NHA (Nutritional Health Alliance)

[WIUlifter]

Hey guys, I didnt know if any of you were members of this, but with all the current regulations and rumors going around I thought this would be on interest to some of you out there

www.nha2008.com

 

[tim290280]

Interesting but:

The million-dollar question, of course, is: Why should any supplement be subject to testing by the FDA when its track record is in such shambles? FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs kill over 100,000 people each and every year, while harming millions more. Alarming cases of foodborne illnesses cast more doubt on the FDA’s ability to protect the public.

Meanwhile, dietary supplements quietly continue to promote good health in a safe, natural manner. With synthetic drugs and their dangerous side effects so pervasive in our society, it makes no sense to subject safe dietary supplements to FDA testing—especially when the FDA’s resources appear to be stretched to their breaking point.

Where the fuck do they get off with this biased BS?

I can make a supplement right now and sell it. Doesn't have to meet any specific label claims, doesn't actually have to contain more than trace amounts of label ingredients (unless specified amounts are made), the contents don't have to be cleared for human consumption, nor be safe to consume (alot of fat burners are actually mild poisons), the effectiveness of the ingredients does not have to be proven nor even validated....... the list of issues goes on.

But they are free to be sold on the same shelves as products that have had to pass strict testing and rigorous analysis. To use the same spurious argument that supplement and health food companies use: "arsenic is a natural compound found in nature so it could be in a food supplement".

Also comparing the drugs that are sold to supplements is BS. Most drugs sold over the counter are for people who are sick. Sick people tend to die. The drugs they take are full of side effects because the risks of those side effects are offset by the positive aspect it can impart on someone sick. This is risk to reward ratio that isn't acceptable to a healthy person. But food supplements don't have to pass this same level of testing and as a result are oftentimes not listed and tested for when health complications arise (I can think of a couple of fatburners and NO supps that have medical studies done on them after hospital admissions, how many others pass through?).

 

[WIUlifter]

very vaild points Tim, I read an article by this group. I believe a point they were trying to make was that the adverse effects from prescription medications greatly outweighs the adverse effects from taking sports supplements.

how well does the FDA really regulate the pharmaceuticals? A guess can be made that they probably dont do as well of a job as they should and for a couple reasons.

1. Tons of pharmaceuticals coming out, hard to keep up.
2. This industry makes up a good portion of GDP, they have quite a bit of clout when it comes to elected officials. Why would FDA seriously crackdown on something that brings in so much money.

love to hear some more input.

 

[tim290280]

very vaild points Tim, I read an article by this group. I believe a point they were trying to make was that the adverse effects from prescription medications greatly outweighs the adverse effects from taking sports supplements.

Don't agree because you aren't comparing apples with apples. Prescription medicines are monitored for a reason. It is because they are given to people who have poor or compromised health. These drugs have known side effects as part of the testing, but the treatments have advantages to the sick person to allow them to recover or live better. They are also by their very nature administerd by medical professionals that acts as a good control method to identify adverse effects.

There is no equivilent measure of control or surveliance for supplements.

how well does the FDA really regulate the pharmaceuticals? A guess can be made that they probably dont do as well of a job as they should and for a couple reasons.

At a guess it probably does a good job. Just being a public entity you notice the fuckups and not the day to day achievements. Plus there is always a lot of politcal forces from on high (often from outside an organisation, especially from government) that forces decisions and policy upon them.

1. Tons of pharmaceuticals coming out, hard to keep up.

All of which have to be tested in double blind medical trials for several years. Can't say the same for the hundreds of new supplements that come out yearly that don't have to do the equivilent.

2. This industry makes up a good portion of GDP, they have quite a bit of clout when it comes to elected officials. Why would FDA seriously crackdown on something that brings in so much money.

This does assume either corruption or wheel greasing. But in reality land no-one is likely to stand up to litigation from these companies, nor the politcal backlash. That isn't to say it doesn't happen. Big Pharma has been taken to task on a number of products. Their testing does have to be peer reviewed by independant people now who are asking for their actual methods and notes. There is more accountability, but that is not to say that some products get released onto the market that will need to be withdrawn (will always be the case regardless of the efficacy of testing) it is just how quickly this will happen. Normally when there is a hint of a law suit.

But that isn't to say that politics isn't involved all the way. I mean explain to me why Viagra is subsidised by governments around the world and was rushed onto the market before full testing was complete? Take a look at the sex and age of the politicians, that's why.

love to hear some more input.

Always good for some discussion