Jump to content
Science Forums

Europe bans nutritional supplements


Recommended Posts

...Some "natural" remedies have just as powerful an effect on the body as prescription drugs. If we regulate one, we should regulate the other...
Some of the most dangerous substances on the planet are naturally occurring chemicals. Botulinum exotoxin, aflatoxin, etc. are the most lethal substances known. Well, plutonium would probably be on that list too, but I was thinking of organic stuff.

 

Further, a lot of the "naturopathic" remedies are both dangerous and ineffective. Widely used products like echinacea and St John's wort are plant extracts, that may have material toxicities in many folks at inappropriate doses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's called control, thats why the drug companies tryed to get vitamin C registered as a drug....
I don't think the large pharmas (Novartis, Pfizer, etc) give a didly squat about vitamins. They don't really care about the generic market either, even if under prescription. They care about extending patents (or protecting patents) on the drugs that have not yet gone generic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EU will set the maximums and minimums as they see fit, whether its max-safe or RDA (RDI), and it remains to be seen how faithful they will remain to the industry and practice of nutrition. I will remain skeptical, because it's money that drives the economy, not ethics. If ever the peoples' interests conflict with corporate profits, guess who the governments will side with...

 

READ THE LAW!! The EU will set the maximums based on maximum recommended dosages as decided by testing on the health supplement. This does not effect vitamins at all. What it effects are ephedra, creatine, etc, which any health concious individual will tell you are horrible things to put in your body. If its true that the government always sides with corporations, then nobody would bother to regulate prescription drugs, etc. Health supplements go largely unregulated right now, and very, very harmful chemicals can be sold as "weight loss" products and the like.

 

And regarding vitamin C, there isn't a max-safe amount because unused amounts are flushed out with urine.

 

This is true and not true. Forcing your kidneys to work overtime for an extended period of time can cause kidney stones. Either way, the EU's law doesn't effect ANY vitamin C supplement on the market. It does effect some of the fat soluble vitamins (A,D) which can make you very sick.

 

The issue in my mind is more a global nutritional deficit by means of processed foods and fast foods. People are content to eat whatever tastes good with no regard to what their bodies require to live and grow (much less ward off diseases and prevent disorders).

 

Yes, that is true. But its not like that nutrition information is hidden. We have known that red meat, excessive sugar, etc are bad for your health for years. Its not secret information. Unfortuantely, at least in America, we have an obesity epidemic that has to do with people who have no desire to eat healthy, and excercise. Its not the food companies' fault, its not the drug companies' fault, it's the people's fault. You act as if the drug companies have this huge conspiracy to make people unhealthy.

 

Personally, I believe in personal freedom. If you had your way, it seems to me as if fast food would be banned, and excercies mandatory. People have a right to make bad decisions.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the large pharmas (Novartis, Pfizer, etc) give a didly squat about vitamins. They don't really care about the generic market either, even if under prescription. They care about extending patents (or protecting patents) on the drugs that have not yet gone generic.

 

You may be 100% correct on this issue Bio, I am just concerned about relinquishing too much power to any organization, government or otherwise that effects my decision making ability about what I'm allowed to put into my own body. Because of my age, I use a couple natural supplements that have resulted in benefical effects to my health. What I'm afraid of is, if the drug companies cause these items to be registered as drugs, the cost will double or triple. Living on a fixed income, I reserve the right to resist this looming trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally am against making laws to regulate this stuff... put warning labels on it, if it might be unsafe, but just as I believe a life belongs to it's liver, it's just another way for natural selection to work. If someone is stupid enough to ignore the warning and drink a bottle of bleach, or OD on something that should be safe in small doses, even if the dosage is there in front of them, then let them die. I feel this is nature's way of helping out the rest of us - evolution in action.

 

I don't think the government should be allowed to tell the rest of us who are smart enough to know better what to put in our bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this link, and it looks like a lot of hot air and blather. I could not find a link to the actual legislation,

That it is. Is there something inherently wrong with caring about something, or were you expecting a lengthy dissertation? http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/c5-0640-01_en.pdf

 

...but the text says that the EU is limiting the DOSAGE of vitamin C. That would be a good thing because vitamin C is among the most highly overused vitamins, and it causes a number of problems (notably kidney stones) at high doses (it usually takes more than 2 grams per day.)

 

This seems like a lot of empty propaganda picking on pharma companies for nothing.

Who's the one on the short end of said legislation? Perspective, man.

 

Most vitamins are toxic. Certainly the fat soluble ones (A,D,E,K) need to be tightly regulated for public protection, because death is a distinct side effect. But any vitamin can be dangerous at high doses.

Sources? Examples of overdose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

READ THE LAW!!

Don't shout at me, Will. I did read it.

 

The EU will set the maximums based on maximum recommended dosages as decided by testing on the health supplement.

Article 5 pp 2.

"When the maximum levels referred to in paragraph 1 are set, due account should also be taken of reference intakes of vitamins and minerals for the population." You read the law, Will.

 

This does not effect vitamins at all.

Article 2.b

"(:) "nutrients" means the following substances:

(i) vitamins,

(ii) minerals."

 

If its true that the government always sides with corporations, then nobody would bother to regulate prescription drugs, etc.

*ahem* Vioxx?

 

Forcing your kidneys to work overtime for an extended period of time can cause kidney stones. Either way, the EU's law doesn't effect ANY vitamin C supplement on the market. It does effect some of the fat soluble vitamins (A,D) which can make you very sick.

Too much of ANYTHING is bad for us. Can we then legislate (and enforce) EVERYTHING?

 

Its not the food companies' fault, its not the drug companies' fault, it's the people's fault. You act as if the drug companies have this huge conspiracy to make people unhealthy.

The medical and pharmaceutical industries don't make money on healthy people — economics 101. Ask anyone in the pharmaceutical industry which drugs they recommend to people, the ones that work faster or the ones that require lengthy dosage marathons. And food companies only care about 1) the law, 2) price of manufacture, and 3) shelf life. Ethics don't pay the bills, period.

 

Personally, I believe in personal freedom. If you had your way, it seems to me as if fast food would be banned, and excercies mandatory.

What?? I'm dissenting restrictive legislation as we speak!? Which would make you bass-ackwards.

 

People have a right to make bad decisions.

-Will

And thanks for making my point for me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is stupid enough to ignore the warning and drink a bottle of bleach, or OD on something that should be safe in small doses, even if the dosage is there in front of them, then let them die.

The problem is that manufacturers of supplements cannot educate us with medical recommendations (pay attention everyone) BY LAW. We have to hear about the benefits and pitfalls from third parties such as Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams from http://www.newstarget.com in order to get educated about these things. Thanks Congress!

 

It is rare that some non-profit organizations or individuals will invest time and money educating people for no other reason than the ethics of caring for the health of others. And now we have other road blocks being thrown at us.

 

And frankly, I don't understand peoples' fervent defense of such a progress-impeding piece of legislation. It's a band-aid on a self-inflicted skeletal fracture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's the one on the short end of said legislation? Perspective, man.
Sorry, ST. I don't get your point here.
Sources? Examples of overdose?
Any medical text has them. The fat soluble vitamins collect in fatty tissues (brain and fat) and have various toxicities. From my (hopelessly outdated) copy of Beeson and McDermott Textbook of medicine (from the '70s), Hypervitaminosis A results in a panopoly of symptions that range from vomiting to splenomegaly. You can get hydrocephalus in children. Hypervitaminosis D results in ectopic calcium deposition is lots of ugly places like joints and kidneys. High does of vitamin C can give some pretty painful kidney stones (Vitamin C forms long sharp crystals). I don't know what high doese of B vitamins do, although high doses of niacin cause peripheral skin flushing. That is not usually a problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 5 pp 2.

"When the maximum levels referred to in paragraph 1 are set, due account should also be taken of reference intakes of vitamins and minerals for the population." You read the law, Will.

 

Now back and read paragraph 1, to see how the maximum levels are set. Your not responding to the point.

 

Article 2.b

"(:) "nutrients" means the following substances:

(i) vitamins,

(ii) minerals."

 

Yes, but no currently sold dose of vitamin is over the maximum level, as set on their "positive" list. So therefore, no vitamin is effected by the passing of this law. None will be pulled from shelves. What might be pulled are creatine, and ephedra products, but the "dangerous" dosage of these has been set pretty high as well.

 

*ahem* Vioxx?

 

Is Vioxx still available? Did it get pulled? There you go. Regulation.

 

The medical and pharmaceutical industries don't make money on healthy people — economics 101. Ask anyone in the pharmaceutical industry which drugs they recommend to people, the ones that work faster or the ones that require lengthy dosage marathons.

 

Actually, it depends on which has passed into generic yet. Also, America has no shortage of unhealthy people, thanks to people's bad decisions. Drug companies aren't shoving big macs down people's throats, they are just keeping them alive a bit longer. And you keep saying drug companies are responsible for this law, but what about the companies that produce addictive poisons, slap the "dietary supplement" label on them and then sell them?

 

What?? I'm dissenting restrictive legislation as we speak!? Which would make you bass-ackwards.

 

You were railing against drug companies for, apparently, causing bad health in America. You seem to agree drug companies should be regulated, but apparently, slap the label "health supplement" on it, and it shouldn't be? I was trying to clarify your point.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that manufacturers of supplements cannot educate us with medical recommendations (pay attention everyone) BY LAW.

 

I was under the impression that supplement manufacturers can't make unsubstantiated claims. i.e., they can't say "my product cures diabetes and cancer." But they can say, "a recent study published in JAMA demonstrates that this product significantly reduces the risk of..." If I am wrong, point me towards the law that forbids this.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to Biochemist's post: Vitamins A, D, E, and K are at the highest risk since they're fat-soluble. Vitamin C, as Biochemist noted, is at a high risk of abuse because people seem to think it's candy--sadly, Linus Pauling (of Nobel Prize fame) may be responsible for this. In 70's, he wrote a book called "Vitamin C and the Common Cold" in which he advocated the consumption of 2.3 grams/day, 40 times the US recommended daily requirement. Vitamin E overdose has druglike activity and affects the body's hormonal system. Vitamin K overdoses appear to be unknown.

 

Another interesting effect of vitamin C overdose: Pregnant women who take vitamin C supplements put their infants at risk for scurvy, since the diet outside of the womb is not as high in vitamin C as they were used to.

 

Source: Harold McGee, "On Food and Cooking." 1st ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that manufacturers of supplements cannot educate us with medical recommendations (pay attention everyone) BY LAW. We have to hear about the benefits and pitfalls from third parties such as Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams from http://www.newstarget.com in order to get educated about these things. Thanks Congress!

 

It is rare that some non-profit organizations or individuals will invest time and money educating people for no other reason than the ethics of caring for the health of others. And now we have other road blocks being thrown at us.

 

And frankly, I don't understand peoples' fervent defense of such a progress-impeding piece of legislation. It's a band-aid on a self-inflicted skeletal fracture.

 

That's a shame, because I seem to know what not to put into my body, regardless of what laws get passed. I don't think I need to be told not to chow down on percoset or eat too much calcium at once. I don't think that eating 40 times the RDA of vitamin C is a good idea at all. I've never taken any nutrition class. I just pay attention to what I put in my body. I don't think I do anything a normal person should not be doing - we only get one body... at least, those of us owning less than $13 billion.... But, yea, let's let the government pass another law, because since we're paying them so much, they might as well have something to do, right? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, ST. I don't get your point here.

You mentioned propaganda and drug company bashing. I was just pointing out that the fact that the drug companies aren't under fire. It's the nutritional supplement industry that's getting a beating. Although, it's possibly because of the financial influence the drug companies have in the FDA, FTC, etc. that all this is going down.

 

About excess nutrients, I agree that overdoing it can be bad. And I agree that there are malicious manufacturers. There are some of those in every industry. I'm not saying that supplements shouldn't be monitored. Toxic chemicals should be banned, of course, but limits should not be set on nutrients. That kind of control is overkill, and educating the public should be preferred in a democratic society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now back and read paragraph 1, to see how the maximum levels are set. Your not responding to the point.

The maximum levels derived from "generally accepted scientific data" in paragraph 1 will not translate directly into the legal limits set by individual Member States. These maximums will be considered, along with the RDI, when determining the limits.

 

Yes, but no currently sold dose of vitamin is over the maximum level, as set on their "positive" list. So therefore, no vitamin is effected by the passing of this law. None will be pulled from shelves. What might be pulled are creatine, and ephedra products, but the "dangerous" dosage of these has been set pretty high as well.

Sources for doses? As far as I can tell, the vitamins in question are listed in the law as allowed with as-of-yet unset limits, and no mention of creatine or ephedra (yet), which is why this whole thing just doesn't sit well with me.

 

Is Vioxx still available? Did it get pulled? There you go. Regulation.

Vioxx was not pulled by the FDA. The FDA failed to reject it in the first place, and then refused to pull it when the evidence mounted. Merck pulled the drug after they determined the evidence was overwhelming. Then they spent millions advertising their voluntary withdrawal in a campaign for PR recovery. The FCC, in particular the Office of New Drugs, was exposed of making their scientists change their findings.

 

Sources: MSNBC, Rep. Waxman, NY Times

 

Actually, it depends on which has passed into generic yet. Also, America has no shortage of unhealthy people, thanks to people's bad decisions. Drug companies aren't shoving big macs down people's throats, they are just keeping them alive a bit longer. And you keep saying drug companies are responsible for this law, but what about the companies that produce addictive poisons, slap the "dietary supplement" label on them and then sell them?

Examples of addictive poisons please? You'd think they could pull poisons off the shelf without added regulation. Why give the government complete control over the amounts of nutrients an educated supplementalist can aquire? That's just a scary.

 

And most people aren't informed enough to avoid making "bad decisions." And if they are, it's not because of the medical or food industries, or the government.

 

You were railing against drug companies for, apparently, causing bad health in America. You seem to agree drug companies should be regulated, but apparently, slap the label "health supplement" on it, and it shouldn't be?

I'm railing on drug companies for capitalizing on malnutritioned people. We trust them to know what's best for our bodies. The fact is that pharmaceutical companies cannot patent broccoli, carrots, nuts or anything else that our bodies run on. Therefore, they can't get paid for pushing nutrition. And frankly, they can't get paid when people are healthy. We go to doctors believing that they will explain what is wrong. Instead, the unknowing public is just sold more chemicals to cover up the symptoms rather than fixing the problems. Sadly, professionals who are supposedly well-versed in human health have nearly no knowledge of nutrition, and they are paid quite well to push unnecessary pharmaceuticals.

 

Food companies make what sells. Unfortunately, natural foods have very poor shelf lives, and often don't taste very good. Therefore healthier foods are more expensive because they don't last as long and fewer people know to buy them. Try pricing some organic fruit or low-fat meat. If the medical industry educated their patients about nutrition, more people would decide to eat better, and prices would drop, further increasing sales of "comparison" shoppers. But the medical and food industries only care about profit. So nutrition gets ignored, and by consequence so do the needs of people. If the food and drug industries were properly regulated by the FDA, there would be no market for supplements.

 

A law regulating supplements will prove to be just as corruptible as the ones regulating food and drugs. And given the Vioxx fiasco and the recently exposed inner workings of the FDA, it's obvious to me that money will continue to influence the approval of food and drugs, and soon it will also influence the limitation and/or rejection of necessary nutritional supplements. *faints*

 

I was under the impression that supplement manufacturers can't make unsubstantiated claims. i.e., they can't say "my product cures diabetes and cancer." But they can say, "a recent study published in JAMA demonstrates that this product significantly reduces the risk of..." If I am wrong, point me towards the law that forbids this.

-Will

They can't say anything that the FDA doesn't first approve of.

 

"Under DSHEA, supplement marketers are allowed to make two kinds of claims on labeling: 1) health claims specifically authorized by the FDA; and 2) statements of nutritional support. Health claims — representations about the relationship between a nutrient and a disease or health-related condition — are permitted only if they have been authorized by an FDA finding that there is "significant scientific agreement" to support the claim." — www.ftc.gov Endnote 2 (regarding the "significant scientific agreement" refer to the Vioxx fiasco)

 

It should be reiterated here that nutrition and health are directly related. So wheat germ or bran advertisements containing the statement "white flour is pure, refined carbohydrate and so stresses the pancreas" qualifies as "health advice" (and so would the mention of "diabetes" as a result of pancreas dysfunction.) The supplement (and health food) companies are then financially burdened with funding scientific research to validate claims, and usually can't afford it. The public then remains ignorant, perpetuating the problem, because nobody else is financially interested in nutritional research. This is unfortunate because the big money industries have plenty of "adjusted" research to show the FDA along with that big fat check.

 

And now Europe is worse off than the US:

 

"The labelling, presentation and advertising must not attribute to food supplements the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, or refer to such properties. [even if such properties exist]" — EU food supplement directive, Article 6, pp 2

 

Remember education is good. The government should validate information, not "blanket ban" information like this. Informed people can then be free to make their own choices and suffer their own consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We go to doctors believing that they will explain what is wrong. Instead, the unknowing public is just sold more chemicals to cover up the symptoms rather than fixing the problems. Sadly, professionals who are supposedly well-versed in human health have nearly no knowledge of nutrition, and they are paid quite well to push unnecessary pharmaceuticals.

 

I don't know where you go to see your doctor, but I worked in a hospital as a tech all through high school and for my first years of college. The doctors there were the first to tell patients they needed to change their diet, excercise, and quit smoking. Patients, however, are loathe to follow such advice. Doctors prescribe medication often as a last resort, however, lazy patients often have a "just give me the pills" attitude.

 

Also, to say that doctors have nearly no knowledge of nutrition is absurd. At the very minimum, doctors must be familiar with the conditions brought about by poor nutrition. It has been my overall experience that doctors usually are much more helpful in matters of nutrition then say the kid behind the counter at the health food store. You also see nutritional studies all the time in JAMA.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...