VERY IMPORTANT! everyone please read
- 02-18-2005, 02:39 PM
- 02-18-2005, 02:47 PM
02-18-2005, 02:59 PM
The following quote from the link still disturbs me...Originally Posted by Zoldian
"Vitamins and minerals are not under the gun. Dietary supplements are."
02-18-2005, 03:22 PM
Yep that article really didn't lift any kind of spirits. And after all of the B.S. that Custom is going through, I feel that the paranoia is justified.
02-18-2005, 05:09 PM
Bro the above article leads the reader to believe that their right to purchase vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements in the U.S. is about to be lost to them unless they act decisively in defense of it. This is simply not true.Originally Posted by ryansm
I'm not sure if you read the whole article, but if you did you would see there is no need for paranoia.
"This is another case of an issue that is now largely moot due to outdated information. Back in 2003, two versions of a bill that proposed the regulation of dietary supplements (S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003," and H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act") were introduced to Congress. Neither of these bills was ever voted upon, much less passed. They both expired with the end of the 108th Congress in 2004 and have not been reintroduced to the currently sitting 109th Congress.
02-18-2005, 05:44 PM
...It's nice to hear that the extremes to which this gov't control/regulation were imagined may be overstated. Nonetheless, our ongoing concern stems from the real-life experience of having supps we use ripped away (legally/legislatively) on an ongoing basis, and seemingly to no end. Ephedra, PH/PS's being the most obvious and recent, but we are hearing more and more that technicalities can quickly eliminate most any substance in question. Some politicians are have itchy trigger fingers, because they love to hype themselves as "protectors" of society, constituents' health, "the children", etc. etc. Hell, pharmaceutical companies probably have a hand in a lot of basic vitamin production, so I'm pretty confident that those will be free-flowing forever. When you hear that things like creatine are on the hit list, though, and hear some bonehead referencing it in the same breath as AAS's, you gotta wonder. Many of these people are just whipping up frenzied concern to an uneducated public. And because they have the law, they get to drop the hammer.
02-18-2005, 08:00 PM
Thanks bro, but I read the article. Like Stryder remarked the emphasis on dietary supplements is what concerns me, and others.Originally Posted by Zoldian
02-18-2005, 08:03 PM
The urban legends art is encouraging. But, who is to say if a similar bill to this mentioned in European countries (albeit possibly incorrect) won't be enacted and passed here?
I don't have a good feeling about new supps - ala CEE, 7-OH, or anything else Sledge (and his few constituents coming out w/ new products). I've read that the FDA would like to excersize control over anything introduced after '94 - they will have to be declared safe by clinical testing. Which would make Sledge's job much more costly.
I can only hope we don't see those days, new supps will be gone from the market.
02-18-2005, 11:37 PM
No I completely agree Bro...The future definately does not look bright for certain types of supplements. Actaully last time I was looking into it the FDA was already having issues with CEE. Since CEE is a membrane permeable form of creatine that can enter the cell without having to use the creatine transporter molecule, they may be considering it a drug.Originally Posted by ryansm
"For the reasons discussed above, the information in your submission does not provide an adequate basis to conclude that creatine ethyl esters, when used under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of your product, will reasonably be expected to be safe. Therefore, your product may be adulterated under 21 U.S.C. 342 as a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that such ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable Page 3-Dr. Samuel Augustine risk of illness or injury. Introduction of such a product into interstate commerce is prohibited under 21 U.SC. 331 and ."
Similar Forum Threads
- By ppltakepower in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 09-07-2011, 09:40 PM
- By bigcat23 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 12-24-2009, 05:00 AM
- By glenihan in forum AnabolicsReplies: 21Last Post: 03-14-2006, 11:17 PM
- By glenihan in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 04-26-2005, 08:25 PM