets certain certifications, with increased liability and maybe disclosure requirements for those who don’t. Or maybe require a safety study without needing to prove efficacy, et cetera.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Yes. They should be able to take action against false claims of efficacy or purity.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    In theory, they can. Supplements are required to have labeling that "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." And they can't have advertising that says otherwise. In practice, the FDA doesn't even begin to enforce this rule. Even if the company is careful in its language, they're not going to monitor stores to ensure that the staff isn't pushing the product, or contradict social media posts. Smaller companies will just plain defy the rules. If it comes to the FDA's attention, they'll send a letter -- at which point the company will go bankrupt, and a new company will appear selling exactly the same product. The FDA does take a fair bit of action, especially after somebody has gotten hurt, but they don't have anywhere near the budget required to monitor the $40 billion supplement market.
- fabian2k 4y ago
  Supplements are not really all that different from drugs. And for those you have to prove they're safe before you can sell them. For supplements you have to prove nothing.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

burritas 4y ago

We could look at it as a problem, but if we keep idiots safe from this bullshit, they'll just go do something equally as stupid. If we get rid of this it'll be one less thing we have to thin out the herd. I look at it as a solution. .../s

cpleppert 4y ago

I'm confused about what is actually going on here. The FDA claims [1] that Tianeptine can't be used as a supplement ingredient so selling it should be illegal. That was from 2018 so there is no reason it should still be able to be sold. Notwithstanding, The FDA could simply put Tianeptine on the controlled substances list. 1: https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplement-products-ingredients/tianeptine-dietary-supplements https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplement-products-ingredi...

jimbob45 4y ago

Drug regulation is typically done from the benefit side: prove that your drug has the benefits you say it does or you’re not going to market. I’d be okay with supplements taking the opposite stance: prove that your supplement doesn’t inflict serious harm on your test group and we’ll let you go to market.