Europe bans nutritional supplements

[Southtown]

I am now ill. The drug companies own us.

 

http://www.newstarget.com/009531.html

 

Outlawing vitamins is not a minor issue. It is a violation of the fundamental laws of nature. To take away a person's right to nutritionally support his or her own body is to condemn that person to a lifetime of pain and disease. It is a blatant crime against humanity.

[infamous]

I am now ill. The drug companies own us.

 

http://www.newstarget.com/009531.html

 

I'm afraid your right, the drug companies are pulling out all the stops so they can control absolutely everything. It won't be very long now and they will make a move to get their complete control of U.S. supplies. We must do everything within our power to stop this trend, if we fail, there will be no limit to what they may eventually control. Think about it, what if things get so controled that you'll need a perscription to eat a Big Mac.

[Southtown]

...Think about it, what if things get so controled that you'll need a perscription to eat a Big Mac.

Haha, true. But it's more likely to need a perscription for Subway because they're good for us and hence lessen our dependencies on the medical industry.

[IMAMONKEY!]

I dont think they could do that. If they crossed the line, they'd send in the army and kick their butts. Or at least i hope they would.:eek:

[Erasmus00]

I am now ill. The drug companies own us.

 

http://www.newstarget.com/009531.html

 

That is actually a bit of a misstatement. The purpose of the law is largely to catagorize food supplements vs. medications. However, there is a bit of concern in that the way the law works, any supplement not on a positive list of supplements become banned. The only way to bring the supplement into the allowed list is the kind of safety studies normally done on drugs.

Now, your article claims vitaman C is banned. This isn't really true. Vitamn C is in no way banned in safe doses. However, extremely high amounts of vitamn C (at many thousands times the recommended nutritional allowance) could cause potential harm and as such, cannot be sold. However, no one currently sells such doses, so vitamn C is in no way at all effected.

While the law may be poorly structured, its aim is good. Many things sold as health supplements should probably be regulated (creatine, for instance). To claim it "bans nutritional supplements" is sort of silly.

-Will

[Southtown]

Ah yes... the "freedom vs. safety" debate.

 

Vitamin C would be allowed in RDA doses, not "safe" doses. Two totally different concepts.

[infamous]

While the law may be poorly structured, its aim is good. -Will

Yahhhh, good for the drug companies. I'm not comfortable giving any of my decision making ability away to anyone, that includes the government, the drug companies, or even my close relatives. Living is dangerous business but I'm still going to live it with all the freedom I can coax out of it. Just allow me to decide whats good for me and I'll let you do the same.

[Erasmus00]

Ah yes... the "freedom vs. safety" debate.

 

Vitamin C would be allowed in RDA doses, not "safe" doses. Two totally different concepts.

 

Please read the law before you make a comment. Vitamin C would be allowed in the maximum recommended dosage. Not the recommended daily allowance. For vitamin C this is many thousands of times larger than the RDA.

 

And, unfortuantely, a lot of people are of the "I see it in a health food store, it must be good for me" mindset. Some "natural" remedies have just as powerful an effect on the body as prescription drugs. If we regulate one, we should regulate the other.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

Yahhhh, good for the drug companies. I'm not comfortable giving any of my decision making ability away to anyone, that includes the government, the drug companies, or even my close relatives. Living is dangerous business but I'm still going to live it with all the freedom I can coax out of it. Just allow me to decide whats good for me and I'll let you do the same.

 

I agree, but at the same time, I see a need to regulate health supplements. I ran track in high school, one of my team mates used creatine to help him bulk up. He overdid it, and went into liver failure, was very ill for a long time. Nowadays, they put a warning on creatine in the health store, saying it may cause liver failure. Certainly an improvement.

-Will

[infamous]

If we regulate one, we should regulate the other.

-Will

 

Have you ever heard of the expression "give em an inch and they'll take a mile". The drug companies will most likely extend that mile exponentially.

[Erasmus00]

Have you ever heard of the expression "give em an inch and they'll take a mile". The drug companies will most likely extend that mile exponentially.

 

I don't understand what this has to do with drug companies, per se. Most drug companies don't manufacture health supplements. The ones that do were using the non-regulated status of "nutrition supplement" to get questionable products to market without going through regulatory boards. This law also doesn't effect most vitamins, as they are already on the approved list. What it mostly effects are the more shady nutrition supplements, advertising "lose weight, no effort" and "bulk up fast."

-Will

[infamous]

I don't understand what this has to do with drug companies, per se.

-Will

 

It's called control, thats why the drug companies tryed to get vitamin C registered as a drug. When you can control the market profits will come your way, it's all about money Erasmus00. If you can't understand this principal of economics I can't help you.

[Erasmus00]

It's called control, thats why the drug companies tryed to get vitamin C registered as a drug. When you can control the market profits will come your way, it's all about money Erasmus00. If you can't understand this principal of economics I can't help you.

 

First and foremost, vitamin C is not registered as a drug. Thats a gross overstatement of the law. Second, "health supplements" was a potential gold mine for drug companies, allowing them to put dangerous products on the market without any regulation. Closing that avenue means less profit, not more. As my previous post mentions, vitamins are virtually unaffected by this law. More dangerous supplements (ephedra, creatine) will be affected.

-Will

[infamous]

First and foremost, vitamin C is not registered as a drug.

-Will

If you will read my last post more carefully you will notice that I said "they tryed to get it registered". Don't put words in my mouth Erasmus00.

[Erasmus00]

If you will read my last post more carefully you will notice that I said "they tryed to get it registered". Don't put words in my mouth Erasmus00.

 

I've never heard of drug companies attempting to classify vitamins as drugs. When, and in what country?

-Will

[Southtown]

Please read the law before you make a comment. Vitamin C would be allowed in the maximum recommended dosage. Not the recommended daily allowance. For vitamin C this is many thousands of times larger than the RDA.

 

And, unfortuantely, a lot of people are of the "I see it in a health food store, it must be good for me" mindset. Some "natural" remedies have just as powerful an effect on the body as prescription drugs. If we regulate one, we should regulate the other.

-Will

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...

 

And regarding vitamin C, there isn't a max-safe amount because unused amounts are flushed out with urine. Trust me I know, I've studied this one. My kids, 3 and 1, eat 1 gram, or 16 ⅔ times the RDA of 60mg of vitamin C a day. My wife and I eat 3 times what the kids eat. My wife's mother, who beat cancer twice, attributes her victories completely to vitamin C (and God) of which she claims to have eaten 10g daily for months at a time, or 166 times the RDA. It becomes difficult to ingest that many chewables, and the dangerzone was nowhere in sight.

 

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). Try putting random chemicals in your gas tank and see how well your car fares. And of course the government sides with the corporations... again. They seems content to allow this ignorance to be perpetuated by the food companies so that they can make a larger profit and send us and the remains of our cashflow to the hospital to dish out the rest of our livelihood for increasingly unaffordable chemical treatment of our sick and dying bodies. I guess I just wish the government was fighting for us instead of the food and drug companies is all.

 

Compare this real nutrition advice to the RDA and the food guide pyramid for example.

 

http://www.honestfoodguide.org/downloads/HonestFoodGuide.pdf

[Biochemist]

I am now ill. The drug companies own us.

 

http://www.newstarget.com/009531.html

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, 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.

 

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.