FDA Moves to Secure Safety of Supplements

[MonkeyFunk]

For the first time, manufacturers of vitamins, herbal pills and other dietary supplements will have to test all of their products' ingredients, the Food and Drug Administration ordered yesterday.

The FDA said the new mandate is needed to ensure that products are free of contamination and impurities. Last year, the FDA found that some supplements contained undeclared active ingredients that are used in prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction. In the past, regulators found supplements that did not contain the levels of Vitamin C or Vitamin A that were claimed.

If, upon inspection, the FDA finds that supplements do not contain the ingredients they claim, the agency would consider the products adulterated or misbranded. In minor cases, the agency could ask the manufacturer to remove an ingredient or revise its label. In more serious cases, it could seize the product, file a lawsuit or seek criminal charges.

Critics complain that the new rule does not go far enough in policing the $22 billion industry.



More at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201814.html

[Ian David]

1. Squeezie McFeelpants Boner Pills... Now, with 99% less Melamine! n/t

[soothsayer]

2. ok, I don't mind THIS but still think they want to snatch all vitamins and supplements, just like

the effing EU has done, bastards.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. Why do people

insist on repeating that lie?

Are you saying you can't buy vitamin C in europe?

[Dogmudgeon]

5. The reason why

People are feeling the loss of their liberties very painfully. Taking vitamins is one of the few body-control "privileges" we still have, even though in many cases, it's largely a gesture.

These lies are repeated to stir up enough political heat to dissuade the FDA from making too-overreaching power grabs, the same tactic the gun enthusiasts have used with so much success.

Most of the anxiety recently has revolved around a draft proposal to the Codex Alimentarius. I actually took the time to read that sucker, and it's a label and classification scheme, not a proposal to confiscate vitamins.

As much as I can see this is a fools' panic, I have to cast my lot with these folks. There is entirely too much regulation of our bodies, and at times, for the most trivial justifications imaginable. Physicians' (actually, ALL professionals') prerogatives have intruded into all areas of public discourse, while the public's access to both health care and redress has been narrowed considerably.

It's about the freedom to do with one's body as one wishes, without first begging permission from a professional authority. The vitamins are secondary.

--p!

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Last month

we had thousands of posts demanding that the FDA do more to regulate our pet food.

But ensuring that your St. John's Wort is free of melamine is overreaching?

I don't get it.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. It's not rational -- it's driven by fear

The FDA, perceived as corrupt and incompetent, is getting the brunt of it.

There was a very similar case to what you described years ago. A batch of tryptophan was contaminated and sickened several hundred people. Instead of pursuing the guilty parties, the FDA took tryptophan off the market entirely. (I think the companies that supplied the contaminated tryptophan were eventually sued.)

A lot of these people are elderly, and are afraid to support drug decrim or to stand up to the physicians', insurance, or other pro-restriction lobbies. (The Republicans already help them "stand up" to the legal lobbies, reducing their rights with each step.) Protesting vitamin restrictions, even administrative changes that are perceived as restrictions, is all they feel they have left.

The Howard Beale "I'm mad as hell!" response is not known for its intellectual precision.

--p!

[madokie]

4. its kinda' like when the bush* crime family blew into town

our government ceased to be for all intent and purposes

[MonkeyFunk]

12. So you think

the FDA should NOT try to do anything?

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Will this new FDA program mean that my vitamin C supplement will cost

20 percent more b/c the manufacturer will HAVE TO test it b/c of claims that vitamin C fights colds? And will my elderberry syrup have to stop claiming it builds up the immune system if the FDA refuses to accept the results of the manufacturer's mandated tests.

I see a lot of room for folly with this new directive, to invalidate and perhaps prohibit certain supplements from consumers. What will we have to do after that? Grow our own nettles?

[MonkeyFunk]

10. No

they don't have to prove the claims they make (though they should have to). But they will have to ensure that your 200mg Vitamin C tabs contain 200 milligrams of Vitamin C, and nothing else that could be dangerous.

[thunder rising]

7. Why now? Was there a problem?

Was ecoli infected woozoo juice distributed? There is an alterior motive. Nothing this administration is good .... only profitable for big pharma.

First let the show they can manage what is already on their plate:
Like food
Pharmaceutical drugs (man made deadly shit)
First you do that, then broaden authority.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. That's ridiculous

demanding 100% efficiency in all existing areas before adding new ones?

Sorry, but vitamins and supplements should have to contain what they say they contain, in the amounts they claim, and should not contain other, dangerous ingredients. It's a legitimate role of government to make sure that happens.