Unanswered 'Not for human consumption': Your nutritional supplements may be extremely dangerous

[stimtron]

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/not-for-human-consumption-your-nutritional-supplements-may-be-extremely-dangerous

 

[ValiantThor08]

Wow. That's how you get shut down.

 

[stimtron]

Wow. That's how you get shut down.

I see nothing wrong with how they were labeled but yeah their customer service pretty much shut them down.

 

[ValiantThor08]

I see nothing wrong with how they were labeled but yeah their customer service pretty much shut them down.

I can see a reason to be sold on a peptide website, or research site, but openly selling sarms in a supplement shop is asking for trouble lol.

 

[stimtron]

I can see a reason to be sold on a peptide website, or research site, but openly selling sarms in a supplement shop is asking for trouble lol.

If drug stores can sell alcohol, tobacco, and cleaning chemicals I don't see an issue for a store carrying it as long as it's labeled properly. Since it's not illegal to sell I'm not sure where else you would sell them other than online.

 

[Jiigzz]

If drug stores can sell alcohol, tobacco, and cleaning chemicals I don't see an issue for a store carrying it as long as it's labeled properly. Since it's not illegal to sell I'm not sure where else you would sell them other than online.

Are SARMs legal to sell in the US?

 

[ValiantThor08]

Are SARMs legal to sell in the US?

To sell as research chemicals.

 

[LeanEngineer]

To sell as research chemicals.

Yep I believe selling as research chems stated not for human consumption is allowed.

 

[ValiantThor08]

Yep I believe selling as research chems stated not for human consumption is allowed.

Selling "not for human consumption products" at a nutrition store is a good way to get the FDA to raid and or shut you down lol. Even if it is legal, the FDA isn't stupid, and they will do they want ultimately.

 

[VaughnTrue]

Yep I believe selling as research chems stated not for human consumption is allowed.

there have been quite a few RCs shut down over the years. I don't think it's as kosher as many on this forum believe.

 

[stimtron]

Are SARMs legal to sell in the US?

Yes all non DEA controlled rcs are legal to sell.

 

[stimtron]

Selling "not for human consumption products" at a nutrition store is a good way to get the FDA to raid and or shut you down lol. Even if it is legal, the FDA isn't stupid, and they will do they want ultimately.

Raid you for what crime? Kratom isn't sold for a supplement and they aren't raiding stores for it. You say it's legal yet they will shut you down? If it's legal there's no case solely on them selling it.

 

[stimtron]

there have been quite a few RCs shut down over the years. I don't think it's as kosher as many on this forum believe.

By the FDA? I'm not aware of any.

 

[ValiantThor08]

Raid you for what crime? Kratom isn't sold for a supplement and they aren't raiding stores for it. You say it's legal yet they will shut you down? If it's legal there's no case solely on them selling it.

No crime.

 

[VaughnTrue]

By the FDA? I'm not aware of any. I do trust Mike Arnold's rc/sarm company.

https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/feds-getting-serious-about-peptides-sarms-and-research-chems-f9187411a24b

if you sell a RC knowing that it will most likely be used for human consumption, it gets dicey.

Yes, the FDA has shut down more than 1-2 of these.

 

[stimtron]

https://medium.com/@anthonyroberts/feds-getting-serious-about-peptides-sarms-and-research-chems-f9187411a24b

if you sell a RC knowing that it will most likely be used for human consumption, it gets dicey.

Yes, the FDA has shut down more than 1-2 of these.

Well yeah RC's aren't dietary supplements. The laws cover what it's being marketing for. If you tried to market bleach for human use obviously that's illegal.

I'm referring to RC companies to sell for non human use like Nootropic Depot, newmind, nootropic source, iron dragon research, etc.

In the article Green House Kratom was telling people on social media to use it which obviously they shouldn't be. Same issue with the store mentioned above as if you're selling it for non human use and also recommending it for human use and making medical claims they will go after you.

Lion Nutrition is a stupid name to give a rc company but I can't find any details of the case. The devil is in the details.

 

[Jiigzz]

there have been quite a few RCs shut down over the years. I don't think it's as kosher as many on this forum believe.

Yep. Even with the label "not for human consumption" printed in the bottles. It's not hard to discern that the thousands of customers they sell to don't work in a labratory lol.

 

[stimtron]

Yep. Even with the label "not for human consumption" printed in the bottles. It's not hard to discern that the thousands of customers they sell to don't work in a labratory lol.

So you think the board sponsors are at risk of being raided regardless of labeling?

 

[Jiigzz]

So you think the board sponsors are at risk of being raided regardless of labeling?

Feds Getting Serious About Peptides, SARMS, and Research Chems

Disclaimers stating “not for human use” won’t protect vendors — they may result in additional charges. And misrepresentation to a credit…

medium.com

Its an interesting read. Personally i dont care much, but it is what it is.

Fwiw im not sure on the scheduling on SARMs anymore, and dont overly care, but I think labeling it not for human consumption is the issue here. Probs best just to leave that off the label haha.

For some reasons VTs posts didnt show for me. I posted the exact same link lol

 

[VaughnTrue]

Well yeah RC's aren't dietary supplements. The laws cover what it's being marketing for. If you tried to market bleach for human use obviously that's illegal.

I'm referring to RC companies to sell for non human use like Nootropic Depot, newmind, nootropic source, iron dragon research, etc.

In the article Green House Kratom was telling people on social media to use it which obviously they shouldn't be. Same issue with the store mentioned above as if you're selling it for non human use and also recommending it for human use and making medical claims they will go after you.

Lion Nutrition is a stupid name to give a rc company but I can't find any details of the case. The devil is in the details.

the ones I'm quoting/speaking about were all "not for human consumption".

Again, if they're selling RC's that are likely to be consumed, it becomes dicey. A website that sells RC's that just coincidentally all have steroid cycle/bodybuilding implications is an exact example of this. Same with an all nootropic theme. It's obvious people are consuming them and the government isn't stupid, they're just not funded properly to be able to shut down each and every one.

 

[stimtron]

Feds Getting Serious About Peptides, SARMS, and Research Chems

Disclaimers stating “not for human use” won’t protect vendors — they may result in additional charges. And misrepresentation to a credit…

medium.com

Its an interesting read. Personally i dont care much, but it is what it is.

Fwiw im not sure on the scheduling on SARMs anymore, and dont overly care, but I think labeling it not for human consumption is the issue here. Probs best just to leave that off the label haha.

For some reasons VTs posts didnt show for me. I posted the exact same link lol

They aren't scheduled by the DEA.

So the labeling style nootropic depot uses? They don't say not for human use. They just say it's not approved by the FDA.

 

[Jiigzz]

They aren't scheduled by the DEA.

So the labeling style nootropic depot uses? They don't say not for human use. They just say it's not approved by the FDA.

Is there a possibility they redesigned the labels after the article was released?

 

[ValiantThor08]

Is there a possibility they redesigned the labels after the article was released?

I'll check my label. I've had their Phenibut for a couple months.

 

[stimtron]

the ones I'm quoting/speaking about were all "not for human consumption".

Again, if they're selling RC's that are likely to be consumed, it becomes dicey. A website that sells RC's that just coincidentally all have steroid cycle/bodybuilding implications is an exact example of this. Same with an all nootropic theme. It's obvious people are consuming them and the government isn't stupid, they're just not funded properly to be able to shut down each and every one.

Oh so not the article. All the ones in the article were openly promoting their sarms for human use and committing money laundering. This in no way seems to be some mass action on rc companies or the industry. More ones openly promoting them for human use, doing illegal activities, or selling drugs as dietary supplements.

It has nothing to do with funding. They went after Pure Nootropics and send them a warning letter on some health claims they made but found no issue with them selling synthetic nootropics which are not supplements in capsule form because it was not marketed or listed for human use. You think funding prevented them from simply including this in their warning letter telling them to remove the products?

 

[stimtron]

Is there a possibility they redesigned the labels after the article was released?

I think they added the Not approved by the FDA recently but I only have a few of their other products from awhile.

How does your company SNS label their Phenibut?

 

[ValiantThor08]

My phenibut which is older than the FDA warning states it is not approved by the fda.

 

[Jiigzz]

I think they added the Not approved by the FDA recently but I only have a few of their other products from awhile.

How does your company SNS label their Phenibut?

I have no idea what argument you are trying to make lol.

 

[Jiigzz]

My phenibut which is older than the FDA warning states it is not approved by the fda.

Doesn't surprise me. They likely listed things as having medical claims or stated not for human use and were selling obviously with that intention.

Just because one product may not have dosage instructions or say not for human use doesn't detract from the fact the rest of their website markets supplements for humans and those non marketed products have reviews from humans as well.

 

[stimtron]

I have no idea what argument you are trying to make lol.

I don't know how SNS labels their phenibut these days I used to buy it from nutraplanet back in the day but that was before the FDA started sending warning letters. I'm simply asking if they label it not for human use or as a supplement. I posted ND's label to see how they were selling it but I can't find any for SNS. Thought you would have a copy. That's all.

 

[Jiigzz]

I don't know how SNS labels their phenibut these days I used to buy it from nutraplanet back in the day but that was before the FDA started sending warning letters. I'm simply asking if they label it not for human use or as a supplement. I posted ND's label to see how they were selling it but I can't find any for SNS. Thought you would have a copy. That's all.

We're a supplement company; we dont pretend to sell supplements under the guise of not being for human consumption.

I dont think you're understanding what we're saying. Listing as not for human consumption is still a violation. Period. That's why a lot of companies have been getting screwed, by pretending to be RC when they're not. The FDA isnt dumb

 

[stimtron]

We're a supplement company; we dont pretend to sell supplements under the guise of not being for human consumption.

I dont think you're understanding what we're saying. Listing as not for human consumption is still a violation. Period. That's why a lot of companies have been getting screwed, by pretending to be RC when they're not. The FDA isnt dumb

Do you still make Phenibut? Which is not considered a supplement by the FDA but a misbranded drug. Not sure if pretending to sell a drug under the guise of a supplement is much better than a supplement under the guise of a rc.

I understand what you're saying as in your opinion. But I'm looking at what the FDA is actually doing. So you say the FDA is not dumb. Then why didn't Pure Nootropics get screwed for selling tons of non supplement nootropics for research use? The FDA sent them a warning letter but only for their health claims not their research chemicals in capsules.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-fda-send-warning-letters-companies-selling-dietary-supplements-claiming-treat-alzheimers-disease/pure_nootropics_llc_warning_letter_wl_565425.pdf

If Pure Nootropics was in violation as you say then why didn't the FDA mention it in their warning letter to them or shut them down? You make it sound so matter of factly when the facts aren't saying that. You do understand yes?

To recap.

You're saying selling research chemicals is a violation of FDA policy and thus the FDA should send them a warning letter and/or shut them down.

Several Nootropic companies selling research chemicals were send warning letters by the FDA but no violations were mentioned for their rcs just for their health claims.

If it is a violation according to you the FDA is not acting on it. So not really relevant.


I've seen very few rc companies get in trouble when 1. not making health claims, 2. promoting for human use, or 3. doing illegal money laundering. Yet you say alot of them are? Most I've seen don't break 1-3.

 

[Jiigzz]

Do you still make Phenibut? Which is not considered a supplement by the FDA but a misbranded drug. Not sure if pretending to sell a drug under the guise of a supplement is much better than a supplement under the guise of a rc.

I understand what you're saying as in your opinion. But I'm looking at what the FDA is actually doing. So you say the FDA is not dumb. Then why didn't Pure Nootropics get screwed for selling tons of non supplement nootropics for research use? The FDA sent them a warning letter but only for their health claims not their research chemicals in capsules.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-fda-send-warning-letters-companies-selling-dietary-supplements-claiming-treat-alzheimers-disease/pure_nootropics_llc_warning_letter_wl_565425.pdf

If Pure Nootropics was in violation as you say then why didn't the FDA mention it in their warning letter to them or shut them down? You make it sound so matter of factly when the facts aren't saying that. You do understand yes?

To recap.

You're saying selling research chemicals is a violation of FDA policy and thus the FDA should send them a warning letter and/or shut them down.

Several Nootropic companies selling research chemicals were send warning letters by the FDA but no violations were mentioned for their rcs just for their health claims.

If it is a violation according to you the FDA is not acting on it. So not really relevant.


I've seen very few rc companies get in trouble when 1. not making health claims, 2. promoting for human use, or 3. doing illegal money laundering. Yet you say alot of them are? Most I've seen don't break 1-3.

You didn't even know many of these companies were targeted for branding things as not for human consumption, but now you're the expert in it? You say im not talking facts when the evidence is in the indictment? How do you figure that?

Intentionally lying to the FDA is a hugely stupid move. I don't even understand how/why you're arguing any different.

"If a retailer is selling a product that is labeled NFHC, but it is, in fact, for human consumption, that could support a charge of fraud. Prosecutors will look well beyond the labeling of a product to determine that it is intended for human consumption – an NFHC label is meager protection".

And further:

"Selling a product that is labeled as a dietary supplement provides a good-faith defense to the most likely charges. To prove mislabeling, a prosecutor would have to prove that the product in question is not a dietary supplement, but a drug – that statements made in labeling suggested the product was intended to treat, cure, or diagnose a disease."

Also, if you had actually read what the money laundering charge stemmed from, which was "from conspiracy to commit money laundering and delivery of altered or misbranded drugs by fraud", where the money laundering was simply using a credit card service AND depositing moneh gained by fraudulent means in a bank account.

In a nutshell, the above charge was because they labelled products not for human consumption which were intended for human consumption. They call that fraud.

So tell me, what tips do you have to avoid the fruad charge whilst being fraudulent in your claims about NFHC?

The FDA won't send a warning letter for fraud. Theyll investigate and come at you guns blazing.

Read the indictment for yourself:

keightly indict (1).pdf

Case 1:16-cr-00325-YK Document 1 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 12. BDB:JJT:nl UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THOMAS P. KEIGHTLY, Defendant. ) CRIM. NO. ) ) ) ( , J.) ) ) ) (ELECTRONICALLY FILED). INFORMATION COUNT 1 CONSPIRACY TO...

www.docdroid.net

Read number 19 out loud.

From there, read how they got to the money laundering and fraud aspects.

If any company selling things as not for human consumption and also uses a credit card merchant, you guessed it, they'll also land the money laundering charge. Eventually.

So if you think an indictment is evidence of the FDA not "acting on it" i dont know what else to tell you

 

[Jiigzz]

We can go on:

lists a number of similar cases that included those types of disclaimers in a variety of flavors (for research use only, not for human use, not for recreational purposes, etc…), none of which worked as a valid legal defense, and all of which were used against the defendants.

Number 18 of the indictment further states that despite saying for research purposes, the majority, if not all of their clients, were not researchers or people who worked at labratories.

Nootropic depot may have lucked out by not getting indicted if they listed things as NFHC when they obviously were (a lot of their non supplements have user reviews), but that doesn't mean the FDA doesn't know about it.

Companies can remain in business for years using deceptive tactics or non dietary ingredients. DMAA was in circulation for a long time before the FDA went balls to the wall on cracking down. Sure, its being disputed, but it was still around for a while before the FDA stepped in.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Here's what I don't get about the countless threads on the "evil" FDA, although I'm guessing it's based on complete ignorance and bias. How do you make the argument that the FDA only cares about increasing pharma profit, but stand up for supplement companies that have no problem selling you things for a profit that have no safety data? This faith-based version of science that some seem to have on here is insane and if you're that interested in "research chemicals", then do the homework and make your own.

 

[stimtron]

You didn't even know many of these companies were targeted for branding things as not for human consumption, but now you're the expert in it? You say im not talking facts when the evidence is in the indictment? How do you figure that?

Intentionally lying to the FDA is a hugely stupid move. I don't even understand how/why you're arguing any different.

"If a retailer is selling a product that is labeled NFHC, but it is, in fact, for human consumption, that could support a charge of fraud. Prosecutors will look well beyond the labeling of a product to determine that it is intended for human consumption – an NFHC label is meager protection".

And further:

"Selling a product that is labeled as a dietary supplement provides a good-faith defense to the most likely charges. To prove mislabeling, a prosecutor would have to prove that the product in question is not a dietary supplement, but a drug – that statements made in labeling suggested the product was intended to treat, cure, or diagnose a disease."

Also, if you had actually read what the money laundering charge stemmed from, which was "from conspiracy to commit money laundering and delivery of altered or misbranded drugs by fraud", where the money laundering was simply using a credit card service AND depositing moneh gained by fraudulent means in a bank account.

In a nutshell, the above charge was because they labelled products not for human consumption which were intended for human consumption. They call that fraud.

So tell me, what tips do you have to avoid the fruad charge whilst being fraudulent in your claims about NFHC?

The FDA won't send a warning letter for fraud. Theyll investigate and come at you guns blazing.

Read the indictment for yourself:

keightly indict (1).pdf

Case 1:16-cr-00325-YK Document 1 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 12. BDB:JJT:nl UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THOMAS P. KEIGHTLY, Defendant. ) CRIM. NO. ) ) ) ( , J.) ) ) ) (ELECTRONICALLY FILED). INFORMATION COUNT 1 CONSPIRACY TO...

www.docdroid.net

Read number 19 out loud.

From there, read how they got to the money laundering and fraud aspects.

If any company selling things as not for human consumption and also uses a credit card merchant, you guessed it, they'll also land the money laundering charge. Eventually.

So if you think an indictment is evidence of the FDA not "acting on it" i dont know what else to tell you

I've worked with the FDA I'm an M.D. I know them abit better than you.

You're using 1 example out of context for the many illegal things they did.

Yet you can't comment at all on why Pure Nootropics didn't get shut down but only a warning letter?

Or that the company you represent illegally marketed a russian drug as a supplement? By your logic your company should be raided and shutdown.

Ok.

 

[stimtron]

We can go on:

lists a number of similar cases that included those types of disclaimers in a variety of flavors (for research use only, not for human use, not for recreational purposes, etc…), none of which worked as a valid legal defense, and all of which were used against the defendants.

Number 18 of the indictment further states that despite saying for research purposes, the majority, if not all of their clients, were not researchers or people who worked at labratories.

Nootropic depot may have lucked out by not getting indicted if they listed things as NFHC when they obviously were (a lot of their non supplements have user reviews), but that doesn't mean the FDA doesn't know about it.

Companies can remain in business for years using deceptive tactics or non dietary ingredients. DMAA was in circulation for a long time before the FDA went balls to the wall on cracking down. Sure, its being disputed, but it was still around for a while before the FDA stepped in.

FDA has a number of reasons it does not go after a particular ingredient asap. My point since you missed it is they send warning letters to a company selling rcs and didn't at all address the rcs sold in caps. Just the health claims. If as you say what they are doing was illegal they should have shut them down then and there.

Never said the FDA doesn't know about it just that they are not going after most companies for it and there's a reason for that.

 

[stimtron]

Here's what I don't get about the countless threads on the "evil" FDA, although I'm guessing it's based on complete ignorance and bias. How do you make the argument that the FDA only cares about increasing pharma profit, but stand up for supplement companies that have no problem selling you things for a profit that have no safety data? This faith-based version of science that some seem to have on here is insane and if you're that interested in "research chemicals", then do the homework and make your own.

I never said the FDA was evil but it's a fact that many employee commonly work for the very drug companies they regulate and historically there have been situations where this caused a conflict of interest.

I don't need safety data on every chemical in an apple to buy an apple and everything that was grandfathered in by the FDA is legal regardless of safety data. If you have an issue with that you can take it up with the DSHEA act.

Most supplements have some safety data. If you don't want to buy something because you don't feel it's safe don't. End of story. I don't see why you're playing at knowing what's best for everyone else.

How does it affect you if someone sells something you don't consider is safe? Kratom isn't proven safe but it helps 1,000's with pain conditions. Denying them that option when they have no other is abit immoral. No different than telling dying kids with seizures a few years back they should take CBD because it wasn't studied enough. You know how many kids died waiting for official FDA approval. While other intelligent parents to them to denver to get the treatment. If your kid has seizure meds didn't help what would you do? Nothing? Yeah that's a smart approach. People need options and conventional medicine does not always provide that. Partly why so many people buy supplements some with little research but it's the only option some people have.

 

[Jiigzz]

FDA has a number of reasons it does not go after a particular ingredient asap. My point since you missed it is they send warning letters to a company selling rcs and didn't at all address the rcs sold in caps. Just the health claims. If as you say what they are doing was illegal they should have shut them down then and there.

Never said the FDA doesn't know about it just that they are not going after most companies for it and there's a reason for that.

Edit: it doesn't even matter. If you think it's lawful to sell RCs under the guise of not being for human consumption, all the more power to you.

 

[Jiigzz]

I miss having @De__eB around for these debates.

 

[djbombsquad]

What is rc?

 

[Jiigzz]

I've worked with the FDA I'm an M.D. I know them abit better than you.

You're using 1 example out of context for the many illegal things they did.

Yet you can't comment at all on why Pure Nootropics didn't get shut down but only a warning letter?

Or that the company you represent illegally marketed a russian drug as a supplement? By your logic your company should be raided and shutdown.

Ok.

It's a scary thought to think that someone who is an alleged M.D thinks it's lawful to intentionally market something as NFHC, despite strong evidence to the contrary.

It's also scary to think that an alleged M.D. who has worked with the FDA only realised recently that the FDA doesn't actually perform the studies.

Seeing as we never marketed Phenibut as not for human consumption, which is literally all ive been discussing in this thread, i fail to see how you're using my logic against me. As an alleged M.D, its scary you havent grasped that yet.

What a scary world we live in.

 

[jamesm11]

MDs don't work with FDA regulations, lawyers do. Some MDs handle the science, not the regs.

 

[Aleksandar37]

It's a scary thought to think that someone who is an alleged M.D thinks it's lawful to intentionally market something as NFHC, despite strong evidence to the contrary.

It's also scary to think that an alleged M.D. who has worked with the FDA only realised recently that the FDA doesn't actually perform the studies.

Seeing as we never marketed Phenibut as not for human consumption, which is literally all ive been discussing in this thread, i fail to see how you're using my logic against me. As an alleged M.D, its scary you havent grasped that yet.

What a scary world we live in.

There's no way he's an MD. He's lacking basic science knowledge, let alone what he should have learned in his imaginary med school. Plus, most MDs don't deal with the FDA, so again he's ignorant of reality.

 

[Aleksandar37]

MDs don't work with FDA regulations, lawyers do. Some MDs handle the science, not the regs.

Absolutely. Some MDs might if they left practicing medicine to work for a pharma company or might have glimpses while being a KOL for a pharma company, but it's not the norm.

 

[Aleksandar37]

It looks like troll boy's imaginary degree originated in another thread. Again, unless you're lying to everyone, post your credentials, fraud.

 

[Jiigzz]

It looks like troll boy's imaginary degree originated in another thread. Again, unless you're lying to everyone, post your credentials, fraud.

I wonder if this is @Standup reincarnate. He was banned not all that long ago, and now this new account has just popped up posting the same kind of FDA conspiracies

 

[Aleksandar37]

I wonder if this is @Standup reincarnate. He was banned not all that long ago, and now this new account has just popped up posting the same kind of FDA conspiracies

It would actually make me feel better if there weren't two of them, but there is a lot of FDA and pharma misinformation out there.