5 ms·

But the risk level is very low. The stats I see show less than 20 hospitalizations and 2 deaths per year due to bad supplements. https://time.com/5602125/diet

But the risk level is very low. The stats I see show less than 20 hospitalizations and 2 deaths per year due to bad supplements. https://time.com/5602125/dietary-supplements-kids/ https://time.com/5602125/dietary-supplements-kids/

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bumby 3y ago
That article is just a subset of the overall data because it only focuses on those under the age of 25. [1] suggests there are almost 25,000 ER visits and over 2,100 hospitalizations per year due to supplements (although adverse reactions don't necessarily mean tainted or poorly controlled dosage). [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267
- hammock 3y ago
  How many of those are due to unknown, unlabeled risks? I’m willing to be that there are far more than 25,000 ER visits a year due to OTC drugs. Sometimes the risks are labeled. Other times they aren’t. And still other times people just didn’t follow the labeled directions. You can’t assume that every supplement ER visit was because of off-label ingredients or what FDA is saying here. That’s too far of a leap.
  - bumby 3y ago
    >You can’t assume that every supplement ER visit was because of off-label ingredients I already acknowledged this in the previous post. However, if you look at the rates of tainted supplements it probably isn’t a leap to assume a fair number can be attributed to unlisted ingredients. Some studies show contamination rates of nearly 60%. Again, I think the mitigation should be proportional to the risk. We might be about to debate what the acceptable threshold is (and I think most would agree it’s lower than the current data suggests) but I don’t think accuracy in labels is too big of an ask.
    - hammock 3y ago
      >Some studies show contamination rates of nearly 60%. And what % of "contamination" is dangerous ingredients (when directions are followed) vs harmless? You can’t assume that every contaminated supplement is dangerous. Fraudulent, maybe. Mislabeled, yes.
      - bumby 3y ago
        Those rates are from prohibited substances. Meaning there is the possibility a strong enough effect to be concerning (otherwise they wouldn't be prohibited as a PED), but you’re correct that dosage matters too. But I already addressed that in the first post. Regardless, there is a truth in labeling standard that many believe should extend to supplements. I’m probably in that camp. If you’re not, I’d be interesting in hearing why.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bumby 3y ago

That article is just a subset of the overall data because it only focuses on those under the age of 25. [1] suggests there are almost 25,000 ER visits and over 2,100 hospitalizations per year due to supplements (although adverse reactions don't necessarily mean tainted or poorly controlled dosage). [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1504267

hammock 3y ago
How many of those are due to unknown, unlabeled risks? I’m willing to be that there are far more than 25,000 ER visits a year due to OTC drugs. Sometimes the risks are labeled. Other times they aren’t. And still other times people just didn’t follow the labeled directions. You can’t assume that every supplement ER visit was because of off-label ingredients or what FDA is saying here. That’s too far of a leap.
- bumby 3y ago
  >You can’t assume that every supplement ER visit was because of off-label ingredients I already acknowledged this in the previous post. However, if you look at the rates of tainted supplements it probably isn’t a leap to assume a fair number can be attributed to unlisted ingredients. Some studies show contamination rates of nearly 60%. Again, I think the mitigation should be proportional to the risk. We might be about to debate what the acceptable threshold is (and I think most would agree it’s lower than the current data suggests) but I don’t think accuracy in labels is too big of an ask.
  - hammock 3y ago
    >Some studies show contamination rates of nearly 60%. And what % of "contamination" is dangerous ingredients (when directions are followed) vs harmless? You can’t assume that every contaminated supplement is dangerous. Fraudulent, maybe. Mislabeled, yes.
    - bumby 3y ago
      Those rates are from prohibited substances. Meaning there is the possibility a strong enough effect to be concerning (otherwise they wouldn't be prohibited as a PED), but you’re correct that dosage matters too. But I already addressed that in the first post. Regardless, there is a truth in labeling standard that many believe should extend to supplements. I’m probably in that camp. If you’re not, I’d be interesting in hearing why.