3 ms·
>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 a
by 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 agoThose 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.