Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

DMAA one step closer to being Banned - June 2017 Update

WesleyInman

WesleyInman

Well-known member
Anthony Roberts reports that Hi-Tech's motion to reconsider DMAA has been denied.

Very likely DMAA will be banned in the near future, so I'd get it while you can.

Invalid Link Removed
 
This won't be over anytime soon. They will just appeal to a higher court. Imo this won't end until the supreme Court makes a ruling
 
IIRC, Hi Tech was arguing that DMAA was legal due to ambiguity in the term botanical? If so, I think they will stamp down hard to ensure they don't lose grasp and open loopholes for others that may have a grey area.

Edit: and extracted for usuable quantity from plant material, of which no DMAA for sale has actually ever been derived from plant matter.
 
Jiigzz said:
IIRC, Hi Tech was arguing that DMAA was legal due to ambiguity in the term botanical? If so, I think they will stamp down hard to ensure they don't lose grasp and open loopholes for others that may have a grey area.

Edit: and extracted for usuable quantity from plant material, of which no DMAA for sale has actually ever been derived from plant matter.
Click to expand...
I agree. I see it eventually getting banned but I don't see it happening soon.
 
rtmilburn said:
This won't be over anytime soon. They will just appeal to a higher court. Imo this won't end until the supreme Court makes a ruling
Click to expand...

That's good because i really don't want another great supp banned!
 
LeanEngineer said:
That's good because i really don't want another great supp banned!
Click to expand...

amen to that.

To be honest, no one at Hi-Tech expected this judge to change his ruling. That's like you and your wife fighting over her spending too much money on getting her nails done, and then her waiting 24 hours and asking you if you think she should still spend that much money. You aren't changing your damn mind lol.

This is being appealed as was expected.
 
VaughnTrue said:
amen to that.

To be honest, no one at Hi-Tech expected this judge to change his ruling. That's like you and your wife fighting over her spending too much money on getting her nails done, and then her waiting 24 hours and asking you if you think she should still spend that much money. You aren't changing your damn mind lol.

This is being appealed as was expected.
Click to expand...
Epic
 
When does Hi-Tech run out of money? This has to be extremely costly. I wouldn't be surprised if the battle is costing more than DMAA is bringing in, but what do I know...
 
Ape McGrapes said:
When does Hi-Tech run out of money? This has to be extremely costly. I wouldn't be surprised if the battle is costing more than DMAA is bringing in, but what do I know...
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

You never run out of money when you make amazing products!
 
Yeah I expect it to be appealed too..truly hope Hi-Tech wins, but I almost feel like the Gov't has their mind set on this one..

BUT...I will say I honestly never saw them holding off on banning Kratom. So I have been wrong before and I know that.


The thing is I was talking to someone about this. The argument is no different then Vitamin C for example. Vitamin C can be derived from Oranges, but do you think that manufacturers sit there and squeeze millions of oranges and then put it into capsules and powders LOL? No, its made synthetically.

So even if DMAA is only present in miniscule amounts and then is made synthetically in a lab...

How is this any different then Vitamin C for instance?

Thoughts?
 
WesleyInman said:
Yeah I expect it to be appealed too..truly hope Hi-Tech wins, but I almost feel like the Gov't has their mind set on this one..

BUT...I will say I honestly never saw them holding off on banning Kratom. So I have been wrong before and I know that.


The thing is I was talking to someone about this. The argument is no different then Vitamin C for example. Vitamin C can be derived from Oranges, but do you think that manufacturers sit there and squeeze millions of oranges and then put it into capsules and powders LOL? No, its made synthetically.

So even if DMAA is only present in miniscule amounts and then is made synthetically in a lab...

How is this any different then Vitamin C for instance?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

That is exactly Hi-Tech's argument.
 
If it can be found in nature (in ANY amounts) it should be good to go. As you alluded to in your vitamin C example, it would be impractical to gather enough DMAA from the plants alone to produce commercially. The lab setting just permits a more efficient means of extracting the active from the plants to produce in greater amounts commercially. IIRC I read that the FDA had doctored the results of a study about the presence of DMAA in the geranium plant. Supposedly they changed the verbiage from there being "a detectable amount in parts per billion, to 0 detectable parts per million". While this may be an valid statement, there were still quantifiable amounts of DMAA in the more sensitive test. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to correct me a I've been out of the DMAA litigation loop the past few weeks.

edit: So to address your question about how is it different? Well one is a water soluble vitamin, and the other is a potent stimulant that has a similar chemical structure as an amphetamine.
 
I didn't know Vitamin C was structurally similar to Amphetamine. Interesting.
 
mcc23 said:
If it can be found in nature (in ANY amounts) it should be good to go. As you alluded to in your vitamin C example, it would be impractical to gather enough DMAA from the plants alone to produce commercially. The lab setting just permits a more efficient means of extracting the active from the plants to produce in greater amounts commercially. IIRC I read that the FDA had doctored the results of a study about the presence of DMAA in the geranium plant. Supposedly they changed the verbiage from there being "a detectable amount in parts per billion, to 0 detectable parts per million". While this may be an valid statement, there were still quantifiable amounts of DMAA in the more sensitive test. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to correct me a I've been out of the DMAA litigation loop the past few weeks.

edit: So to address your question about how is it different? Well one is a water soluble vitamin, and the other is a potent stimulant that has a similar chemical structure as an amphetamine.
Click to expand...

the judge ruling on the case specifically contradicts your claim. he said it shouldnt be allowed because it's not found in high enough quantities, which directly goes against DSHEA
 
That is what I 'believed" so it's nice to hear that confirmed.

I thought that if it was in "ANY" amount.. (.0001% included) then it is compliant.

I'm very frustrated by this case because once again I feel like they have the upper hand and the ball is in the Gov't court as usual.

We all know that DMAA, caffeine, anything abused can be harmful...but in moderation it's perfectly fine.

What is the big issue? Why are they chasing DMAA down so badly I wonder??
 
VaughnTrue said:
the judge ruling on the case specifically contradicts your claim. he said it shouldnt be allowed because it's not found in high enough quantities, which directly goes against DSHEA
Click to expand...

I am not familiar at all with the laws behind all this but is it specified anywhere what the threshold must be? Or is the law written in such a manner where it is not clear...or is it not included at all?

I work for one of the big 3 car companies and deal with regulations and guidelines that we must abide by set forth by various goverment organizations. However the lauguage in some cases is so vague and confusing that when we ask for clarification on something they often admit that they are not sure either. Like WTF, how are we suppose to meet these guidelines. Scary times we live in right now
 
WesleyInman said:
That is what I 'believed" so it's nice to hear that confirmed.

I thought that if it was in "ANY" amount.. (.0001% included) then it is compliant.

I'm very frustrated by this case because once again I feel like they have the upper hand and the ball is in the Gov't court as usual.

We all know that DMAA, caffeine, anything abused can be harmful...but in moderation it's perfectly fine.

What is the big issue? Why are they chasing DMAA down so badly I wonder??
Click to expand...
They are doing this to set a standard. Nothing else. FDA is just flexing it's muscles
 
carguy123 said:
I am not familiar at all with the laws behind all this but is it specified anywhere what the threshold must be? Or is the law written in such a manner where it is not clear...or is it not included at all?

I work for one of the big 3 car companies and deal with regulations and guidelines that we must abide by set forth by various goverment organizations. However the lauguage in some cases is so vague and confusing that when we ask for clarification on something they often admit that they are not sure either. Like WTF, how are we suppose to meet these guidelines. Scary times we live in right now
Click to expand...
Read my post
 
WesleyInman said:
That is what I 'believed" so it's nice to hear that confirmed.

I thought that if it was in "ANY" amount.. (.0001% included) then it is compliant.

I'm very frustrated by this case because once again I feel like they have the upper hand and the ball is in the Gov't court as usual.

We all know that DMAA, caffeine, anything abused can be harmful...but in moderation it's perfectly fine.

What is the big issue? Why are they chasing DMAA down so badly I wonder??
Click to expand...

“This Court again points out that the ability to extract usable quantities of DMAA from geraniums is not the issue. The question is whether someone has extracted DMAA from geraniums or some other plant and placed that DMAA in a product, and it is obvious from the record that no one has done that. If someone had, there would not have been a dispute regarding whether DMAA was a botanical in the first instance.”

From Priceplow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top