2 ms·

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.