amend DSHEA

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/30/2004 8:50:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

writes:

There is no reason to allow label claims unless the

products have had actual clinical testing and can be shown to be safe

and effective in a wide range of people.

 

So what you are saying, in effect is that a mega drug company who happens

to sell herbs can put together a poorly designed study to prove their

supplement works in a clinic and then advertise that fact, while smaller decent

companies who are out to make quality products and don't have study money

wouldn't

be able to advertise.

I agree with your intent, but I have more faith in the intelligence

of people and their ability to choose decent supplements, even in the face of

large doses of corporate advertising.

I think it is a good idea for companies to pawn their product and state

what they think it is good for.

We virtually have that now. Names of sups that don't quite say it will

cure a disease but there is a strong inference. People do get the connection.

The only serious drawback I see to allowing companies to say the think

their product is good for, (whatever), is that eventually they will get carried

away and the FDA will have grounds to impose their restrictions.

There are two ways to look at this. One is that people should have no

guidance from companies so they need to read the labels, see what is in it and

make their own mind up as to what the product is good for. The second way to

look at it is the companies can tell the people what their intention is for the

product and let the customers research determine whether they agree.

In the end, if companies are suggesting the uses for their products, you

will have more people interested in the " Natural " way which breeds more people

educating themselves about the relationship betweeen nutrition and health.

A more educated public is always better.

 

IMHO,

 

Chris

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There is talk of amending DSHEA, the law that allows basically

unregulated sales of supplements with labeling and adversing that

promote self-medication permitted. I personally favor legal sales of

all supplements and natural products. Including ma huang. I oppose

all labeling and advertising that suggest to the unwary consumer what

these products should be used for. I think the items should be

available, but if someone wants to use them, they should have to seek

out the information or training or consultation necessary. The law

should not allow victimization of people by labeling many will only

assume has some validity despite the clear disclaimers on the labels.

Labeling should be restricted to product names that DO NOT suggest

usage plus ingredients, safe dosage and any warnings. This would

satisfy my libertarian impulse to maintain free access to all natural

substances as well as my social democratic impulse to protect the

unwary from corporations. There are plenty of knowledgeable herbalists

out there and lots of good information on how to use herbs for

self-care. There is no reason to allow label claims unless the

products have had actual clinical testing and can be shown to be safe

and effective in a wide range of people. for example, I feel that way

about saw palmetto for men over 40. But many other products are just a

bunch of questionable crap; or good stuff, but only when properly

prescribed. So leave it on the shelves, but don't let corporate

advertising be your herbalist. Most healthfood store clerks learn

everything they know from sales reps whose interest is to sell, not

heal.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX: