supplements bill SB 722 is weak

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by markd, Feb 19, 2004.

  1. markd

    markd Guest

    I decided to have a look at SB 722. I see the poster who put the original
    message here is a busy beaver on newsgroups. Here is a supplements biz
    web site and their take on the bill:

    http://www.metagenics.com/company/politicalaction/t1background.asp

    I chose this one on purpose so not to be accused of bias. Even with the supplements biz spin, it is
    clear the bill address the problems supplementss have had, as reported in the newws. It asks the biz
    to report serious events from taking a supplements, to keep and make available if asked by the FD
    adverse effects reported but not serious, serious is summerized on the web page and are just common
    sense. If a serious event happens the FDA may ask a supplements biz to show the stuff is safe. The
    bill will have a closer look at stuff containing stimulants, also defined, these products are those
    most heard of in news accounts of injury and deaths. Now to hear the biz, you wouldn't be able to
    get vit c anymore and supplementss would be banned, poppy cock. The level of regulation is not even
    up to the level of what an aspirin at the drugstore requires. Come on, give us a break, the biz now
    has an almost free hand and wants to continue it's free open selling suckers, ah I really meant
    marketing, products which have been shown to often not contain what is on the label, has no way to
    know if it works, and doesn't even permit even the weak provisions in the bill to say something
    about being safe. The current law makes the suckers the lab rats, ifenough people are injured or die
    the FDA can then take action.
     
    Tags:


Loading...