4 ms·

The more general deeply-entrenched golden goose here is branding, which applies to much more than OTC medicines. Make it so the active ingredients have to be li

The more general deeply-entrenched golden goose here is branding, which applies to much more than OTC medicines. Make it so the active ingredients have to be listed prominently - the largest text on the front of the product package - and these concerns diminish greatly. It would also fix the homeopathic snake oil as well, which has started showing up as options in previously-reputable medicine aisles. So at any rate, be on guard if you don't want to end up accidentally buying a bottle of water plus flavoring in your cold-addled state.

ryandrake 3mo ago
Making the active ingredients prominent is a good start but not sufficient. As the article points out, the word "phenylephrine" looks/sounds similar enough to "pseudoephedrine" to broadly fool the population.
- mindslight 3mo ago
  That's why I said "diminish greatly" rather than solve - by doing something basically everybody should be able to agree on regardless if you think a given product should be on the market or not. They should probably have to split up large words with dashes or even spaces "phenyl-ephrine" "psuedo-ephedrine". Maybe even "phenyl-eph-rine" "psuedo-eph-edrine". One authoritative list published by the FDA (they already keep a list of what's allowed to be sold OTC in the first place, right?) of how the active ingredient names have to be distinctly stylized to best inform.
  - ryandrake 3mo ago
    It just seems like a quick patch that doesn't acknowledge or address the root cause: that the FDA is supposed to be regulating both safety and effectiveness, but it is largely abdicating the "effectiveness" role over to companies' marketing departments. If corporate marketing can convince the public that the serpensoleum drug works, then that's enough to put it in a shiny box in the drug store.
    - mindslight 3mo ago
      The problem is that you're butting up against the highly profitable cult of ignorance. For instance if something isn't intended to actually treat a disease, then it's basically exempt from FDA regulation as it's a "supplement". Then the seller is free to imply whatever they want, regardless of efficacy. I'm advocating something that ideally can sit in the middle of the two philosophical/regulatory regimes with more people on board - being able to buy whatever you want, but regulation aimed at preventing companies "innovating" by simply confusing the market. And while I'm sympathetic to extending the scientific-maximalist approach onto the "supplement" industry that is currently harboring copious amounts of straight up fraud, I would also say that throwing down such a gauntlet doesn't seem like a great idea at the moment!
      - ryandrake 3mo ago
        Yea don't even get me started on the "supplements" loophole. There are so many problems to solve. Making even small amount of progress towards fixing anything would be miraculous, given the economic forces wanting to make the problems even worse.

ryandrake 3mo ago

Making the active ingredients prominent is a good start but not sufficient. As the article points out, the word "phenylephrine" looks/sounds similar enough to "pseudoephedrine" to broadly fool the population.

mindslight 3mo ago
That's why I said "diminish greatly" rather than solve - by doing something basically everybody should be able to agree on regardless if you think a given product should be on the market or not. They should probably have to split up large words with dashes or even spaces "phenyl-ephrine" "psuedo-ephedrine". Maybe even "phenyl-eph-rine" "psuedo-eph-edrine". One authoritative list published by the FDA (they already keep a list of what's allowed to be sold OTC in the first place, right?) of how the active ingredient names have to be distinctly stylized to best inform.
- ryandrake 3mo ago
  It just seems like a quick patch that doesn't acknowledge or address the root cause: that the FDA is supposed to be regulating both safety and effectiveness, but it is largely abdicating the "effectiveness" role over to companies' marketing departments. If corporate marketing can convince the public that the serpensoleum drug works, then that's enough to put it in a shiny box in the drug store.
  - mindslight 3mo ago
    The problem is that you're butting up against the highly profitable cult of ignorance. For instance if something isn't intended to actually treat a disease, then it's basically exempt from FDA regulation as it's a "supplement". Then the seller is free to imply whatever they want, regardless of efficacy. I'm advocating something that ideally can sit in the middle of the two philosophical/regulatory regimes with more people on board - being able to buy whatever you want, but regulation aimed at preventing companies "innovating" by simply confusing the market. And while I'm sympathetic to extending the scientific-maximalist approach onto the "supplement" industry that is currently harboring copious amounts of straight up fraud, I would also say that throwing down such a gauntlet doesn't seem like a great idea at the moment!
    - ryandrake 3mo ago
      Yea don't even get me started on the "supplements" loophole. There are so many problems to solve. Making even small amount of progress towards fixing anything would be miraculous, given the economic forces wanting to make the problems even worse.