Senator calls for regulation in wake of USA today story

Noone EVER get in on the good foot for the breaking the NEWS before De__eB....Is the Walter Cronkite in Anabolic Minds
 
Didn't even know Wally World sold Craze.
 
De__eB said:
They sell everything on their website a la Amazon.
Click to expand...

Pulling on fast eddie for De__eB? NO.!.. luck out too for AM keeping in the vigil on shenanigans
 
De__eB said:
And so it begins.

Invalid Link Removed

End well this will not.
Click to expand...

Eventually the supplement industry will be completely regulated.
 
Spaniard said:
Eventually the supplement industry will be completely regulated.
Click to expand...

Im probably alone in this statement but I actually have no problem with it being regulated
 
I read that entire article. Basically talked about the amphetamines found in Craze, but was moreso about the CEO of (then) Designer Supplements and how he was incarcerated for putting a pesticide into a weight loss pill... and then making Superdrol... sold the formula to another company... that company got sued by a guy who had liver damage because the label didn't warn of anything... then going on to form Driven Sports while making money off of royalties from Superdrol... creating Craze... etc. It was a good read.
 
Spaniard said:
Eventually the supplement industry will be completely regulated.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. If I can get amphetamines shipped to my house* not the analogs * then getting my hands on the ingredients I want shouldn't be hard.
 
JudoJosh said:
Im probably alone in this statement but I actually have no problem with it being regulated
Click to expand...

After I get my PA license I'll be writing Rx for supplements after the FDA takes the supp industry over so either way I'll be alright. It's a damn unfortunate thing when people feel the need to take advantage of their consumer base.
 
pyrobatt said:
Doesn't matter. If I can get amphetamines shipped to my house* not the analogs * then getting my hands on the ingredients I want shouldn't be hard.
Click to expand...

Well yes, savvy users will always be able to get an ingredient they really want.

The issue is the average consumer and the significant price increases they're likely to see.
 
JudoJosh said:
Im probably alone in this statement but I actually have no problem with it being regulated
Click to expand...
Hm...how can you be so ok with it? If the government starts they wont stop...they could go to the extent of banning every supplement that has ever contained a potentially dangerous (or harmless, depending how mad they are) side effect...They could take the mentality of: "It's our duty to protect Americans! Thus, we will take off the market ANY supplement we deem might give them the choice of freedom...the right to weigh their risks and rewards.

Or why...? I just wanna know really what's the reason you would be ok about it...

Sean1332 said:
Quality control purposes?
Click to expand...
Quality control is directly the control of error in mass production by reducing variance in the procedure of creation or provision of a service (alas talking concepts of 6-sigma distribution of error in the production of millions of items) , not what's deemed good or not. I would call it scrutiny power.
 
Ephedra, DMAA, Dendrobium... Looks like any new stim is going to be highly scrutinized by the FDA from here on out.
 
mtinsideout said:
Ephedra, DMAA, Dendrobium... Looks like any new stim is going to be highly scrutinized by the FDA from here on out.
Click to expand...

I understand where your anger is coming from...but did you know that they have tried to pass even bills for banning everything down to the point of us just having the choice of Vitamins? Ephedra was horrible, and Ephedrine is still readily available and cheap. DMAA...yeah that was a loss I can't deny it. Wasn't dendobrium the way they tried to mask that it actually is a synthetic stimulant? Just wondering.
 
Celorza said:
I understand where your anger is coming from...but did you know that they have tried to pass even bills for banning everything down to the point of us just having the choice of Vitamins? Ephedra was horrible, and Ephedrine is still readily available and cheap. DMAA...yeah that was a loss I can't deny it. Wasn't dendobrium the way they tried to mask that it actually is a synthetic stimulant? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Don't forget dnp,clen,and when testosterone was put on the class 3 list in 90 I believe.

Moral of story? As with other supplements people will always find a replacement. As for the "average user" they can do a quick Google seach and find it.
 
Celorza said:
I understand where your anger is coming from...but did you know that they have tried to pass even bills for banning everything down to the point of us just having the choice of Vitamins? Ephedra was horrible, and Ephedrine is still readily available and cheap. DMAA...yeah that was a loss I can't deny it. Wasn't dendobrium the way they tried to mask that it actually is a synthetic stimulant? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Eh I'm a little mad about DMAA lol... I'm just trying to understand the logic, as long as it is clearly on the label it should be good to go. I get the feeling that the FDA is going to use these as a tool to make supplement companies pay for there approval thus the cost of any supplement will go up.
 
mtinsideout said:
Eh I'm a little mad about DMAA lol... I'm just trying to understand the logic, as long as it is clearly on the label it should be good to go. I get the feeling that the FDA is going to use these as a tool to make supplement companies pay for there approval thus the cost of any supplement will go up.
Click to expand...

From the sound of how the Senator presented the bill, the amendment is only requiring companies to register their products with the FDA and provide the full label info before the product can be placed on sale in the market. So it doesn't sound like an actual FDA regulation that requires the approval for new ingredients, just a registration of products along with the ingredients contained so that if a certain ingredient becomes an issue, they can trace it back to what products contains what ingredients.
 
kissdadookie said:
From the sound of how the Senator presented the bill, the amendment is only requiring companies to register their products with the FDA and provide the full label info before the product can be placed on sale in the market. So it doesn't sound like an actual FDA regulation that requires the approval for new ingredients, just a registration of products along with the ingredients contained so that if a certain ingredient becomes an issue, they can trace it back to what products contains what ingredients.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it will take companies much longer to get products to market.
 
aaronuconn said:
Sounds like it will take companies much longer to get products to market.
Click to expand...

If they have someone reviewing these labels that means the companies will have to pay for the approval. The cost of all supps would go up.
 
Invalid Link Removed

ESPN is in on the issue now.

How soon until rushed legislation gets forced through congress even though the FDA has plenty of regulatory authority already, and no resources to use it fully.
 
mtinsideout said:
Eh I'm a little mad about DMAA lol... I'm just trying to understand the logic, as long as it is clearly on the label it should be good to go. I get the feeling that the FDA is going to use these as a tool to make supplement companies pay for there approval thus the cost of any supplement will go up.
Click to expand...

The problem is it isn't clear on the label. Dendrobium is not a stimulant, eth is. Eth is not on the label.
 
I wish the FDA would give an equal sh!t about stuff that actually kills people like cigarettes
 
This lady(Allison Young) PM'd me to interview about this story(she asked me via PM from another site). I told her if its a supplement bashing article, I have no interest. She never really did say what it was going to be about, but she gave me her email address and wanted me to give her my phone # and what was the best time to reach me, I never did.
 
JD261985 said:
This
Click to expand...

I think you and swanks are missing the point. The do care as much about cigarettes...hence the numerous warnings on the label. There isn't an eth warning on the craze label...or even a mention of it being in there for that matter. That is the major problem.

If it was on there with warnings and dosage I personally wouldn't give a ****. I think people can take what ever the **** they want, including cigarettes.
 
i think people should be allowed to use meth, cocaine, heroin, etc if they so desire as well. eliminate the black market and tax the hell out of it. use the tax money for drug abuse treatment and education.
 
rob112 said:
If it was on there with warnings and dosage I personally wouldn't give a ****. I think people can take what ever the **** they want, including cigarettes.
Click to expand...

This^^^

BUT that's not what they do with supplements. They either a) ban them or b) ban them from OTC purchased and only allow pharmaceutical companies to sell them.

Don't let the fda fool you into thinking they actually give a sh!t about your wellbeing. Lol honestly
 
TheSwanks said:
This^^^

BUT that's not what they do with supplements. They either a) ban them or b) ban them from OTC purchased and only allow pharmaceutical companies to sell them.

Don't let the fda fool you into thinking they actually give a sh!t about your wellbeing. Lol honestly
Click to expand...

I do agree...they do not truly care, and I am not sure I want them to. I'm like ghandi.
 
This all comes back to the core of the issue now doesn't it? If big players in the industry can't be trusted enough to either put out honest labels or at least do more thorough QC (not saying that this is the case with the majority, but even just one big player getting caught with this problem and which then leads to big media field day, that's a big issue) and self regulation ends up being mostly reactive rather than proactive, what is the solution to the problem? If the answer is to have FDA regulate and govern more diligently, that creates the problem of getting products to market as well as pricing concerns. If the answer is to have tighter self regulation, which entity is going to be responsible for taking on the position?
 
kissdadookie said:
This all comes back to the core of the issue now doesn't it? If big players in the industry can't be trusted enough to either put out honest labels or at least do more thorough QC (not saying that this is the case with the majority, but even just one big player getting caught with this problem and which then leads to big media field day, that's a big issue) and self regulation ends up being mostly reactive rather than proactive, what is the solution to the problem? If the answer is to have FDA regulate and govern more diligently, that creates the problem of getting products to market as well as pricing concerns. If the answer is to have tighter self regulation, which entity is going to be responsible for taking on the position?
Click to expand...
The answer is a bigger penalty.

Think SMU college football penalty in the 1980's big.
 
aaronuconn said:
The answer is a bigger penalty.

Think SMU college football penalty in the 1980's big.
Click to expand...

One would think that bigger penalties would motivate better practices but there is the issue of the FDA actually having a pretty good amount of power as it is but the problem being that they do not have the resources for which they can carry out acting on the power they have.

Chicken and the egg dilemma?
 
kissdadookie said:
One would think that bigger penalties would motivate better practices but there is the issue of the FDA actually having a pretty good amount of power as it is but the problem being that they do not have the resources for which they can carry out acting on the power they have.

Chicken and the egg dilemma?
Click to expand...

The FDA has every bit of legal authority necessary, but to fully implement that authority would cosr many many millions. And spending that much money regulating an industry most people see as unnecessary instead of just dropping the hammer on them is not something that seems likely.
 
De__eB said:
The FDA has every bit of legal authority necessary, but to fully implement that authority would cosr many many millions. And spending that much money regulating an industry most people see as unnecessary instead of just dropping the hammer on them is not something that seems likely.
Click to expand...

How much do you estimate it cost Ron Kramer to get his Craze independently tested? Think of that amount for every batch of every product. Daunting number I'm sure.
 
aaronuconn said:
How much do you estimate it cost Ron Kramer to get his Craze independently tested? Think of that amount for every batch of every product. Daunting number I'm sure.
Click to expand...

That amount is substantially less for repeat testing, from inside a company, with known identities and quantities.

If you're a manufacturer and you say 'Here's exactly what's supposed to be in this product, the exact quantities, and what specific compounds we're standardizing for' that's a lot easier and cheaper to do than 'Here's a product, and a proprietary blended label, can you figure out what's inside it'

Companies are already supposed to be doing batch testing of everything they make. That's the law.
 
De__eB said:
That amount is substantially less for repeat testing, from inside a company, with known identities and quantities.

If you're a manufacturer and you say 'Here's exactly what's supposed to be in this product, the exact quantities, and what specific compounds we're standardizing for' that's a lot easier and cheaper to do than 'Here's a product, and a proprietary blended label, can you figure out what's inside it'

Companies are already supposed to be doing batch testing of everything they make. That's the law.
Click to expand...
Which it should be the law, but if the FDA does step in, I was insinuating it would be real expensive (like you mentioned in the bolded).
 
aaronuconn said:
Which it should be the law, but if the FDA does step in, I was insinuating it would be real expensive (like you mentioned in the bolded).
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if the FDA puts that burden on the company and uses existing regulatory authority to say 'batch test your **** or we're putting an injunction on your sales', then companies can do it a lot cheaper than the FDA can.

The FDA also doesn't want to get into testing every product, because then they're on the legal hook for saying 'yes this product contains what it says on the label'
 
De__eB said:
Yeah, but if the FDA puts that burden on the company and uses existing regulatory authority to say 'batch test your **** or we're putting an injunction on your sales', then companies can do it a lot cheaper than the FDA can.

The FDA also doesn't want to get into testing every product, because then they're on the legal hook for saying 'yes this product contains what it says on the label'
Click to expand...

Which is why they'll move everything to pharma because the regulations and enforcement infrastructure are already there.

I work around fda regs daily at my job. They exist solely as a source of fee and penalty revenue for the government. They do very little that can be truly characterized as action on behalf of the common good for the public.

Believe me.
 
TheSwanks said:
Which is why they'll move everything to pharma because the regulations and enforcement infrastructure are already there.

....

Believe me.
Click to expand...

bingo.

follow the money trail.

big pharma wants you to go to it for everything, including fish oil and vitamin c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top