ALL CANADIANS - Our supplements choices are in danger

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-05-12 02:42pm

This is a bill that just passed second reading. If applied religiously, it would enable the seizing of ALL vitamins, herbs, natural health products if they did not have the same clinical studies behind them as drugs, even from individual people. It also changes the power of the government so in the future, any amendments along this line no longer become subject to public scrutiny or debate, even by MP's, but under the category of "regulations" which are simply published by the Federal government as "this is how things are going to be" and signed into law.

This is a complete travesty and the government has no right to go this far. Even the States did not allow this kind of extremism and thankfully have the DSHEA law to protect their right to purchase these products.

Here's more detail:

http://www.healthcanadaexposed.com/c51b ... 0Facts.htm

Canadian Rights And Freedoms Are At Risk
An Important Notice Regarding Bill C-51

On April 8th, 2008, the Canadian Minister of Health introduced Bill C-51 into the House of Commons. This Bill proposes significant changes to the current Food and Drugs Act that will have wide-ranging negative implications for Canadians.
Bill C-51 will:
· Remove democratic oversight, bypassing elected officials to vote in laws and allow bureaucrats to adopt laws from other countries without our consent.
· Remove 70% of Natural Health Products from Canadians and many others will be available by prescription only.
· Restrict research and development of safe natural alternatives in favor of high risk drugs.
· Punish Canadians with little or no opportunity for protection or recourse for simply speaking about or giving a natural product without the approval of government. More than 70% of people in Canada use a Natural Health Product. The new law goes so far as to warrant action against a person who would give another person an “unapproved” amount of garlic on the recommendation that it would improve that person’s health.
Proposed New Enforcement Powers:
· Inspectors will enter private property without a warrant
· Inspectors will take your property at their discretion
· Inspectors will dispose of your property at will
· Inspectors will not reimburse you for your losses
· Inspectors will seize your bank accounts
· Inspectors will charge owners shipping and storage charges for seized property
· Inspectors will be empowered to store your property indefinitely
· Inspectors will levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or seek 2 years in jail per incident
With your assets and money under their control will you be able to defend yourself in Court?

Can you trust government with this new law and enforcement power?
Would our government really ever turn this law against us? Read the following account.

Example
In 2003 Health Canada launched an attack on a group of mentally ill patients and the company who supported them naturally. They seized shipments of a safe natural therapy required by the patients and stormed the support center with 17 armed officers and agents. The company (Truehope) reported that they lost contact with more than 300 of their Canadian participants. The Canadian Mental Health Association told of suicides as a result of government action.
Health Canada then charged the not for profit company, burdening them with heavy legal costs. Truehope was found innocent by necessity and instructed by the judge to continue under legal and moral responsibility. Although the agents admitted knowing they were injuring people through their actions, they stated under oath they care only about policy and directive. And what happened to the more than 300 mentally ill Canadians that became unreachable? In the months and years following, reports of hospitalizations and suicides during the seizures have surfaced. No Health Canada agent has ever been charged.

Will this new law be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others?
Why do bureaucrats want to bypass the Parliament and Senate’s approval to create new laws?
Why do bureaucrats want seizure warrants without judge approval ?
With fines being increased a 1000 times, and seizing authority without a warrant, is Bill C-51 meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?

Here's what you can do to protect your rights:
Educate Yourself
Go to http://www.stopc51.com/
Read a legal discussion on Bill C-51
Read bill C-51 on www.parl.gc.ca
Tell others about it
· Talk to your local Press
· Contact your local MP Click Here
· Ask the leaders in your community to get involved
· Contact your MLA
· Tell your Friends
Get involved
· Print off this fact sheet and hand it out in your neighborhood.
· Attend our rally at the Calgary Federal Court on May 9th 2008 . Call 1-888-878-3467 for Details
Federal Court Rally Information
Where: 635 8 Ave SW, Calgary, AB, Canada Federal Court (View In Google Maps)
When: 11:45 AM Friday May 9th

This is a peaceful rally, after which a hearing will be held asking the judge to place restraints on our governments ability to seize property without a warrant. Taking place on the 4th floor at 1:00pm.
Forward this email to all of your concerned friends, family and community leaders.

TheKwas · Post by **TheKwas** » 2008-05-12 03:51pm

Ignoring much of the obviously biased rhetoric, it sounds like a step towards regulating much of the nonsense "natural" remedies, which I have little problem with.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2008-05-12 04:15pm

TheKwas wrote:Ignoring much of the obviously biased rhetoric, it sounds like a step towards regulating much of the nonsense "natural" remedies, which I have little problem with.

Exactly. I think most of this is probably a good thing. Just because something is "natural" doesn't necessarily mean it's good for you.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-05-12 04:18pm

Ignoring much of the obviously biased rhetoric, it sounds like a step towards regulating much of the nonsense "natural" remedies, which I have little problem with.

We do need some form of regulation against wild claims made by many products, this is true, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem is that the amount of money needed to put substances through clinical trials is absolutely astronomical, and extremely time consuming. Natural substances CANNOT be patented, and therefore herbs in particular would be shit out of luck because a company would never recoup their investment.

The way of the States is the most sensible. They should have evidence of harm before being allowed to interfere in people's right to choose. The reality is that some natural products are, or even just may be efficacious. Why should the government be given the authority to automatically side on the prevention of use therefore favoring the assumption it is NOT beneficial or harmful by default? This means they are deliberately responsible for someone who suffers from the loss of benefits they would have received if they had been prevented from purchasing this product.

We have governments in place to oversee our society, and we are nominally in charge of them. We elect them to do our wishes as a whole, not to dictatorially make decisions for us in all regards. The fact that Canadians are massing against this bill in strong protest is enough to show that we do NOT accept the government passing this kind of legislation. They do not have the right to arbitrarily ban our wishes to look after our own health based on what we feel is beneficial. There are many herbs that have been through clinical trials and show marked benefit for specific conditions in countries like Germany for example, and so someone wishing to extrapolate this knowledge for their own regimen should not be denied by their own government just because they want a specific kind of expensive and timely process to be followed that might NEVER happen because it's unrealistic and ultimately nonrecoverable.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-12 05:04pm

What kind of checks exist on these "natural" products currently to ensure that what small startup companies are trying to sell isn't really just another variety of something generic already available but with about half the safety regulation corners cut in order to get a cheaper price?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-05-12 05:05pm

I know elderly people who spend $300.00 + a month on these, I'd love to see them banned. Canada is leading the way once again, and this is all just a bunch of bullshit--replace every time this idiot has said "Natural Health Products" with "Drugs" and think about that for a moment. And remember that the vast majority of medicines in the world are chemical refinements of natural existing things. We didn't engineer penicillin, we found it growing in a petri dish.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-05-12 05:07pm

Here's the full text of C-51 for anyone interested.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2008-05-12 05:25pm

It's all flim flam.

The actual act has riled these people because it means that they cannot label their nonsense as medicine (defined as therapeutic product in the act) without first having it tested by an accredited agency to say that it is not harmful and that it does what they claim.

This means that yes, your "supplements" are in danger, because they have not been tested and shown to do what they are claimed to do, so they will not be sold under the act. And the people who profit from their sale know that they are selling snake oil, so they don't want to be forced to have their products tested by people who are accredited and held to some standard of truth.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-12 07:24pm

For me, the real question is: will people still get in trouble if they remove the health claims from the label? If my mother wants to go buy some ginseng, and it's simply sold as "ginseng", without any fancy health claims, is the government going to treat it like narcotics and run drug busts on vendors?

That's the real question: how do they determine that something is being sold as a "therapeutic product" and hence subject to this regulation? I agree that scientifically indefensible health claims should be stricken from product labels. But I would be concerned about the law going further than that.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-05-12 07:49pm

Darth Wong Wrote:

That's the real question: how do they determine that something is being sold as a "therapeutic product" and hence subject to this regulation? I agree that scientifically indefensible health claims should be stricken from product labels. But I would be concerned about the law going further than that.

Exactly. That's all I'm saying. We should have the right to buy said products and not have every single imaginable substance in the Canadian world labeled a "drug" just because it can affect you, treat you, or cure you.

You people above arguing the other side are too quick to jump on everything as "flim-flam" and are not looking at the big picture. Do you understand that they could even yank something like YOGURT off the shelves if they so chose because it could help treat intestinal disturbance? You also don't see the move from a forum where the people and their elected officials have a say in any decisions regarding future prohibitions and conditions? I for one do not want to live in a police state and that's where this would be going.

I think it's ridiculous to be able to arrest a health food store for selling peppermint as a digestive aid. I think it's ridiculous to fine and jail a person for growing Echinacea and choosing to make it into a tea to help fight a cold.

Both of those scenarios would be legal if this passed. I abhor exaggerated or even outright false health claims as much as you all do, but this is going WAY too far.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-12 08:01pm

Justforfun000 wrote: You people above arguing the other side are too quick to jump on everything as "flim-flam" and are not looking at the big picture. Do you understand that they could even yank something like YOGURT off the shelves if they so chose because it could help treat intestinal disturbance? You also don't see the move from a forum where the people and their elected officials have a say in any decisions regarding future prohibitions and conditions? I for one do not want to live in a police state and that's where this would be going.

I think you're overreacting. Are they yanking it off because people are buying it for the health effects, or are they yanking it off because it's labeled as possibly having such positive health effects with no tests to verify these claims?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-05-12 08:14pm

I think you're overreacting. Are they yanking it off because people are buying it for the health effects, or are they yanking it off because it's labeled as possibly having such positive health effects with no tests to verify these claims?

It's impossible to say. What concerns me is that this bill would give them complete power to yank any and all products that claim something, MAY have medicinal properties even if not claimed, and even prevent people from growing their own herbs.

Here is a lawyers interpretation of the act. Read this through carefully and you'll have a better idea what this law means in it's entirety.

http://www.goodnessme.ca/billc51/c51_di ... _paper.doc

[/quote]

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2008-05-12 09:05pm

Justforfun000 wrote: It's impossible to say. What concerns me is that this bill would give them complete power to yank any and all products that claim something, MAY have medicinal properties even if not claimed, and even prevent people from growing their own herbs.

It gives them power to yank anything produced, processed, shipped, or sold in unsanitary conditions (defined as conditions which may cause the product to be harmful), and only when those items are being sold. Which is fairly sensible for all food items. The act does not give them the ability to prevent people growing their own herbs, only to prevent them selling their herbs as medicine, or selling them as food or cosmetics if they are grown, processed or transported in unsafe conditions.

It requires "natural health products" to be proven safe and effective before they can be sold as a "health product". Yogurt can be sold as food, peppermint can be sold as food. If you want to put a label on it to say "this is medicine" you have to apply for a Market Authorisation, and get it tested by an approved clinical body to prove that it is not harmful and that it does what you say it does. (Unless it is already designated as a therapeutic product by Health Canada, in which case it can be sold as such)

Also, the term "therapeutic product" also covers devices, so people selling, for example, magnetic bracelets with claims of health benefits would be covered by the new act.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2008-05-12 09:15pm

I think, overall, Justforfun, you're falling for scare tactics from the NHP industry, which knows it cannot substantiate many of the claims it is making for it's products.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-12 09:46pm

Vendetta wrote:It gives them power to yank anything produced, processed, shipped, or sold in unsanitary conditions (defined as conditions which may cause the product to be harmful), and only when those items are being sold.

Apparently, there's a two year backlog on certifications. It's unreasonable enough to pass a law defining people to be guilty until proven innocent, but when you create a painfully slow and unwieldy bureaucracy for the process of proving your innocence, one begins to wonder if there is merit to the NHP industry claims that this law was simply created by Big Pharma to wipe out the whole industry en masse.

This is leaving aside the issue of health claims, which they could skirt by simply removing health claims from labels.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-05-13 02:16am

Well if this does pass, I pray you're right and that I'm overreacting. I don't like to see snake oil bullshit being pushed upon gullible idiots who are not intelligent or informed enough to realize that the health claims of certain products are overblown, and in many cases completely misrepresented. I do want consumers to be protected, but I don't want the conditions of sale to be so impossibly expensive and nonrecoverable that natural products of genuine usefulness simply become unavailable because of the lack of practicality.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-05-14 12:39am

Well I'm quite shocked. I sent an email off to Bob Rae, who is one of our Liberal MP's. Used to be premier of Toronto actually...He actually responded personally.

May 13thth 2008

unison@rogers.com
Dear Kendall
Thank you for your call regarding Bill C-51, in which you have expressed concerns the legislation
may negatively affect your access to natural health products.
The health, safety and wellbeing of Canadians has been and will continue to be at the heart of the
Liberal Party's examination of this legislation.
As such, we firmly believe that Canadians have a fundamental right to have access and choice in
treatment options regarding their health. We will work to ensure that this legislation does not
further restrict the use, sale, or distribution of safe natural health products.
Please be assured that we will continue to be vigilant in our study of this issue and we will keep
your concerns in mind.
Thank you again for your letter. Please don't hesitate to contact me again on this or any other
matter.
Sincerely,
Hon. Bob Rae
MP Toronto Centre

TheKwas · Post by **TheKwas** » 2008-05-14 12:44am

Yeah, Bob Rae is pretty awesome person from what I hear.

Although, I was unaware that he was premier of Toronto.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-14 12:45am

They say that Bob Rae has grown vastly as a person since his problem-ridden turn as Premier of Ontario.

starslayer · Post by **starslayer** » 2008-05-14 06:01pm

With regards to the DSHEA, Justforfun, that law is a fucking joke. Under it, the FDA quite literally cannot, IIRC, request clinical trials for anything that does not qualify as a drug and instead gets shoved into the "supplement" class. They also cannot go after people for false advertising unless they can get solid proof that the product is causing actual physical harm. As you might imagine, this is insanely hard and expensive. Therefore, as long as you just sell sugar pills, you can get away with claiming quite literally anything down here in the States. About the only way you could get sugar pills with fradulent ingredients labels and claims off the market is if too many diabetics take too many of them, not knowing that they contain sugar.

What all this means is the FDA has little to no regulatory power over anything that isn't a drug. Thus, these unproven, possibly dangerous "supplements" remain on the market for years until they finally kill someone or word of mouth gets around that they don't do anything. This is rare. So, if anything, the DSHEA needs to either be simply struck, or be strengthened by several orders of magnitude.

With regards to the Canadian law, the account you posted is almost certainly something blowing the entire thing out of proportion and doing some pretty blatant fearmongering, as others have said. I don't exactly feel like going through the entirety of both this amendment and the Food and Drugs Act, but I somehow doubt it is anywhere near as bad as you seem to think. It's probably far, far better than the fucking mockery that is the DSHEA.

I don't think herbal cures should be patented, no (I don't use the word "natural" because most the compounds we use as drugs today are based off of plant compounds anyways), but they should sure as hell go through clinical trials before they are allowed on the market, just like any properly regulated pharmaceutical.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-05-14 07:51pm

I just saw this and I'm out the door. I'd have more to comment on in your earlier remarks but this alone:

I don't think herbal cures should be patented, no (I don't use the word "natural" because most the compounds we use as drugs today are based off of plant compounds anyways), but they should sure as hell go through clinical trials before they are allowed on the market, just like any properly regulated pharmaceutical.

No fucking way man! I for one use milk thistle and certain formulations that have liver protective herbs in a formula. The long and short of it is I can find very few GOOD quality studies on milk thistle, and even though many show a very good possibility that they are on the right track, it's not conclusive enough. The amount of money and studies to put it through the same as a drug to put to market, would be ridiculous and I don't see how any of these companies could afford it since they CAN'T patent it.

I personally know many people using these formulas. My mother who takes daily Dilantin, a friend of hers with a GENETIC defect that causes raised liver enzymes and others. Every single one of them had their liver enzymes normalized by the Natural Factors brand of "Liver Health Formula". Mine are always good as well and I use it religiously as it is postulated to be able to protect the liver from damage, raise the glutathione level in your body, the milk thistle in the formula has an approximately 10x the antioxidant potential of Vitamin C, etc.etc,.

By your reasoning you'd be fine and dandy to have this yanked so we'd be shit out of luck because our "anectdotal" experiences aren't good enough science to please clinical trials. Well this is where reality meets the road. Sometimes life trumps "clinical studies". Many things clearly work even without the rigorous proof needed for claims.

I don't want them taking away MY right to look after myself through preventative means and this is precisely what these interfering laws would be capable of doing. If you don't want to risk taking substances that aren't fully "proven", then by all means don't. But who the fuck are you to deny me the right to choose otherwise?

starslayer · Post by **starslayer** » 2008-05-15 03:44am

Too bad for you that milk thistle is known to aid in liver function and has been used to cure various liver diseases for years now. Its utility in treating amanita mushroom poisoning at least is extremely well documented. I'm not talking about shit like milk thistle. I'm talking about the un-fucking-proven shit that snake-oil salesman and other bastards put in the "natural health" aisle at the health or grocery store. But even with milk thistle products, how much of it are you taking? The dose makes the posion, after all. You don't know, do you? If it says on the bottle, are you sure that the manufacturer is telling the truth? What does the Food and Drugs Act say about that? Here in the US, the DSHEA says jack and shit about that. I can put nothing but sugar in the damn pills, say it has "500mg milk thistle" and be laughing all the way to the bank. Again, what assurances do you have that these people are telling you the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God?

I would hope Canada has such assurances in their laws already; we sure don't. Even with such assurances, do you have any idea what the safe dose of these chemicals is? Do most people you know? Like I said before, you probably don't know, do you? With your milk thistle supplement, it sounds like you got lucky if Canadian drug law is anything like the DSHEA. Many others aren't so lucky. Sorry, but in this case, good of the many > good of the few. And that means clinical trials. Have the government fund them if the companies can't.

By the way, I looked up that company, Natural Factors. It ain't small. It nationally distributes throughout the US and Canada. They could certainly afford it.

You also have no proof of your claims. You say "postulated." We still do not know with any real true medical certainty whether lots of antioxidants improve health. Why should I agree to let these products on the market if they may not do what they claim, or even be what they say they are?

Oh, and just for a fun little absurd analogy, would you drink any colorless, fairly odorless liquid I shoved in front of you and made flashy claims about? What if I said it would help protect your liver more effectively than that milk thistle you've been buying, and for less money? And I had lots of nice anecdotes to prove it? Do you drink it?

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2008-05-15 02:09pm

Justforfun000 wrote: No fucking way man! I for one use milk thistle and certain formulations that have liver protective herbs in a formula. The long and short of it is I can find very few GOOD quality studies on milk thistle, and even though many show a very good possibility that they are on the right track, it's not conclusive enough. The amount of money and studies to put it through the same as a drug to put to market, would be ridiculous and I don't see how any of these companies could afford it since they CAN'T patent it.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why some you insist that no company can afford clinical trials and the like.
Supplement companies may not be as profitable as Big Pharma, but they do make sufficient oodles of dollars....... Its not as if muscle supplement companies don't sponsor their own research studies, nor beauty products. Similarly, there exist various existing nutritional journals and the like, so some kind of studies ARE going on with regards to food supplements.
So, maybe you can't generate the kind of huge phase 1,2, and whatnot trials drug companies are supposedly doing, but for everything else..........

Furthermore, its not as if we're talking about the Canadian market solely, but presumably, research worldwide. The US has its own national body sponsering such alternative medicine research afterall.

anybody_mcc · Post by **anybody_mcc** » 2008-05-15 02:49pm

Justforfun000 wrote:I just saw this and I'm out the door. I'd have more to comment on in your earlier remarks but this alone:

I don't think herbal cures should be patented, no (I don't use the word "natural" because most the compounds we use as drugs today are based off of plant compounds anyways), but they should sure as hell go through clinical trials before they are allowed on the market, just like any properly regulated pharmaceutical.
No fucking way man! I for one use milk thistle and certain formulations that have liver protective herbs in a formula. The long and short of it is I can find very few GOOD quality studies on milk thistle, and even though many show a very good possibility that they are on the right track, it's not conclusive enough. The amount of money and studies to put it through the same as a drug to put to market, would be ridiculous and I don't see how any of these companies could afford it since they CAN'T patent it.

They are not proposing banning the sale of these products. If something is sold or advertised as cure then it should be tested as cure ( clinical trials ). If producers do not want to, they can sell it as food product and this means conforming to the laws governing food products. If they cannot do even that, then something is seriously wrong with their product and should not be available.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-05-15 03:14pm

Too bad for you that milk thistle is known to aid in liver function and has been used to cure various liver diseases for years now. Its utility in treating amanita mushroom poisoning at least is extremely well documented.

It is, this is true, but still. Do a search for general clinical trials and you'll see that many of them are woefully inadequate. Unfortunately what seems to happen a LOT of times is people running clinical studies do stupid things like use unstandardized herbs, don't run them long enough, don't have enough people to make a statistically significant conclusion, and all other sorts of hindrances I've seen in many of these studies. Why do they bother doing something if they can't do it well?

I'm not talking about shit like milk thistle. I'm talking about the un-fucking-proven shit that snake-oil salesman and other bastards put in the "natural health" aisle at the health or grocery store.

YOU might not be talking about it, but the act they are proposing could very well treat it the same as the garbage shit. That's why I'm worried.

But even with milk thistle products, how much of it are you taking? The dose makes the posion, after all. You don't know, do you?

Actually I do so. Here in Canada for example, Natural Factors is a very reputable company and they have a very detailed description of their quality assurance. On top of this, there have been consumer report groups that have done random testing on many products and certain companies have always passed with flying colours. In the States Enzymatic Therapy is one of them and their original botanical Director Michael T. Murray who is a well know alternative health advisor from Bastry University, moved to Natural Factors. Here is their quality assurance:

Quality assurance

All Natural Factors products undergo rigorous testing at all levels of production, in accordance with United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) guidelines. Our testing procedures are regulated by the Health Protection Branch (HPB) of the Canadian Government. Factors Laboratories also meets Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) guidelines which require strict adherence to the following commitments:

Standard Operating Procedures: A set of written procedures for conducting every operation in the laboratory.
Analyst Training Program: Every analyst has the minimum of a university Bachelor of Science degree and undergoes an intense training and safety program.
Method Validation: All methods are validated to ensure consistency of analytical parameters including selectivity, linearity, range, accuracy and recovery, precision and ruggedness.
Stability Program: Products are tested throughout the shelf-life and for one additional year to guarantee that the potency matches the label claim.
Instrument Validation and Calibration: To ensure the instrument performs consistently, we validate and calibrate each component of the High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) system as well as the other analytical instruments in the lab.
Data accountability: All data are recorded and kept as computer files and on hard copy for several years to ensure traceability of all results.

Testing

Natural Factors Products are tested at every level of production.

Raw Materials Testing:
Although Natural Factors buys their raw materials from the highest quality suppliers, found all over the world, we still employ rigorous raw material testing to ensure the material is of the highest quality and purity. The raw material must pass all necessary tests before it can be released by the Quality Control department for use in production.

When Natural Factors receives a raw material from a supplier, it is immediately sampled by the Quality Control department and sent to the laboratory. Factors Laboratories then performs all necessary tests outlined by the USP. Every batch of raw material is tested. There is a basic set of tests, as well as additional tests based on the properties of each compound. The basic tests are as follows:

Potency:
This test determines the % of purity of the raw material. It is either performed by HPLC or by titration. HPLC uses a standard of known purity, provided by the USP, and gives a result by comparing the raw material to a standard calibration curve. Titration is a process by which the compound to be measured is reacted with a standard solution and quantified.

Identification:
This test can be performed by matching the absorption spectrum of a compound to the spectrum of a known pure standard. Each compound has a unique, characteristic pattern of absorption over a range of light wavelengths. Another way to identify a compound is by a simple chemical test. A chemical test usually involves a colour change or the formation of a precipitate (solid) when particular reagents are added.

Heavy Metals:
This test is performed to demonstrate that the content of metallic impurities does not exceed the trace heavy metals limit.

Arsenic:
This procedure is designed to determine the presence of trace amounts of arsenic.

Loss on Drying:
This test determines the amount of moisture in a sample.

Loss on Ignition:
Some raw materials may contain volatile compounds that are only driven off at extremely high temperatures. This test determines the % of material that is volatilized and driven off at approximately 800 degrees C.

Residue on Ignition:
This test determines the percent of material that is inorganic and non-combustible.

Once the raw material has passed all necessary tests, it is released by the Quality Control department for use in production.

The Production Department has its own quality control requirements. Finished products are tested for weight variation and hardness throughout the production run. These tests ensure that the run is consistent from beginning to end.

Finished Product Testing:
Once production is complete, the Quality Control Department samples the product and sends it to the lab for more testing. Finished products are tested for:

Potency:
The same methods are used as in raw material testing, only now, the product may require multiple potency tests for each vitamin, depending on the formulation. In the case of a multivitamin, up to 12 potency tests may be required.

Identification:
These tests are performed using the same methods described for the raw materials.

Weight Variation:
Using a representative sample of the finished product (20 tablets or capsules), the weights are recorded and the average is obtained. The weight variation from the average may not exceed 5% for tablets and 10% for capsules.

Disintegration:
Using a USP certified disintegration apparatus, meant to simulate the movement in a human stomach, we determine the average time for a representative sample to disintegrate. The limits are generally 30 minutes for tablets and 45 minutes for capsules. Some tablets are allowed up to 1 hour in accordance with the Health Protection Branch.

Content Uniformity:
This test involves determining the potency of 10 individual tablets or capsules to determine the uniformity of dosage units. The Relative Standard Deviation of the potency results may not exceed the USP limit of 6%.

So it's not THAT difficult to find reputable products. You just have to do your homework.

By the way, I looked up that company, Natural Factors. It ain't small. It nationally distributes throughout the US and Canada. They could certainly afford it.

Maybe they could afford it, but then what? They can't corner the market on the product to recoup their investment, can they? Well...except the specific combination formulas, but others can copycat.

You also have no proof of your claims. You say "postulated." We still do not know with any real true medical certainty whether lots of antioxidants improve health. Why should I agree to let these products on the market if they may not do what they claim, or even be what they say they are?

Because many people, including myself, feel that we have limited time on this planet and sometimes we make decisions based on preponderance of evidence over absolute proof. What good is waiting 20 years to finally discover milk thistle was absolutely proven to work? "Gee...I wish I had started taking it years ago."

The point is, without clear reason of HARM, there should be no reason to prevent people from purchasing what they want.

Oh, and just for a fun little absurd analogy, would you drink any colorless, fairly odorless liquid I shoved in front of you and made flashy claims about? What if I said it would help protect your liver more effectively than that milk thistle you've been buying, and for less money? And I had lots of nice anecdotes to prove it? Do you drink it?

No because that wouldn't be good enough for me. But the many years of traditional usage comprising the use of milk thistle and related liver herbs like dandelion, artichoke, etc. plus the little studies here and there and THEN people I know well and their personal experiences with laboratory results showing a clear difference, IS enough for me to feel that there is something worth looking at there. Throwing a false dilemma at me is a pointless argument. It's not a case of no proof versus absolute proof. Some of these are in the grey middle.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why some you insist that no company can afford clinical trials and the like.
Supplement companies may not be as profitable as Big Pharma, but they do make sufficient oodles of dollars....... Its not as if muscle supplement companies don't sponsor their own research studies, nor beauty products. Similarly, there exist various existing nutritional journals and the like, so some kind of studies ARE going on with regards to food supplements.
So, maybe you can't generate the kind of huge phase 1,2, and whatnot trials drug companies are supposedly doing, but for everything else..........

But why SHOULD they? Many of these health products presumably work on a preventative basis as well and not necessarily a "curative" sense. If held to the same standards as drugs, it would be hugely expensive. Drugs don't have to run just little studies, they need massive expensive ones. And as Mike had mentioned, there is an issue of time and backlog of getting certification as well. The point is nobody is complaining about these products being available to the public except the government. Who is complaining to them? i wonder...