The FDA Is About To Confiscate Your Vitamins (Is this true?)

[icymist]

The FDA Is About To Confiscate Your Vitamins
By Dave Gibson (04/27/07)

The FDA under President Bush, is planning to take all dietary supplements, exercise equipment, and even therapeutic massages out of our control and make it necessary to receive a doctor's approval before we can use these items. The proposal for the new regulation is known as Docket # 2006D-0480 Draft Guidance for Industry and Alternative Medicine Products . The FDA is taking public comments on the matter until April 30th.

The medical community is upset because Americans are taking charge of their own health through the use of supplements, sophisticated exercise programs, and alternative forms of treatment. We are visiting our doctors less often and living longer. While these things are positive, they represent a loss of income to the traditional medical and pharmaceutical industries.

In addition to greed, another motivation for the new sweeping regulation is yet again globalism. Mexico and Canada already have policies which greatly restrict their citizens' ability to utilize dietary supplements and self-guided therapies. Without any input from the American people, the FDA entered an agreement known as the Trilateral Cooperation Charter with Canada and Mexico, they are now seeking to enforce that illegal treaty.

Europe has already enacted a policy which does not allow their citizens to purchase vitamins and supplements without a prescription from a doctor. The Bush administration plans to copy that model and also move towards that continent's socialized medicine.
<snip>
Under this FDA regulation, the following items would be deemed "medical devices" and only available with a doctor's approval:

-Yoga mats
-resistance bands
-pilates balls
-weight machines
-massage oils
-heated rocks (for massage)
-handheld massagers
Read the full article

I think this article may well be bogus. I clicked on the link highlighted with the word 'proposal' in the article and got a definition for the word! The link highlighted with 'Alternative Medicine' produces some site called 'FindStuff'. The article give out a "Docket # 2006D-0480", does anyone know anything about this? I mean, come on....yoga mats?! heated rocks?!

[toddaa]

1. No

[SheilaT]

2. Someone else posted this article a few days ago,

and I didn't follow whatever discussion ensued, but I agree that this sounds like something bogus. I did a quick check at Snopes, and they didn't seem to have anything on it, and I didn't bother to look any more. I suppose the first thing to check is it whether or not it's really true that vitamins are prescription items in Europe.

[DeepBlueC]

3. I'm not aware of such limits in Canada

And even stuff that is unapproved, like DHA, is pretty easily acquired under the counter.

[Rydz777]

4. It strikes me as

bogus. If true, we'd be hearing from Sen. Tom Harken (D-Iowa) who is a strong and vocal supporter of peoples' right to alternative medicine.

[AngryAmish]

5. I think there needs to be more regulation in this area

There are many "nutritional supplements" which make claims much greater than prescription drugs. These supplements are not subject to scientific testing for efficacy or safety in the US. Time and again claims are made about supplements that are proven to be false.

That said, I don't the the gov't wants to regulate yoga mats et al.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Yes. Gary Null has warned about this.

http://www.gnhealth.com/FDA_assault.asp

[Cha]

39. THank you, no_hypocrisy!

"The fact that this document comes from very high up in the FDA, from the Office of Policy and Planning is quite ominous. But the fact that new categories (such as "CAM products" are being created and the concept of regulation based on intent (that is, the "off label use" of foods to heal or cure, thus turning them into "untested drugs" is much more ominous. Labeling all natural practices as medicine and turning therapies (allowed by non physicians) into treatments (permitted only by physicians) is even more ominous. Think about the harm and mayhem brought about by "regulated", supposedly "safe and effective" pharmaceuticals and the real safety and effectiveness of natural health procedures and products and you see the game very easily: this is a competition squash. Nothing more, nothing less. But the 'squashers' have huge resources and the 'squashees' have only their voices and their ability to wage this battle creatively."

The FDA won't regulate cows and pet food for people's safety but by gawd they'll regulate the shit outta the natural healing industry cause they are losing their BIG FAT PIECE OF THE PIE!!

[gulfcoastliberal]

7. The "trilateral agreement" is real

http://www.fda.gov/oia/charter.html

Trilateral Cooperation Charter

Between

The Health Products and Food Branch,
Health Canada
Canada,

The Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services
The United States of America,

and

The Federal Commission for the Protection from
Sanitary Risks,
Secretaria de Salud
Mexico


Edit:

"wholesale drugs" a "safety issue" (to phrma prophit$)

A" LIST (High-Priority Areas):

* GMPs
* Health claims
* Cross border safety issues (e.g., internet fraud, counterfeits, and unsafe medical products/practices, including wholesale drugs)
* Harmonization of new laboratory methods and validation of new agents

Edit #2:

Here's the link to the federal register to comment on the rule and you can read the etxt of the proposal.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/getDocketInfo.cfm?EC_DOCUMENT_ID=1451&SORT=DOCKET_NO&MAXROWS=15&START=46&CID=&AGENCY=FDA

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Complementary
and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and
Drug Administration.'' In recent years, the practice of complementary
and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased in the United States, and
we have seen increased confusion as to whether certain products used in
CAM are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the act) or Public Health Service Act (PHS Act). We have
also seen an increase in the number of CAM products imported into the
United States. Therefore, the draft guidance discusses when a CAM
product is subject to the act or the PHS Act.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by
April 30, 2007. General comments on agency guidance documents are
welcome at any time.

[cooolandrew]

8. Garlic folks natural antibiotic and vitamins from oranges, these these... there is no words...

...Hopefully the article is bogus, but in Bush's America anything, anything is possible.

[WePurrsevere]

9. Sort of... Here's the FDA link - Complementary & Alt Medicine Products & their Regulation by the FDA

http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/altmed.htm

Here's where I got the link from.. there was a thread started on this yesterday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=770849

Read it through and go from there... I have. :)

[icymist]

11. Wow! Your first link, I read some and got screaming mad!

<snip>
Putative energy fields (or biofields) that have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods. According to NCCAM, therapies involving putative energy fields "are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy" and therapists "claim that they work with this subtle energy, see it with their own eyes, and use it to effect changes in the physical body and influence health."9

In this definition of "Energy Medicine", isn't the government attempting to regulate certain religious practices such as Reiki or less mainstream parts of Christianty?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. Uh, no.

There is no Jesus vitamin.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. Excerpt from FDA

http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/altmed.htm

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration

This draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this guidance. If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff, call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance.

1. Why Are We Issuing This Guidance?

The term "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) encompasses a wide array of health care practices, products, and therapies that are distinct from practices, products, and therapies used in "conventional" or "allopathic" medicine. Some forms of CAM, such as traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, have been practiced for centuries, whereas others, such as electrotherapy, are more recent in origin.

In the United States, the practice of CAM has risen dramatically in recent years. In 1992, Congress established the Office of Unconventional Therapies, which later became the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), to explore "unconventional medical practices." In 1998, OAM became the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). NCCAM is a center within the National Institutes of Health. The Institute of Medicine, in its book entitled, Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States, stated that more than one-third of American adults reported using some form of CAM and that visits to CAM providers each year exceed those to primary care physicians.2

As the practice of CAM has increased in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA", "we") has seen increased confusion as to whether certain products used in CAM (which, for convenience, we will refer to as "CAM products") are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("the Act") or Public Health Service Act ("PHS Act"). We have also seen an increase in the number of CAM products imported into the United States. Therefore, we are providing guidance as to when a CAM product is subject to the Act or the PHS Act.3 This guidance makes two fundamental points:

* First, depending on the CAM therapy or practice, a product used in a CAM therapy or practice may be subject to regulation as a biological product, cosmetic, drug, device, or food (including food additives and dietary supplements) under the Act or the PHS Act. For example, the PHS Act defines "biological product," and the Act defines (among other things):
o Cosmetic;
o Device;
o Dietary supplement;
o Drug, as well as "new drug" and "new animal drug;"
o Food; and
o Food additive

These statutory definitions cover some CAM products.

* Second, neither the Act nor the PHS Act exempts CAM products from regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal health, that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the Act and FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If the juice therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen instead of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be subject to regulation as a drug under the Act.

I scanned the entire guidance statement and saw nothing as alarmist as the OP article. Vitamins only with a doctor's approval, for example seems highly unlikely since we can get potentially dangerous drugs on open counters at any drug store (acetaminophen, for one.) What may happen is longer and more detailed warnings on labels and regulations on the manufacture of the item.

[democrat_06]

12. Dick Durbin has been leading the

charge against over the counter food supplements, including vitamins. This has been going on for quite some time. It gets shot down and keeps coming back in other forms. I'm disappointed in Durbin for taking the side of regulating supplements.

[Gormy Cuss]

16. Follow the money.

I'm not familiar with Durbin's past efforts, but what industry would benefit from stricter regulation of food supplements? Someone put the bug in his ear. Healthcare industry? Domestic producers of traditional one-a-day type supplements? Durbin seems to be staking a claim in the food chain safety arena. If his attempts to regulate supplements are tied to this then his focus would be on labelling disclosures and QC in manufacturing, I'm guessing.

[TZ]

17. answer me a question....

People get mad at the FDA for not overseeing the drug industry well enough. Why then is it bad that they want to oversee how supplements are made and keep their makers from making false claims about both ingredients and effectiveness? Thats whats going on here...

[Gormy Cuss]

20. Post in the wrong place?

I have no issue with the FDA regulating the content and therapeutic claims. I replied to a poster who was disappointed by Durbin's efforts and I suggested that if Durbin is so focused on regulating supplements that some donor (or a lobbyist for powerful industries in his district)was probably behind it.

[TZ]

22. Oh sorry I did mispost, and misread

this rumor/ thread keeps popping up over and over again. I am getting dizzy....:crazy:

[TZ]

24. Why do you object?

Regulation of supplements is meant to makes sure that the supplements contain what they say they are supposed to contain (truth in labelling). Its also meant to make sure that no false claims can be made on what they really do (truth in advertising). The idea is to have the same standards as OTC drugs. This is a good thing. Really.

[Cha]

40. Wow! A dem has been doing this?

Shame on Durbin! Upthread or somewhere it was reported that Senator Harkin is one who is fighting for alternative medicine..go figure?

[jmowreader]

51. In some cases, supplements NEED to be regulated

Such as Seasilver...

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/seasilver.html

Contains 80 minerals. One-quarter are toxic and five are radioactive.

[jmowreader]

13. The part about Europe seems to be wrong

I googled "buying vitamins in Europe" and came across a pile of vitamin dealers' websites, none of which mentioned anything about needing a prescription. I then googled "buying vitamins in Germany" and came across a pregnant-parents' website on which a question about buying prenatal vitamins was asked. The consensus of opinion was "oh, just go to Aldi and get theirs, they're fine and they're the cheapest ones."

Until the German health insurance reform in 2004, you could go to the doctor and get OTC preparations prescribed--which meant your health insurance would have to pay for them. Now that's not the case. The article I read that in also said one of the fastest-growing OTC categories was "vitamins."

I think that if they screwed that up, probably the whole thing is. It wouldn't be the first time bullshit was transmitted via e-mail; remember the e-mail postage thing?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

29. you can buy vitamins over the counter in the UK

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. Indeed you can.

I once had one of the vitamin alarmists telling me that it was impossible to buy vitamins in the UK. I stated that this was nonsense, and was called out as some sort of big pharma shill for implying that one could freely buy vitamins in the UK. Then I was asked how I could possibly know that vitamins are freely available in the UK, to which I replied...

Because I live there.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. LOL! 'Boots' is full of them!

there are also strange myths about the NHS too

[bain_sidhe]

14. No. And yes.

There is such a "guidance" in the works. No, it won't take away your vitamins. This came to my attention on another site, and I researched it then... with apologies, I don't want to retype all my info, so I'm going to mostly copy and paste what I wrote here when it came up a week ago or so in the Economics forum.

The proposal in question is a "guidance." It is not a new regulation, it does not change existing regulations, and it doesn't re-define supplements to bring them under the more strict regulations for "drugs". That doesn't mean there isn't cause for concern, though.

The "guidance" is supposed to help manufacturers and regulators understand what existing regulations mean. The problem seems to be that, in "explaining" the regulations, it uses terms and examples that *could* be interpreted by the people responsible for administering the regulations to treat (some?) supplements as drugs.

(added for this post: The OP in both the Economics form and at the other site where I first saw this inlucded an url which included a form to send comments to the FDA, using their letter. The letter was actualy written by a group called "Natural Solutions Foundation" with an opening paragraph that basically says "I endorse the comment made by the Natural Solutions Foundation" and then includes a copy of that comment.)

The Natural Solutions Foundation's website is here: http://www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and it includes a little more information, but not much. Most of the website is devoted to their campaign against the Codex Alimentarius. I'm a little put off by their alarmist language about that, but I'm reserving judgement. I don't know enough about the Codex to have an opinion.

The comment about the FDA "guidance" by Natural Solutions Foundation breaks down into three areas of concern:

1) The use of the word "medicine" - This is one of the terms that could be interpreted by those administering the regulations to shoehorn supplements into the more restrictive "drugs" definition.

2) the use of the terms "treat" and "treatment of disease" instead of the words "therapy" and "theraputic." By law, as the letter notes, dietary supplements may not “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent” any disease. So, this is another use of terms that could be interpreted (by the regulators, if they so choose) as meaning that supplements can/should be treated as "drugs."

3) the third area seems to relate to what "health claims" can be permitted for supplements, and seems more geared toward marketing than regulation. I should note here that Natural Solutions Foundation sells supplements, so they have a self-interest in defending a lower standard for "health claims." It's the largest section, and, in my mind, the weakest. It seems to primarly be defending manufacturers' rights to make health claims with a minimum standard of substantiation. Quoting directly:

What is the proper level of substantiation for CAM nutrient or health claims? It is not the "significant scientific agreement" required of drug claims, but rather, the general "competent scientific evidence" standard that applies to all commercial claims. That does not imply that purveyors need to have multiple double-blind experiments (as may be required for drug approval). Substantiation merely needs to be competent and scientific. We urge this to include research studies (which is when scientists review the work of others and apply it to specific questions) and clinical trials (which may be as formal as double-blind, placebo controlled investigations but need not be, since multiple variables, like those involved in CAM practices designed to promote optimal health, are not well studied by double-blind, placebo controlled investigations) as well as traditional knowledge, clinical case studies, observational reports and clinical experience. All of these sources of information and experience have a role to play, but ultimately, such substantiation must rest on the informed professional opinion of some credentialed or appropriately experienced person who can (in the case of Dietary Supplements, for example) sign onto the Structure and Function Claims Notice to the FDA, attesting that "the notifying firm has substantiation that the Statement to which this Notice applies is truthful and not misleading." (emphasis mine) (Regulations under 21 U.S.C. 403(r) (6)).

I think the above noted "standard" for substantiation is pretty weak, and I'm not sure I want to sign on to a defense of it.

So, I don't think I'll use the letter widget at the URL, I'll write my own at the FDA's comment page. You can do that here:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/COMMENTSMain.CFM?EC_DOCUMENT_ID=1451&SUBTYP=CONTINUE&CID=&AGENCY=FDA

Here's the link to the FDA call for comments on the proposed "guidance"
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/E7-3259.htm

And here's the link for the proposed "guidance" itself (pdf file, sorry):
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/06d-0480-gld0001.pdf

[TZ]

15. This is a myth

What the FDA is trying to do is make it possible for them to oversee and regulate vitamins and supplements. Right now somebody could fill a bottle with white sugar and label it as Vitamin C and sell it with no consequences. The FDA simply wants to be able to regulate what is put into supplements and vitamins the way they oversee OTC drugs. Considering what we have seen with the lack of regulations in the pet food industry, what the FDA is trying to do is a very GOOD thing! Regulation is a good thing!

[bain_sidhe]

27. "Regulation is a good thing!" - That depends...

on whether the FDA is using regulations to do the drug company's bidding. Remember ephedra?

I'm all for better-substatiation of health claims, and more rigorous standards. But I can't help remembering how drug companies lobbied to get ephedra banned. I know from personal experience that ephedra-based diet aids actually worked better than drug company's prescription diet products, with fewer "adverse outcomes" than their products did. Yet ephedra is banned, and their products are still on the market.

Even when regulation *might* be good, let's not forget the "cui bono" (who benefits) scrutiny before we jump on the bandwagon.

[TZ]

28. Ephedra was dangerous...and I took it and it scared me!

Ephedra gave me accelerated heart beats! It should have been banned! A young pitcher in Baltimore DIED from Ephedra use! I will always believe in regulation! Even if you don't believe me, neocons hate regulation and that would make me want it!:mad:

[BuelahWitch]

33. Ephedra worked wonders for my allergies

If people have an averse reaction to something they shouldn't take it, but don't deny it for others if it works for them.

[TZ]

36. It killed people who didn't know the dangers

If we kick and scream about VIOXX for gods sake, then certainly EPHEDRA should be pulled.

[StarryNite]

41. Peanuts can kill people too

but that doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to eat them without a prescription.

[TZ]

49. so then

Merck should be allowed to sell Vioxx then? Don't fool yourself into thinking the people who sold ephedra weren't making plenty of money off of it too, in fact getting pretty wealthy. Regulation of herbs and supplements is to PROTECT the consumer. Geezus have you not seen the POISON that China lets into their food? Thats where many supplements come from. Who knows if their is stuff like melamine in their imports. There is no way to check for that currently!

[StarryNite]

50. Yeah

and the FDA is doing a bang-up job of protecting us, aren't they? Checking for purity is one thing but turning vitamins into 'by prescription only' is an entirely different thing.

[mr blur]

52. "If people have an averse reaction to something they shouldn't take it"?

Fine, but what if it's too late by the time the "adverse reaction" is noticed?

Basically you're saying, "I have the right to poison myself if I want to and no-one should be allowed to try to stop me". Smart.

[xmas74]

35. Ephedra is the only thing that ever worked for

my allergies, plus it worked well for weight loss in small amounts. Problem was, people were taking excessive amounts of ephedra or mixing w/ other meds (another no-no, even said so on the packages) or they were ignoring the health risks and taking them anyway. (If you have heart problems you don't take it. Pretty simple but was often ignored, just like someone I know who still takes Tylenol even though they have liver problems.)

It needed to be regulated, not banned.

[TZ]

38. I do not have heart problems and it bothered me.

I just posted above that like Vioxx, that does indeed help some people, the general risks with it are too much. I think they both should properly be banned.

[xmas74]

48. Few did have heart problems

and many of them were proven to be because of an interaction-one as simple as caffiene.

I dispatched 9-1-1 at the end of the ephredra reign (right before it became illegal) and most of our ephedra-related calls were because of an interaction w/ either other meds, foods that have a stimulant effect or simple exhaustion (which was the most common reason to take it. It worked as a stimulant. People took it to stay awake. If you take something like that and are already exhausted the body will react.)

One of my best friends is a nurse and she said the same thing. Another good friend is a doctor in a local ER and he also said the same thing.

Most of the things I've read stated that the interactions were not as common as we were lead to believe-most of it was hyped by the media. Most of the cases were from improper dosage or interactions-very common reasons to overdose.

As to heart palpatations-my heart races after drinking a Red Bull. Should we ban that too? Me-I know my heart races after a Red Bull so I choose not to drink one. But do I want it banned for everyone? NO.

[BlackVelvet04]

18. This is BS.....

how would you take heated rocks away? You can use any of the smooth rocks found in craft stores and used for decoration.....put them in a crock pot and you have heated rocks.

Yoga mats? Oh good grief. This is the dumbest, most bogus article I have ever seen.

[icymist]

54. Heated rocks is a form of massage.....

After a massage, the rocks are laid on the back, one warm, one cold, one warm.... right down the middle. I had this done a few times...did wonders for my stiff back!

[BlackVelvet04]

56. I know....

I've never had one but my massage therapist had a crock pot full of rocks in her therapy room.

[irish.lambchop]

19. They'll have to pry my vitamins out of my cold, dead hands!

[uppityperson]

21. NO. Check out "Health" forum on DU for many more topics on issue.

[Avalux]

23. Where's the science? A few questions for you -

is it OK for companies who manufacture herbal (and other) remedies to claim they treat certain illnesses? How can they prove it to be true? The FDA has tried and is trying to figure out how to regulate such claims. Is it OK for companies to market herbal supplements that aren't harmless (there's a notion they are by the general public) but instead can cause serious side effects without collecting the proper safety data in a controlled clinical trial?

There may be some truth to what you've pointed out, but I also think there is a need to treat some herbals as drugs because they're just as powerful. There is a need to perform clinical trials and have the FDA oversee the research just as they do for drugs. I wouldn't include common vitamins and the 'medical devices' though; that seems a bit far-fetched.

[uppityperson]

25. If it is claimed to treat a condition, act as medicine, it may be regulated.

If it is not claimed to be used as a medicine, it won't be. Basically and simplistically. Medicine is medicine. (I am agreeing with you, just adding my 2 cents worth)

[Avalux]

26. Thanks.

I was remembering certain opportunists marketing herbal remedies with the claim they could cure HIV. I lost a few patients who really believed it.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. They'll get my totally useless homeopathic remedy when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands!

Beyond that, I think this is BS. Unless I'm mistaken, we seem to get one of these almost identical alarms about once a month.

[Telly Savalas]

37. I can already envision people selling black market yoga mats out of the backs of vans.

[bobbolink]

42. They can't protect us from being poisoned by peanut butter, but....

they're protect Pharmco from ....

.................
.......

US!

:nuke:

[StarryNite]

44. Ain't that the truth!

Not to worry, they just want to cull the heard a little.

[bobbolink]

45. That;s why they haven't "heard" us....

:hi:

[StarryNite]

43. It comes down to choice

and whether you want to take vitamins or other supplements or not you should still be against something that would restrict the choice for others. Way more people get sick and die from prescription drugs than they do from vitamins. And guns are deadly too but most of us still want the right to own them if we so choose.

Ask yourself who would benefit from the restrictions...Big Pharma because going through them would be the only way you would be able to buy vitamins if this goes through.

[tammywammy]

46. No, it's not true

This rumor has been around for years.

[StarryNite]

47. You are a trusting soul

I hope it isn't true, yet I wouldn't put anything past this bunch. They owe Big Pharma and this would sure be one way to pay them back.

[IChing]

53. I have some cat food and dog food I need to sell interested?

I posted a similar thread on this last week after a teacher friend alarmed me.
There is some truth and half truths surrounding it. The FDA suggestion is from
December 2006.

Look who is running that office, it an't pretty.

Imagine if the Repugicans held all three
branches, would this be so far out?

The proposals are real, but hopefully will never pass.
Now on to the solution for cheaper prescription drugs,
that has worked out so well for the powers that sell them.

[hedgehog]

55. Members of my family swear by Glucosomine for their joint pain, and

it has been tested and proven effective in Europe. The problem is that in this country, it falls into the category of supplements and as such is unregulated. When you buy a bottle of glucosomine, you just have to hope that the label description is accurate. I would appreciate some regulation to ensure that the glucosomine tablets contain what they are supposed to contain!. The same for omega-3, fish oil capsules, etc.