36 replies to this topic

[micro2000]

How do we know we aren't taking capsules of sand or flour now? Those are actually the least of my concerns. I really don't want to be taking heavy metals or organic toxins.

Yet the history of the supplement industry shows that such problems are not prevalent. And logically it doesn't make sense that companies would knowingly poison their customers.

How do you know this? Because people aren't dropping like flies?

Yes. There is inherent risk in every act we do. We put ourselves and our loved one's in risk everyday, calculated by our perception of harm and benefit. There is little evidence to show that the supplement industry increases our risk over say swimming, driving, going to the Dr., etc.

Fly-by-night supplement companies can quickly fold up and resurface with a new name. Of course they won't knowingly poison their customers, but some of them would be happy to cut corners and trust their dodgy Chinese suppliers' CoA. Some of them simply lack the technical expertise to do it right, even if their heart is in the right place.

Regardless, there is little evidence to show that we are being harmed, in the aggregate, by such companies.

The supplement industry is largely unregulated, so we're all on our own.

This is often claimed, but is incorrect. "Regulated" has a legal definition and a "common" definition. Supplement companies ARE regulated by the FDA, just not under the same requirements of pharmaceuticals. But medical devices don't have the same regulations as pharmaceuticals. And thank God, because we would have no supplement industry to discuss if supplements were required to be "approved" like drugs. The common definition of "regulated" is roughly equivalent to "FDA approved".

There is a huge chasm that lies between FDA-style efficacy/safety requirements that entail human trials, which is what the pharmaceutical industry faces, and the sort of regulation that some people would appreciate in the supplement world. Specifically, a lot of people would like to know that their supplements are what they claim to be, in the quantity claimed, and that they don't contain significant levels of toxins.

This is claimed, but demonstrated preference shows otherwise. Boards such as this exist because people accept the hypothetical risks and continue to use such supplements. Instead of paying to have testing performed to assure themselves of the safety and purity of the supplements, individuals accept the risks and take them anyway. If people truly wanted such assurance, they would either pay for it themselves or refuse to purchase such supplements.

That is trivial compared to what is required of Pharma.

Every such regulation increases the costs of the final product or acts as a barrier of entry to the market. The increased costs decrease the number of individuals who will choose to buy or be able to afford the final product.

In theory, there is some level of regulation of supplements, but in practice, it seems like all they care about is that the supplement vendors aren't making health claims.

Health claims are but one regulation. A major hinderance to the FDA is manpower. They don't have the numbers to inspect every business that fall under their control.

[sthira]

Every such regulation increases the costs of the final product or acts as a barrier of entry to the market. The increased costs decrease the number of individuals who will choose to buy or be able to afford the final product.

Not always do regulations increase costs or act as barriers to market, of course. Sometimes they even lower costs and act as incentives. Nor does it follow that increased costs for regulated products would mean fewer customers. Many people would pay more for regulated products similar to how we pay more for regulated organic products.

[micro2000]

Every such regulation increases the costs of the final product or acts as a barrier of entry to the market. The increased costs decrease the number of individuals who will choose to buy or be able to afford the final product.

Not always do regulations increase costs or act as barriers to market, of course. Sometimes they even lower costs and act as incentives. Nor does it follow that increased costs for regulated products would mean fewer customers. Many people would pay more for regulated products similar to how we pay more for regulated organic products.

Having worked for many years in a highly regulated industry, I can't conceive of a regulation that "decreased" costs. Regulations require compliance and compliance costs. If you can think of an example, I would be interested.

As for the higher costs, it is logical that as prices increase, you decrease the percentage of individuals who can afford the good. Some will either not be to afford it or refuse to accept the higher price.

[sthira]

I'll argue as a citizen and consumer. Strong protections do sometimes cost businesses and taxpayers money, but when compared to the price of weak regulation, it turns out that they can be more than worthwhile. There are costs that come with inadequate regulation, and it is the public who ultimately pays the price in lost lives, destroyed property, or empty government coffers. In this way, inadequate regulation amounts to a hidden subsidy for risky behavior. On the flip side, we stand to gain if companies are properly kept in check.

[hav]

I agree that appropriate regulation is desirable and disagree that it should necessarily increase costs. The regulation I like would be a requirement that labeling for supplements be true and complete. The only cost here would be to suppliers who would prefer to keep their ingredients a secret while engaging in an anti-competitive campaign to convince us that their ingredients are different and better than others without revealing any basic facts. The only way this would cost us would be if the government enforced it with reporting... fines and seizure of ill gotten gains would be more cost effective.

There would be an added impact, however, to those suppliers who don't actually know what they are selling. I'm talking about supplement suppliers that buy in bulk from China and never bother to test what they receive. I've ordered a couple of times from companies in China as a last resort. Their practices are hard to believe. In both cases they intentionally mislabeled their shipments in all their papers except via email, apparently to speed transit through customs. Although I seemed to get what I ordered, its hard to have faith in culture that practices deceit so casually. And I can't imagine how they can accurately keep track of things and not make unintentional mistakes doing business that way. I guess I'd have mixed emotions if US suppliers who currently do not verify the contents of bulk orders from China got forced out of the market.

Maybe there could be a possible non-regulatory remedy. Trade associations, for instance, often trademark a seal and implement their own private standards for display. Like a "Good & Honest Supplements Seal of Approval". Heck, if a trade association won't do it, Longecity could step in.

Howard

Edited by hav, 11 July 2013 - 08:37 PM.

[niner]

Maybe there could be a possible non-regulatory remedy. Trade associations, for instance, often trademark a seal and implement their own private standards for display. Like a "Good & Honest Supplements Seal of Approval".

There's Consumerlabs.com, or whatever they call themselves, that purports to do this. In reality, it's a money-making venture rather than a public service, and it isn't very effective because their checking is so spotty and their results aren't public. A trade association could do it, in principle, but I think the general feeling among the supplement producers is "why mess with a good thing?" People already buy their stuff anyway, so it would just be an extra cost in order to satisfy people like us.

If everyone had to analyze their raw materials, then costs would go up, but it wouldn't be very much for the bigger guys who have economy of scale. If you were capping a very small run, it would add a significant cost. It would have the effect of forcing out the really marginal producers who shouldn't be in the business anyway. While it would raise costs on the smaller producers, it would take away an advantage from the larger ones, since now we would have more confidence in the smaller guys and wouldn't need to pay a premium for a larger producer who was more likely to be clean. If everyone was clean, they'd have to compete on something else. In the long run, I suspect we'd pay a little more overall, but have better products. A possible downside would be the loss of extremely low volume compounds, but maybe those could be excluded from regulation due to their small market.

An "all regulation is bad" mindset may, if implemented, eventually lead to a disaster like thalidomide.

[sthira]

Supplement and drug companies do not care about human health or human suffering. They care about profits. This is why they need to be forced to tell the truth. And we cannot expect these companies to honestly regulate themselves (foxes guarding hen houses). The sooner we take out the idealic notion that supplement and drug companies care about truth and your personal well-being, the better off we in this longevity movement will be. I think we're all arguing the same thing; we just have different approaches.