4 ms·

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 gove

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]

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]