TIME TO SAVE OUR SUPPLEMENTS! BE HEARD!

[Clemenza]

As most of you know, about a month ago the FDA sent warning letters to a few companies regarding DMAA. The FDA is attempting to ban DMAA under the guise that it is a “synthetically manufactured” ingredient. The problem here is that if the FDA is able to ban products that are synthetically produced (whether found in nature or not, which is the current law), then we can kiss all of our favorite supplements goodbye (BCAA’s, Creatine, Vitamins, etc.).

Now for those of you who don’t believe this will ever happen, or you don’t like DMAA so think it should be banned, please understand that this is a slippery slope. If you have followed the government over the years, and their constant regulation of most every aspect of business, you will see that all of their restrictions have caused increases in the price consumers pay for products, or even worse end up leaving the consumers with less freedoms to choose the products and services they wish to purchase.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I don’t believe in the legalization of drugs, and I’m not a Ron Paul die hard. I’m a regular guy who’s been on the forum for over 8 years who has done work with many businesses who both lobby and work directly with governments both at the local and federal level. And I have seen what excessive government restriction has done to businesses and in turn cause massive price increases in which the consumers end up footing the bill. We live in the most beautiful country in the world, but unfortunately many politicians have the wrong idea for its future, a future much different than that of the founders envisioned for us. A future with less freedom and more laws, rules and restrictions. Bloomberg just banned the sales of 32 oz. soft drinks in NYC. Could you have ever imagined this 20 years ago?

Also, just last week Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (D), attempted to attach, last minute legislation to a bill regarding prescription drug user fees, which would create new regulations for the supplement industry that would actually end up pulling many supplements from shelves. Luckily with the help of many supplement consumers who called their representatives and signed online petitions, the bill passed but Dick Durbin’s sneaky legislation was voted down. If you do the research you will also see Durbin is a HUGE recipient of Pharmaceutical campaign money.

Congress votes down Sen. Durbin's anti-supplement amendment, as well as Sen. Paul's freedom of health speech amendment

So when you think there’s nothing you can do about what the politicians in Washington are doing, think again. I came across these two petitions which, with our help, may prevent the banning of DMAA and the future regulation of this industry we love so much. We pay enough on these supplements, the last thing I want is to pay a pharmaceutical company $100 for a month’s supply of creatine. Or even worse, have these products pulled permanently. Don’t forget, it’s a slippery slope. Let’s fight to keep the DSHEA law of 1994, which basically allows us access to all the great supplements we love, and the future innovations we look forward to.

PLEASE SIGN THESE:
</title> <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.citizens.org/wp-content/themes/amazing-grace/style.css" type="text/css" media="screen"> <style type="text/css"> #portrait-bg { background:url(http://www.citizens.org/wp-content/themes/amazing-grace/ima
</title> <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.citizens.org/wp-content/themes/amazing-grace/style.css" type="text/css" media="screen"> <style type="text/css"> #portrait-bg { background:url(http://www.citizens.org/wp-content/themes/amazing-grace/ima

 

[truthornothin]

Signed petition and posted link to this thread on my thread, good work

 

[mattrag]

Done.

 

[truthornothin]

Done.

Thanks everyone should

 

[Sisonpyh]

Signed as well, hope this keeps at the top.

 

[mattys4]

signed and sent

 

[howwedo107]

Black market Creatine and vitamins....hmm what a world......also signed!!

 

[nattydisaster]

Good thread...good info. Bumping

 

[mustang0341]

*signed

 

[boz8029]

This is great info!

 

[USPlabsRep]

Black market Creatine and vitamins....hmm what a world......also signed!!

Scary thought....

 

[truthornothin]

Scary thought....

scary but well within the realm of possibility look at Europe

 

[chimeranD]

I've seen at least 3 of these in the past year or so, not worried at all. People need to stop reading too far into things. Snippet from the article:

It also would have restored freedom of health speech by stopping the FDA from censoring the truthful health claims of dietary supplements.

Truthful health claims? Not all supplements actually work, unless they're proven to work they can't say it does on a label. Plain and simple, why's that a problem? They can still say a product is "thought to do ___" or "may do _____", they just can't state for a fact it can and will.

 

[muad33b]

Signed, re-posted over at LB.

 

[nattydisaster]

scary but well within the realm of possibility look at Europe

Good point

 

[rome32]

Signed*

 

[USPlabsRep]

I've seen at least 3 of these in the past year or so, not worried at all. People need to stop reading too far into things. Snippet from the article:
Truthful health claims? Not all supplements actually work, unless they're proven to work they can't say it does on a label. Plain and simple, why's that a problem? They can still say a product is "thought to do ___" or "may do _____", they just can't state for a fact it can and will.

this post is nonsensical.

 

[truthornothin]

this post is nonsensical.

second that

 

[Trank406]

Signed that ****! Nice work! They shouldn't ban anything that's good for ya ;-) and anything that works!

 

[Clemenza]

I've seen at least 3 of these in the past year or so, not worried at all. People need to stop reading too far into things. Snippet from the article:
Truthful health claims? Not all supplements actually work, unless they're proven to work they can't say it does on a label. Plain and simple, why's that a problem? They can still say a product is "thought to do ___" or "may do _____", they just can't state for a fact it can and will.

Who will be the ones determining which products work and which don't?

Label claims? This issue is the reason every supplement already states "these statements are not verified by the fda"

 

[chimeranD]

Who will be the ones determining which products work and which don't?

Label claims? This issue is the reason every supplement already states "these statements are not verified by the fda"

It's more about what products are clinically proven to work from my understanding. Not like fda arbitrarily decides what works and what doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the FDA, I just think people are worrying too much about this. People have been trying for a long time to do this sort of thing to the industry and they haven't succeeded yet. Why worry now?

 

[Clemenza]

It's more about what products are clinically proven to work from my understanding. Not like fda arbitrarily decides what works and what doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the FDA, I just think people are worrying too much about this. People have been trying for a long time to do this sort of thing to the industry and they haven't succeeded yet. Why worry now?

Why worry? You just said it yourself... "people have been trying for a long time to do this sort of thing to the industry". If those people "worrying" didn't push back, then the FDA and those who wish to regulate the industry would have been able to do whatever they want. Sitting around worrying doesn't do much, but speaking out, writing/calling your congressmen, signing petitions, voting for free market politicians, is the taking action that stems from worrying.

Like I said it's a slippery slope. Look at NYC. Bloomberg bans trans fats, got away with it because no one fought back. Now he bans 32 oz. soft drinks. What's next? What's to say he won't come out one day and say "Well we're seeing some improvement in the obesity rate in NYC since we banned the 32 oz. soft drink, but the obesity rate is still high in my opinion, so we are now going to ban the 16 oz. soft drink. Then someone has a heart attack drinking a Red Bull, and it's bye bye Red Bull. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Not to mention the cost these BS regulations leave on the companies and the consumer.
Think about it, the people who drink 32 oz sodas buy a 32 oz soda because it's cheaper than buying two 16 oz sodas. Now those 32 oz soda lovers are FORCED to buy two 16 oz sodas and pay the extra cost. Slight cost? Yeah maybe, but it's the principle. The consumer loses in the end.

You want clinical research backing up every supplement brought to the market? Who's going to pay for this clinical research? The supplement companies will. And those costs are passed down to us, the consumer.

No Thanks!

 

[chimeranD]

Why worry? You just said it yourself... "people have been trying for a long time to do this sort of thing to the industry". If those people "worrying" didn't push back, then the FDA and those who wish to regulate the industry would have been able to do whatever they want. Sitting around worrying doesn't do much, but speaking out, writing/calling your congressmen, signing petitions, voting for free market politicians, is the taking action that stems from worrying.

Like I said it's a slippery slope. Look at NYC. Bloomberg bans trans fats, got away with it because no one fought back. Now he bans 32 oz. soft drinks. What's next? What's to say he won't come out one day and say "Well we're seeing some improvement in the obesity rate in NYC since we banned the 32 oz. soft drink, but the obesity rate is still high in my opinion, so we are now going to ban the 16 oz. soft drink. Then someone has a heart attack drinking a Red Bull, and it's bye bye Red Bull. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Not to mention the cost these BS regulations leave on the companies and the consumer.
Think about it, the people who drink 32 oz sodas buy a 32 oz soda because it's cheaper than buying two 16 oz sodas. Now those 32 oz soda lovers are FORCED to buy two 16 oz sodas and pay the extra cost. Slight cost? Yeah maybe, but it's the principle. The consumer loses in the end.

You want clinical research backing up every supplement brought to the market? Who's going to pay for this clinical research? The supplement companies will. And those costs are passed down to us, the consumer.

No Thanks!

I'm saying why worry because in all reality, they won't ban supplements. They have no reason to.
Your points on New York banning 32oz sodas, trans fats, etc are just laugh worthy though. Neither of those bans is at all harmful to consumers, and the companies that make those products do it to get a few more cents out of people at the potential cost of their health. They're not BS regulations, they're just missing the bigger picture. They should be educating people on WHY drinking down massive quantities of sodas and trans fats is terrible for health. They should also be making healthy food more available instead of just banning some unhealthy options.

I personally don't want clinical research backing up every supplement, and I never said that. I said I would prefer that a company doesn't state something completely unproven as fact on a label, which they would if they had the opportunity. Just out of curiosity, do you really want an unregulated market?

 

[Clemenza]

I'm saying why worry because in all reality, they won't ban supplements. They have no reason to.
Your points on New York banning 32oz sodas, trans fats, etc are just laugh worthy though. Neither of those bans is at all harmful to consumers, and the companies that make those products do it to get a few more cents out of people at the potential cost of their health. They're not BS regulations, they're just missing the bigger picture. They should be educating people on WHY drinking down massive quantities of sodas and trans fats is terrible for health. They should also be making healthy food more available instead of just banning some unhealthy options.

I personally don't want clinical research backing up every supplement, and I never said that. I said I would prefer that a company doesn't state something completely unproven as fact on a label, which they would if they had the opportunity. Just out of curiosity, do you really want an unregulated market?

You are right in that they are missing the bigger picture. Their end goal is to bring down health care costs I believe. This is obviously not the way to do it. The only way to bring down health care costs is to make people more responsible for their own health care costs. And of course health/diet education as well. If people had to pay more for their doctor's visits, drugs, etc. I'm sure they would be a lot more careful with what they ate and how they took care of themselves during their lives. The burden of health care costs should not fall on others.

I think we both want the same thing in the end. I do believe companies should not make outrageous and unproven claims on their labels and advertisements. However, in a free market a company that continuously does this will eventually lose the faith and loyalty of the customers. So it takes care of itself for the most part.

And no I do not want an unregulated market. But less regulation I feel is better than too much. You give these power hungry politian an inch and they take a yard. There's no denying that as it's been that way since the beginning of time.

 

[Becks18]

Signed

 

[truthornothin]

You are right in that they are missing the bigger picture. Their end goal is to bring down health care costs I believe. This is obviously not the way to do it. The only way to bring down health care costs is to make people more responsible for their own health care costs. And of course health/diet education as well. If people had to pay more for their doctor's visits, drugs, etc. I'm sure they would be a lot more careful with what they ate and how they took care of themselves during their lives. The burden of health care costs should not fall on others.

I think we both want the same thing in the end. I do believe companies should not make outrageous and unproven claims on their labels and advertisements. However, in a free market a company that continuously does this will eventually lose the faith and loyalty of the customers. So it takes care of itself for the most part.

And no I do not want an unregulated market. But less regulation I feel is better than too much. You give these power hungry politian an inch and they take a yard. There's no denying that as it's been that way since the beginning of time.

Amen

 

[chimeranD]

nd no I do not want an unregulated market. But less regulation I feel is better than too much. You give these power hungry politian an inch and they take a yard. There's no denying that as it's been that way since the beginning of time.

The same can be said about supplement companies (or anyone for that matter). In a free market economy monopolies would run rampant, so instead of gaining customer loyalty through good products and service, it would be out of necessity. The point is, regulation is necessary. It doesn't have to be anything extreme, but history shows both sides of regulation (high and low) and neither work out for the people. I'd say we have a pretty good balance right now.

 

[Clemenza]

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/18774940/health-panel-talks-about-wider-food-ban

Like I said, when you're dealing with government regulation, you give an inch, they take a mile...

At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.
One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.
"The popcorn isn't a whole lot better than the soda," Vladeck said.
Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.
"There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories," said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

 

[nattydisaster]

Yikes...