6 ms·

A large part of the problem is that dietary supplements in the US are basically exempt from truth-in-advertising laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Su

A large part of the problem is that dietary supplements in the US are basically exempt from truth-in-advertising laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
freedomben 3y ago
I'm not sure I agree. For pretty much any supplement you want, you can find a good vendor that declares exactly what it is and provides third-party testing to confirm. If we get specific to the sort of combos like what are sold on Infowars, then yes that's a problem, especially that they can hide behind "proprietary formula" without having to disclose exactly what it is. But the supplement market is way bigger than just that
- dboreham 3y ago
  Stating accurately what's in it is not the same as it doing something beneficial when ingested.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Of course it's not. I don't see that I made any such claim. I'm not seeing where the complaint is defined anywhere above, so we may be talking about completely different things. GP specifically said that the current law is what has caused this problem, and I dispute that. I think there's more to it than that. That doesn't mean the law is perfect, but it doesn't mean it's completely responsible either. The whole point of a "supplement" is that it's something you can normally get from diet and foods which are already available. If you create some new thing, under the current system you can't just call it a supplement and sell whatever it is, let alone sell it while making medical claims about it. If I buy a head of broccoli at the grocery store, should that need a label on it that describes health benefits when ingested, and this must be approved by the FDA? Or should it be enough that they're selling "broccoli" and it really is "broccoli"? Also pretty much every supplement I've ever bought has text on the label like "These statements have not been reviewed/approved by the FDA," so there's a chunk of people
    - Volundr 3y ago
      > Also pretty much every supplement I've ever bought has text on the label like "These statements have not been reviewed/approved by the FDA," And this is exactly what was meant when it was said supplements are essentially exempt from truth in advertising laws. They can and do regularly make health claims with little to no evidence to back them up.
pluc 3y ago
American media as a whole is exempt from truth, quite literally. In Canada, you cannot knowingly lie on air. It's illegal. Why do you think we don't have FOX
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  >Canadian media isn't allowed to lie I dunno, check out the Y axis on this chart the CBC posted: https://media.assettype.com/westernstandard%2Fimport%2Fwesternstandard.news%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2F1%2F1c%2F11cbfe4e-dec6-11ed-ae39-dfb708e78aab%2F6440077203a7e.image.png?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&w=1200 https://media.assettype.com/westernstandard%2Fimport%2Fweste...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

freedomben 3y ago

I'm not sure I agree. For pretty much any supplement you want, you can find a good vendor that declares exactly what it is and provides third-party testing to confirm. If we get specific to the sort of combos like what are sold on Infowars, then yes that's a problem, especially that they can hide behind "proprietary formula" without having to disclose exactly what it is. But the supplement market is way bigger than just that

dboreham 3y ago
Stating accurately what's in it is not the same as it doing something beneficial when ingested.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Of course it's not. I don't see that I made any such claim. I'm not seeing where the complaint is defined anywhere above, so we may be talking about completely different things. GP specifically said that the current law is what has caused this problem, and I dispute that. I think there's more to it than that. That doesn't mean the law is perfect, but it doesn't mean it's completely responsible either. The whole point of a "supplement" is that it's something you can normally get from diet and foods which are already available. If you create some new thing, under the current system you can't just call it a supplement and sell whatever it is, let alone sell it while making medical claims about it. If I buy a head of broccoli at the grocery store, should that need a label on it that describes health benefits when ingested, and this must be approved by the FDA? Or should it be enough that they're selling "broccoli" and it really is "broccoli"? Also pretty much every supplement I've ever bought has text on the label like "These statements have not been reviewed/approved by the FDA," so there's a chunk of people
  - Volundr 3y ago
    > Also pretty much every supplement I've ever bought has text on the label like "These statements have not been reviewed/approved by the FDA," And this is exactly what was meant when it was said supplements are essentially exempt from truth in advertising laws. They can and do regularly make health claims with little to no evidence to back them up.

pluc 3y ago

American media as a whole is exempt from truth, quite literally. In Canada, you cannot knowingly lie on air. It's illegal. Why do you think we don't have FOX

HideousKojima 3y ago
>Canadian media isn't allowed to lie I dunno, check out the Y axis on this chart the CBC posted: https://media.assettype.com/westernstandard%2Fimport%2Fwesternstandard.news%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2F1%2F1c%2F11cbfe4e-dec6-11ed-ae39-dfb708e78aab%2F6440077203a7e.image.png?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&w=1200 https://media.assettype.com/westernstandard%2Fimport%2Fweste...