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

Unacceptable: Why something needs to be done.

I often wondered why, so many companies get there raws from a source that is notorious for contamination in there products, and was unaware of the insufficient testing. Man it is pretty irresponseable to use a source you know to be suspect and not take the proper precautions.

Well if were going to change things, lets start right here. I suggest that someone with the proper knowledge set up some sort of checklist and ask that the sponsors address it.
 
ersatz said:
Noble proposal but voluntary compliance in this industry, haha, nice pipe dream. The less we are then hampered by these idealistic notions, the better. The conscious and educated consume compromises a miniscule fraction of the consumer base. As such they wield little power or influence. Look at certain forum members who allied to boycott particular companies and the general lack of impact it's had on sales.

If products were as tainted as some would have you believe clearly some individuals would show tell tale signs. Or perhaps manufacturer's do test thoroughly and it's just more scaremongering induced by certain organizations to boost their business. Fortunately, we have yet to hear of any such toxicity occurrences though it is very likely that only such these occurrences will spur action either via the industry itself or more likely through regulation.
Click to expand...

Scaremongering? What does IBE have to gain from this? In fact it costs us more. Depending on the company you use it costs between $25-$100 per metal per supplement to get heavy metal tests done. Assuming you want to test for the big three arsenic, lead, and mercury you are talking about $150 per batch per supplement. That only includes those three metals, that does not include the other chromatographic tests that must be done to ensure you are getting the claimed number of compounds.

You speak intelligently, yet I am very confused by the tone of your message because you sound a lot like a conspiracy theorist. You say they would show tell tale signs if they were indeed tainted. First off heavy metals rarely show tell tale signs early on in life. Heavy metals tend to get lodged in various areas of the brain and are not excreted in the normal fashion. Bioaccumulation is the reason why you do not see the effects of heavy metals early, it takes time and can slowly debilitate you. In fact heavy metals may not effect you until your 60's if in low enough quantities, however, dementia and Alzheimer's are typical occurrences at that time. As I stated earlier Arsenic is very hard to detect and it is very hard to pinpoint when someone has been poisoned by it as it mimics other natural biological effects such as myocardial infarction (if in high amounts). Another problem is say that a PH is tainted with methyl testosterone. Would you know the difference in the effects of taking methyl test or pheraplex say? Doubt it.

To put this in perspective the above paper said that one supplement was found to have 114,000 ppm of arsenic. That is 114,000 mg/kg, or 114g per kilogram. Not sure if you recognize how bad that truly is. I don't make this stuff up, that article is not from some CNN reporter, it is from the New England Journal of Medicine, the most respected medical journal for the last 100 years. Bottom line is if WE don't take action than someone else will, it happens throughout history. This is not the same as someone boycotting a product, this is about getting information out to people so that they can take a stand and say you know what I care more about my health than I do taking your supplement, until you can prove that it is not contaminated.

This is the only industry I know of where people care more about getting big (about their self interest) than they do their health. If these things were found in pet food there would be a national uproar, but for some reason people are very reluctant to do something about it here. You don't have to stand beside us, you can sit idly by, that is fine. But the important thing to remember is that you are playing the statistical game, yeah maybe only 5% of products have problems, but until tests are done you are merely reaching blindly into a bag of colored marbles and you never know if what you have is in that 5%.

just93 said:
so any one wanna do this?? its a good idea i think.....
Click to expand...

just93: Something is being done I promise you. I will be working with supplement companies on a daily basis once I get a few things worked out. All I need from everyone else is to ask your favorite supplement company to support this and get as many people to read this thread as possible.
 
Actually I was thinking of names today and after I thought I had one it made me laugh because I realized what the acronym was:

The Association for the Regulation of Dietary Supplements

TARDS haha
 
eatingisfun said:
You would think that you could go with a big brand name from the USA and FDA approved but you still can't be sure that it's not contaminated. I was watching a story on Dateline or 20/20 or something a while back and they were testing big name brands of multivitamins. Most of them still source all their materials from outside the country. For example the only place that makes synthetic vitamin C is in New Zealand or something. It sounds crazy but that's what they said.

Well anyways, the findings are surprising that many of the big brand vitamins were contaminated with heavy metals and other things you don't want to be ingesting. Yes, even the huge companies don't bother to test their stuff.
Click to expand...


I saw the same thing. I remember the only recommendation they could give was if you were taking vitamins, to stick with a big company, as the "chances" they are monitoring their ingrediants and testing them are better, as they have much more to lose. But like LMD said, there is always masking agents. I doubt a company like Centrum would have anything harmful in it, but you never know...but the problem is Centrum is a shitty vitamin. I use NOW ADAM, just becuase NOW is hands down the largest supplement/vitamin/mineral industry I have ever seen. I emailed the owner of a major bulk supplement store, one that people dont know of AS was as some others. He told me that his company was already following GMP's (rules/testing that must be followed) and closely monitored by the FDA. He also told me that the ONLY brand of supplement he sells on his website is NOW, and that is because they are already under the same testing standard regulations because they are the largest vitamin producing company in the world. He also went on to tell me that ALL smaller companies have a compliance date 2 years from now, and that is when they will be required to follow the GMP's. Hopefully this pulls through, as it would help a lot. If you dont know what GMP's are, go here: Invalid Link Removed
 
poopypants said:
This has always been in the baack of my mind as I purchase nearly 75% of my supps in bulk and constantly are checking COA's that are obviously from a supplier and not a scondary test done by the seller themself and worried that it may just be fudged..... especially since they generally ALL come from china or india and what do they care about a ton of powder being ingested by americans if they get paid the same just for presenting a piece of paper they say is accurate.

This is a great eye opener Lake and again confirms the reason why Im so proud to be associated with you guys... always pushing the standard. Ill be sure to spread the word on this one.
Click to expand...

I worry about this as well. A shitty scanned CoA on these sites means nothing to me.
 
RobInKuwait said:
Lake,

Maybe the thing to do would be find other supplement companies that will also agree to do the same stringent tests that you are doing. Eventually, if enough companies get on board, you could call yourselves the "quality supplements alliance" or something and ensure that everyone in the alliance uses the same testing standards on their products. At that point consumers would know they're only getting the highest quality supps when they buy from "alliance" companies. It could even be a selling point to buy those supps at that point, which could help offset the cost increase due to the testing.
Click to expand...

This would be the golden idea. Even if only 3-4 of the bigger companies started this, people would slowly jump on the bandwagon.
 
LakeMountD said:
So what do I propose?

-Standardized testing practices. We need to ensure that ALL companies are using a US based independent lab for testing.
-Testing of heavy metals. This is something that VERY few people do and it is something that cannot be overlooked. I am more concerned about heavy metals than I am methyltestosterone. Heavy metals must be tested using atomic spectroscopy and not molecular spectroscopy, which everyone typically uses. I am not saying that all batches need to be tested but random tests of at least 25% of your stock should be made.
-The posting of C of A's from US based independent labs on their website so that batch numbers can be matched to analysis.
-Proper testing of compounds that lack analytical standards. This will be the hardest and last thing to probably come to light but is of importance to mention.

I am not saying that IBE currently does all of these things, but I promise you I am working towards it. I am trying to get all of our C of A's on our website possibly within the week or the month, depending on how well the webmasters work with me. I want to try and see others to follow in IBE's footsteps (some have already done so and I give them credit). I also would like to see you as the consumer push for these things. Remember it is YOUR health not theirs that can be affected and the direct effect could be very detrimental, especially later in life since heavy metals could be a concern.

Let me know how everyone feels about this. Thoughts, concerns, and suggestions. Together we can make the supplement industry safer and make the health of everyone better.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the cost involved to the manufacturer to implement a program like this? Who do you suppose is going to absorb the cost? Certainly the "consumer health conscious company" still needs it's profit margin.
 
B5150 said:
Have you considered the cost involved to the manufacturer to implement a program like this? Who do you suppose is going to absorb the cost? Certainly the "consumer health conscious company" still needs it's profit margin.
Click to expand...

It would be the supplement makers decision on how to remain competitive. Not conforming would likely be much worse on their bottom line... Of course some of the cost would fall on the consumers, but these companies aren't exactly pinching pennies. Market will dictate pricing with all additional costs factored in.
 
B5150 said:
Have you considered the cost involved to the manufacturer to implement a program like this? Who do you suppose is going to absorb the cost? Certainly the "consumer health conscious company" still needs it's profit margin.
Click to expand...

If IBE can afford it anyone can. Will it decrease profits? Yes. Will it be significant? No. Unfortunately profits shouldn't matter when it comes to public safety. I am not some hardcore liberal who says we need to live in a plastic bubble, these are extremely basic and cheap principles that should have been put in place regardless.
 
I would pay $5 extra for a bottle of epistane/anything if it meant that I was getting it in its purest/safest. I think everyone can agree. It would all be about letting everyone know that a company/group of companies are taking an extra step in making sure there stuff is safe, and soon they would almost have a supplement-opoly.
 
TimberLakers said:
It would be the supplement makers decision on how to remain competitive. Not conforming would likely be much worse on their bottom line... Of course some of the cost would fall on the consumers, but these companies aren't exactly pinching pennies. Market will dictate pricing with all additional costs factored in.
Click to expand...
Not conforming to what? A self regulated gray market regulatory board?
LakeMountD said:
If IBE can afford it anyone can. Will it decrease profits? Yes. Will it be significant? No. Unfortunately profits shouldn't matter when it comes to public safety. I am not some hardcore liberal who says we need to live in a plastic bubble, these are extremely basic and cheap principles that should have been put in place regardless.
Click to expand...
I have been a proponent of these basic principle for years. Most are ignorant and the rest don't care.

We consume PCB's and heavy metals on the threshold (or above) of Federal and State Regulatory levels in our drinking water and many other consumables every day.

If it is part of the process it will cost. If there is a cost the manufacture will incur it. If the manufacturer incurs it the consumer will pay for it.

It does seem a bit ironic to standardize the purity of synthesized anabolic molecules for the absence of heavy metals or toxins when the pure molecule itself may be of greater long term harm that the heavy metals or heavy metals themselves.

Please don't mistake my comments for cynicism.
 
what companies are reputable. You are with ibe so of course you are saying that ibe trys to have safe products. i dont understand the whole point of your article. it tottaly makes sense, but what is your ulterior motive.
 
B5150 said:
Not conforming to what? A self regulated gray market regulatory board?
Click to expand...

I don't think you sound cynical at all... The self regulated board will only have as much weight as the marketplace gives it, but there are precidents for non-gov't affiliated bodies imposing quality standards on services or products.
 
TimberLakers said:
I don't think you sound cynical at all... The self regulated board will only have as much weight as the marketplace gives it, but there are precidents for non-gov't affiliated bodies imposing quality standards on services or products.
Click to expand...

I'd trust that board over the FDA....
 
RobInKuwait said:
I'd trust that board over the FDA....
Click to expand...

The FDA does have some merit... And there are other periods in American history where they were much more useful and necessary - but now they are far too influenced by political agendas, lobbyists, and government funding...

My biggest beef with them is the freaking 'food pyramid' that I grew up with... 12 servings of bread for an 8 year old kid... perfect.
 
Government sucks

Thats why every government run operation sucks. That why you should become a libertarian. The ultimate liberal. They believe in in a very weak government. People can do whatver they want. End the stupid war on drugs. All drugs will be not legal but decrimized. People who choose do steriods can do so legally. Since the steriod ban, steriod usage has only increased. the government needs to inform people about steriods, the potential danger with them and so on.Them being illegal just makes them more dangerous than they already are.
 
B5150 said:
Not conforming to what? A self regulated gray market regulatory board?I have been a proponent of these basic principle for years. Most are ignorant and the rest don't care.

We consume PCB's and heavy metals on the threshold (or above) of Federal and State Regulatory levels in our drinking water and many other consumables every day.

If it is part of the process it will cost. If there is a cost the manufacture will incur it. If the manufacturer incurs it the consumer will pay for it.

It does seem a bit ironic to standardize the purity of synthesized anabolic molecules for the absence of heavy metals or toxins when the pure molecule itself may be of greater long term harm that the heavy metals or heavy metals themselves.

Please don't mistake my comments for cynicism.
Click to expand...

Actually my most recent research project was using LC/UV and MS to determine pharmacuetical concentrations in water. I tested for the biggest things such as atorvastatin, ethinyl estradiol, and antibiotics mainly because they are taken in large quantities. Turns out that the water is much more safe than you think of pharmaceuticals. They are only turning up in the news because analytical instruments are getting lower and lower LOD's (limits of detection). There used to be a law by the FDA that said if something contained ANY known carcinogen it could not be sold. They have revoked that law due to analytical instruments that can detect 1 part per trillion. To put that in perspective that is 1 inch in about 15,000 miles. You can detect damn near anything in anything these days. Did we detect pharmaceuticals? Yes we did, however, they were well below regulation and in part per billion concentrations.

PBP's and other substances are of a different problem all together. No company purposely puts these compounds in their products, it is simply a byproduct of how it is used. Put certain plastics in the freezer or microwave and you can have a problem. Use nonstick pans all your life and you "could" have a problem, however, you are not getting something with label claim A and instead getting A, B, C, D, E, and F. You can play the devil's advocate all day, but it always comes down to the bottom line, our industry is not safe, period. If I only convert three companies, that is fine by me, I did everyone a favor. But I will keep at this until I get people to comply, I will continue to post the facts and only the facts. You can argue with the New England Journal of Medicine very often.

I have nothing to gain from this, it actually costs more for IBE as said before. We just spent $1000 yesterday on heavy metal testing of our newer batches.
 
ari4216 said:
Thats why every government run operation sucks. That why you should become a libertarian. The ultimate liberal. They believe in in a very weak government. People can do whatver they want. End the stupid war on drugs. All drugs will be not legal but decrimized. People who choose do steriods can do so legally. Since the steriod ban, steriod usage has only increased. the government needs to inform people about steriods, the potential danger with them and so on.Them being illegal just makes them more dangerous than they already are.
Click to expand...

Libertarians would not advocate the government "educating" consumers.
 
LakeMountD said:
You can play the devil's advocate all day, but it always comes down to the bottom line, our industry is not safe, period. If I only convert three companies, that is fine by me, I did everyone a favor. But I will keep at this until I get people to comply, I will continue to post the facts and only the facts. You can argue with the New England Journal of Medicine very often.
Click to expand...
I'm not playing devil's advocate. Nor am I your adversary. I'm a realist is all.
I have nothing to gain from this, it actually costs more for IBE as said before. We just spent $1000 yesterday on heavy metal testing of our newer batches.
Click to expand...
Whoever said integrity was priceless likely never had any. Integrity has a high price.

Lead. Others may or may not follow. In the end you (or whomever you work with or for) will have the fruits of integrity as well.
 
I have nothing to gain from this, it actually costs more for IBE as said before. We just spent $1000 yesterday on heavy metal testing of our newer batches.
Click to expand...
Of course there is possible gain from this. Even if it costs more in the short term, increased sales due to product advertisement, would be higher

I'm all for safer products but this could easily turn into a big us vs. them issue down the road. Not to mention that right now there's only a handful of people that could determine whether or not these companies are putting in their products what their label claims. This wouldn't change just because of an alliance of test companies. This would only say 'we promise that ours is more accurate because we test better'. The same handful of people could only check against those facts.

Yes, I am playing devil's advocate.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Of course there is possible gain from this. Even if it costs more in the short term, increased sales due to product advertisement, would be higher

I'm all for safer products but this could easily turn into a big us vs. them issue down the road. Not to mention that right now there's only a handful of people that could determine whether or not these companies are putting in their products what their label claims. This wouldn't change just because of an alliance of test companies. This would only say 'we promise that ours is more accurate because we test better'. The same handful of people could only check against those facts.

Yes, I am playing devil's advocate.
Click to expand...

We could go back and forth with "what ifs" and "this could happens" all day. If in the end there is an association of companies who follow the guidelines and a large group outside of that association then yes I am sure all of the companies involved would advertise that. Why not advertise safety? I am a medical professional now and I am also a novice analytical chemist and I am sick and tired of finding inconsistencies in products, yes I have tested many, yes basically all of them did not meet label claims to some extent.

Not sure where you are coming off talking about sales from advertising? We would have less advertising money with increases in costs from testing.

Anyways I want to try and keep this thread positive. If you don't feel this is important simply continue on with your daily activities and don't worry about what supplements you buy. Frankly I could care less what anyone takes once they are informed, it is the uninformed that I feel bad for.
 
B5150 said:
Whoever said integrity was priceless likely never had any. Integrity has a high price.

Lead. Others may or may not follow. In the end you (or whomever you work with or for) will have the fruits of integrity as well.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a cost but therein lies the benefit, anything that is worth it in the end has a cost, it's our sacrifice that makes it valuable to us.
 
B5150 said:
It does seem a bit ironic to standardize the purity of synthesized anabolic molecules for the absence of heavy metals or toxins when the pure molecule itself may be of greater long term harm that the heavy metals or heavy metals themselves.
Click to expand...

I would not like to see anyone believe that heavy metals toxicity is anything to discount easily. It is actually a HUGE threat to long-term health.

This self-regulation MUST happen if this industry will be saved from the claws of government. There are many self-regulated industries in the world, and the supplement industry can do it well. You will just need a few member companies, paying dues, and then someone managing relationships with analytical laboratories employed by the association itself. Very easy.

Member companies can send samples of raws to their Self-Regulatory Organisation and the SRO will get it tested. Also, the SRO will purchase supps at retail and conduct testing and report.

The companies can put a nice logo on their labels and co-op that into joint advertizing if they want to. I think consumers are quality-conscious enough that this will easily pay for itself. Some aren't, but some ARE, and differentiating yourself as a quality-conscious company can be the edge you need.

I can tell you that here in Canada, supplements must first be approved by Health Canada. That is so extremely expensive, and restrictive at the same time, you would not believe it. Do not think that if the FDA decides to regulate this industry in the USA it will do so free of charge. I predict many companies will be out of business in a hurry.
 
LakeMountD said:
Scaremongering? What does IBE have to gain from this? In fact it costs us more. Depending on the company you use it costs between $25-$100 per metal per supplement to get heavy metal tests done. Assuming you want to test for the big three arsenic, lead, and mercury you are talking about $150 per batch per supplement. That only includes those three metals, that does not include the other chromatographic tests that must be done to ensure you are getting the claimed number of compounds.

You speak intelligently, yet I am very confused by the tone of your message because you sound a lot like a conspiracy theorist. You say they would show tell tale signs if they were indeed tainted. First off heavy metals rarely show tell tale signs early on in life. Heavy metals tend to get lodged in various areas of the brain and are not excreted in the normal fashion. Bioaccumulation is the reason why you do not see the effects of heavy metals early, it takes time and can slowly debilitate you. In fact heavy metals may not effect you until your 60's if in low enough quantities, however, dementia and Alzheimer's are typical occurrences at that time. As I stated earlier Arsenic is very hard to detect and it is very hard to pinpoint when someone has been poisoned by it as it mimics other natural biological effects such as myocardial infarction (if in high amounts). Another problem is say that a PH is tainted with methyl testosterone. Would you know the difference in the effects of taking methyl test or pheraplex say? Doubt it.

To put this in perspective the above paper said that one supplement was found to have 114,000 ppm of arsenic. That is 114,000 mg/kg, or 114g per kilogram. Not sure if you recognize how bad that truly is. I don't make this stuff up, that article is not from some CNN reporter, it is from the New England Journal of Medicine, the most respected medical journal for the last 100 years. Bottom line is if WE don't take action than someone else will, it happens throughout history. This is not the same as someone boycotting a product, this is about getting information out to people so that they can take a stand and say you know what I care more about my health than I do taking your supplement, until you can prove that it is not contaminated.

This is the only industry I know of where people care more about getting big (about their self interest) than they do their health. If these things were found in pet food there would be a national uproar, but for some reason people are very reluctant to do something about it here. You don't have to stand beside us, you can sit idly by, that is fine. But the important thing to remember is that you are playing the statistical game, yeah maybe only 5% of products have problems, but until tests are done you are merely reaching blindly into a bag of colored marbles and you never know if what you have is in that 5%.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree with your intents but rather your proposed implementation. And yes, I'm not wholly convinced that there is widespread contaminants in our supplements or that the testing at manufacturer's facilities is inadequate. Since IBE recently tested their supps was this done in house? If so wouldn't that present the same conflict of interests?

We could argue, rather pointlessly, on how long it would take for signs of poisoning to manifest but this would obviously depend on several factors, most of which we could only speculate upon.

As you stated, the average and thus vast majority consumer cares more about the results derived from the product than they are concerned with the contaminants therein. Thus, I don't see how you would convince these LLC supplement companies to partake in this program. The money would be better spent on advertising/marketing than on testing as consumers have shown it to be a relatively unimportant factor when considering a supplement purchase. You would be better off aligning with consumer advocacy groups to pressure companies into adopting stringent testing. But again it all boils down to voluntary compliance which I believe is the inherent problem. Perhaps a better alternative is forced compliance and thus appealing to the FDA. If one could show widespread contamination it shouldn't be too difficult to stir up a media induced paranoia and force the FDA to intercede. While government regulation is regularly the least efficient method it's usually the only or most effective one.

Even if your proposal would be adopted by a few companies I don't see it having much impact or being adopted by bigger corps like MT or BSN. They could merely tout their own "quality assurance programs" that may compromise of nothing more than in house testing if even that. Without a universal testing procedure, any company is free to tout their own system and it's superiority. Thus, once again it comes down to who can market their system most effectively and not whose system is actually superior. This has been played out in numerous industries and the only way around it is government regulation mandating a specified procedure.



LakeMountD said:
Not sure where you are coming off talking about sales from advertising? We would have less advertising money with increases in costs from testing.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you aren't so naive. Many advertising methods require little capital and any money spent on "testing" can be offset through marketing this "quality assurance".
 
ersatz said:
I don't necessarily disagree with your intents but rather your proposed implementation. And yes, I'm not wholly convinced that there is widespread contaminants in our supplements or that the testing at manufacturer's facilities is inadequate. Since IBE recently tested their supps was this done in house? If so wouldn't that present the same conflict of interests?

We could argue, rather pointlessly, on how long it would take for signs of poisoning to manifest but this would obviously depend on several factors, most of which we could only speculate upon.

As you stated, the average and thus vast majority consumer cares more about the results derived from the product than they are concerned with the contaminants therein. Thus, I don't see how you would convince these LLC supplement companies to partake in this program. The money would be better spent on advertising/marketing than on testing as consumers have shown it to be a relatively unimportant factor when considering a supplement purchase. You would be better off aligning with consumer advocacy groups to pressure companies into adopting stringent testing. But again it all boils down to voluntary compliance which I believe is the inherent problem. Perhaps a better alternative is forced compliance and thus appealing to the FDA. If one could show widespread contamination it shouldn't be too difficult to stir up a media induced paranoia and force the FDA to intercede. While government regulation is regularly the least efficient method it's usually the only or most effective one.

Even if your proposal would be adopted by a few companies I don't see it having much impact or being adopted by bigger corps like MT or BSN. They could merely tout their own "quality assurance programs" that may compromise of nothing more than in house testing if even that. Without a universal testing procedure, any company is free to tout their own system and it's superiority. Thus, once again it comes down to who can market their system most effectively and not whose system is actually superior. This has been played out in numerous industries and the only way around it is government regulation mandating a specified procedure.





Clearly, you aren't so naive. Many advertising methods require little capital and any money spent on "testing" can be offset through marketing this "quality assurance".
Click to expand...

It seems that the naivety resides more in you than myself. I am actually quite stunned at your statement that says " And yes, I'm not wholly convinced that there is widespread contaminants in our supplements or that the testing at manufacturer's facilities is inadequate." I am not sure if you assume that I made up the study on the first page but ONCE AGAIN that is from the New England Journal of Medicine. Is that the only one? Unfortunately it is by far not the only study, that is just one that I felt was very shocking. How can you not be convinced even after last years methyl-epitiostanol problems?! 4 companies had 4 different chromatograms, or in other words had 4 different results. There has been testing done on three compounds from other companies that have found to be completely different than is on the label and contain contaminants. No I will not release those because they have been contacted privately in order to get to the bottom of the story and not cause a company to go under when there could be reasons for what happened.

With that being said are you really kidding me with the statement about making money? You think I wrote this to make money?! I have stated in the previous statements that once this association gets formed I think it would be great to put it on the label that you are compliant and if your sales go up, you know what? You deserve it. I have also said IBE has not done the things I want done in the past either, but we are moving towards it and we have always tested with a third party lab. If BSN and MT don't want to join then they don't have to. Frankly I don't care. Apparently you haven't read this entire thread because I specifically stated that voluntary compliance is only the first step. You don't have to come in guns blazing, but you do have to raise awareness, especially to a public who typically doesn't care. This is my third time stating this but if you feel as though the supplements you take are safe by all means disregard this thread :). In the meantime I will do all of you a favor and continue to try and make the industry safer, whether you think there is an ulterior motive or not. In other words, yes it will even benefit you cynical and ungrateful bastards ;).
 
Its bad enough to be ignorant to the situation, but to fain or choose ignorance when presented with the facts seems foolish.

This is an obvious problem that is much more rampat then you know (not much less then you say we are making it out to be) and I for one would LOVE to have an industry regulated set of standards.

Again I can understand if one was ignorant to the situation, I can even understand one saying "oh well Ill just take what ever I want from whoever I please regardless" but to actively go against the idea of a self regulated industry and the myriad of benifits we'd reap from having such an organization seems to me to just be foolish.
 
Its a big undertaking but a very noble one. It should be common place that the health of the customer comes first, but its often last. As a consumer we drive demand and unfortunetley we are the only ones responsible. A great company can educate the people and offer healthy options but "following" has gotten us in this predicament. Ideally we have the sense to question everything and not make our health impacting purchases and decisions soley based upon marketing flyers. It would be a great resource to offer services of independant testing for fee. I would pay to know that my supplements are what they say they are. Mass by any means is the ongoing mantra, we need to be educted to know that we can seriously hurt ourselves with impulse supplementing.
 
ersatz said:
Perhaps a better alternative is forced compliance and thus appealing to the FDA. If one could show widespread contamination it shouldn't be too difficult to stir up a media induced paranoia and force the FDA to intercede. While government regulation is regularly the least efficient method it's usually the only or most effective one.
Click to expand...

Appealing to the FDA to regulate supplements? I hope you're kidding. I guess you missed the whole Vioxx thing, and how they delayed overseas competitor's antidepressant products for over 10 years until an American company completed their product. Do you realize it regularly takes 7-10 years or longer to get medicine approved. Do you think it would be any different for supplement approval? How many supplement companies could afford to wait that long for approval. Then after approval, the companies are still liable if the formula hurts people.

The government regulating supplements is the least effective and least desirable solution.
 
Irrespective of intentions, you are propagating yourself rather poorly LMD; condescending and abasing each individual whom disagrees with your idyllic proposal will not expedite the process - but rather, create some unwanted contempt.

No need for an elongated reply or pretentious emoticons either; I am merely giving you some suggestions to increase your reader - and therein fundamental response - base!
 
RobInKuwait said:
Appealing to the FDA to regulate supplements? I hope you're kidding. I guess you missed the whole Vioxx thing, and how they delayed overseas competitor's antidepressant products for over 10 years until an American company completed their product. Do you realize it regularly takes 7-10 years or longer to get medicine approved. Do you think it would be any different for supplement approval? How many supplement companies could afford to wait that long for approval. Then after approval, the companies are still liable if the formula hurts people.

The government regulating supplements is the least effective and least desirable solution.
Click to expand...

You're right on there rob! :thumbsup:
 
LakeMountD said:
Yeah I will pick the right time to go to bb.com with it but not right now. In the meantime my goal is to make make this thread have more views than some of these other supplement threads. If a steroid thread has 250,000 views and this has 250 then I have failed.
Click to expand...
Force of Green's recomp thread will outdue this thread hit count. 'Nuff said. hahaha!
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Irrespective of intentions, you are propagating yourself rather poorly LMD; condescending and abasing each individual whom disagrees with your idyllic proposal will not expedite the process - but rather, create some unwanted contempt.

No need for an elongated reply or pretentious emoticons either; I am merely giving you some suggestions to increase your reader - and therein fundamental response - base!
Click to expand...

Honestly that is fine. As I have stated before it is up to each individual reader of the information to process it as he/she wishes. If they don't care then no problem, no one is forcing anyone. I am merely silencing the cynics. It is no different than the cynics questioning me. It wouldn't be a discussion if I let their posts go unanswered. I will defend my statements with passion as I am very passionate about the situation. I have sort of gotten to a point where I could no longer sit by and I was sort of pushed over the edge.
 
I agree...let's keep everything positive in here...there's no reason to have it otherwise. There are a large percentage of people for this idea...if you are not then just let it go...
 
Mulletsoldier said:
Irrespective of intentions, you are propagating yourself rather poorly LMD; condescending and abasing each individual whom disagrees with your idyllic proposal will not expedite the process - but rather, create some unwanted contempt.

No need for an elongated reply or pretentious emoticons either; I am merely giving you some suggestions to increase your reader - and therein fundamental response - base!
Click to expand...

Easy Mullet. I don't think LMD is being out of line at all in his responses. It's obviously something he feels passionate about - and for good reason.

He's not hurting anyone - rather acting in the best interest of the potential end user.
 
Those of us who have been around the industry long enough would understand why there are people who may be cynical or questions the ulterior motive behind the 'caring for the consumer' veil(or possible veil). I have bought and enjoyed several IBE products over the years and have had great experiences with them and will continue to purchase their products BUT a company is a company and I think healthy criticism keeps everyone honest and on their toes. You can't ask for consumers to be active and make something happen and then tell them if they question the intent, to go sit in a corner. An active and informed consumer is one that questions everything.

I have been here long enough to have seen how things seem good, turn into something ugly down the road. Sometimes for the consumer and sometimes for competitive businesses.

My personal 2 cents... When you're done with it feel free to give me change :)
 
Jayhawkk said:
Those of us who have been around the industry long enough would understand why there are people who may be cynical or questions the ulterior motive behind the 'caring for the consumer' veil(or possible veil). I have bought and enjoyed several IBE products over the years and have had great experiences with them and will continue to purchase their products BUT a company is a company and I think healthy criticism keeps everyone honest and on their toes. You can't ask for consumers to be active and make something happen and then tell them if they question the intent, to go sit in a corner. An active and informed consumer is one that questions everything.

I have been here long enough to have seen how things seem good, turn into something ugly down the road. Sometimes for the consumer and sometimes for competitive businesses.

My personal 2 cents... When you're done with it feel free to give me change :)
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you. I have no problems with questions, but if someone is going to get cynical and play the devil's advocate with me I will defend for sure and you guys know that.

I am not a company owner and as much as people (especially over at bb.com eventually ) will spin this is I am out to get money. I can only state my thoughts, people will believe what they want. In the long run though I feel people will thank me. If not that is fine too though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top