Article: Industry Response To FDA Stance On DMAA
- Thread starter The Press
- Start date
determinator
Active member
goodbye OEP and Jack3D
musclefool
Active member
Man **** the FDA that's a load of bull****
AdonisBelt
Member
Yep. Just an easy fix to relieve the worry that arose from those that abused dmaa-related supplements. Don't blame the .0001% of users that ****ed up, punish everyone for the .0001%'s mistakes and demonize a product!!
musclefool
Active member
Yeah it's dumb I enjoy these products. The OG craze was really good now they made it shltty
schmidt
New member
Everybody seems to be blaming the FDA. I for one am a little upset at the supplement companies for trying to add DMAA under the guise of "Dietary Ingredient" when it clearly isn't.
If there is no control over what goes into these products and who can get their hands on them, it will only be a matter of time before we have another Thalidomide disaster on our hands. (Google it if you don't remember)
If there is no control over what goes into these products and who can get their hands on them, it will only be a matter of time before we have another Thalidomide disaster on our hands. (Google it if you don't remember)
fueledpassion
Well-known member
There is an inherent problem with that theory of regulations.
1) If the FDA didn't have so many restrictions and laws based around what used to be known as a free-market, the companies wouldn't be looking for loop-holes like they do. They'd just call it what it is and put a fair warning on the label, much like you'd see with many toxic cleaners, paint thinners, etc etc. Use with care and respect. That's the problem with our society - too many of us just want to abuse things in a pursuit of happiness. It's pathetic but true. And more regulations won't fix that problem. You have to do root-cause analysis to figure that one out.
2) Companies are interested in selling what the market demands. If the market demands it, the company makes it. However, if something were impossible to use without having huge health risks involved, the market wouldn't demand it and thus would not buy it. That simple. If the cost outweighs the benefit no one will buy the product to begin with. It's a perception of value thing.
There are people that think companies are and should be ultimately responsible for what is put on the market...but I say that is a good indicator of denial. The market, which is made up of individual consumers like you and I, controls the demand for something and thus drive the various industries to produce what they do. So here is the issue I have with government - it imposes certain beliefs, preferences, and ways of life onto the society which totally goes against our constitution and the concept of "freedom".
The only regulation that should be forced is accurate labeling - which means to accurately label what the product is, does and it's health risks. That simple.
If it's too dangerous to a point that the cost outweighs the benefits --> no one will buy it or not enough will buy it. That will drive the companies that create these things to go back to the drawing table and find something that we think is worth the hassle.
AdonisBelt
Member
I agree with most of what your saying but as a financial economist I feel obligated to correct you on a few points...
1) most issues with the market not being free and competitive is actually due to lacking enforcement from the FDA and DOJ in regards to monopolies being able to ruin competition, free market efficiencies, and willingness to invest in technologies. The issue is the public policy behind the FDA and DOJ that is screwing with priorities here. Our government should not be wasting time with outlawing ingredients, it should be regulating barriers to entry and general monopsonies. Regulation does not destroy the free market. When ran well, it protects it.
2) it is true that the market sells what is demanded, but you cannot assume all consumers (and producers) carry perfect information. The best example of this is looking at what consumers demand despite any real benefits. Glutamine comes to mind here. Products that induce harmful effects apply here as well. In other words, health risks don't really affect whether a company will sell it. If steroids were legal, people would buy them. If dmaa was legal, people would buy it. If weed and prostitution was legal, we would sure as hell see a boom in that market.
Cheers
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Perhaps my second point really only holds true to informed buyers or buyers who study their purchases and provide continuing education for themselves. I'm one of those people. So naturally, I like to know both pros and cons before a purchase.
And I agree that regulations, when done correctly, protect our market. I totally agree with that. But I don't think the regulators are enforcing the right regulations as you sort of eluded to.
There has been a country in Central America (I'll have to look it up because I don't remember which country it was) that recently lifted all bans against cocaine, heroine & pot, then taxed them as a legal substance to purchase - like anything else. They actually saw a decrease in sale and use of the drugs thereafter. Turns out, people are less interested in harming their body to that extent when it is 100% legal and acceptable. Human nature to do what we're pressured not to do. There is simply so much evidence for this in our society its hardly arguable.
Cigarettes are an interesting example - cigarette use has dropped by 30% in the last decade due to taxes, negative advertising and the laws against smoking in public places, yet according to the CDC, cigar use and pipe-smoking are up 223% & 482%, respectively. Turns out, cigars and pipe-smoking have less tax burdens than cigs and now companies are manufacturing them to be very similar to cigarettes in order to become a viable substitute. So people switch from one vice to the next.
Perfect example of what I was trying to say earlier.
I appreciate your corrections, but I guess I see a different philosophy at work here. I do not believe laws will correct behavior. They only bring to our attention the behavior that we currently have. To the law-abiding citizen, it instills pride. To the law-breaker, it instills fear & counteraction.