Most of what you say makes sense, but I take issue with this bit. Why should it have to come to someone getting hurt to get something pulled off the market at all? If something is labeled as "capable of doing X", but it really doesn't, then it might not be doing any harm directly, but because the person taking it is working under the belief that it actually is useful, they're indirectly harming themselves by not looking into something that's been proven to be effective just because it doesn't have a "natural remedy" label slapped on it.
There is a reason why herbs in particular are an exception to the rule when dealing with this kind of issue. It's because they have a very long history in many cases of being used for centuries as traditional medicine. So there is already a very well established history of usage that indicates at the very least that they are relatively safe, and in many case potentially effective. So why should the government all of a sudden be able to stop people from using something with that kind of history and demand "someone" come forward and spend an astronomical amount of money proving they work? This isn't the same analogy as developing a new drug. Drugs are highly specialized tinkering with substances and they are truly a new slate since there is no history whatsoever that can suggest they are safe or effective.
If they don't have the testing to back up their claims then why advertise them as such at all? By your own reasoning it shouldn't take that much effort for people to research the ingredients themselves and come to the conclusion that it will have <x> effect, instead of relying on a label with questionable claims to tell them. So all the company has to do is remove the claim that they have specific medical benefits on the label without sufficient proof that it's really effective.
Most labels here don't say thing like "Will cure liver cancer", or "proven to shorten the duration of the common cold", although in this one instance Cold-FX does and won the right to claim that, but again this is a highly specialized form of ginseng that is not the natural state of the root., It really IS more like a drug and it is able to be patented.
Most just say vague things like "may support liver function", or "traditionally used to treat insomnia". I see nothing wrong with those kind of labels because they are only
suggesting what it might be helpful for. People can make their own decisions. It's not like every Tom, Dick and Harry is out there being swindled by outrageous claims and tossing their prescription drugs out the window. Not from the normal clutch of reputable companies selling well known herbal products. Granted the other ones that pop up in multi-marketing schemes, and claim to cure everything from coughs colds and sore holes, definitely need to be slapped. I'm all for stopping THAT kind of bullshit. I'm looking for a middle ground here. I'm under the impression that this new bill would be going way too far. If I'm mistaken and only the real charlatans will be targeted, then I'm all for it too.
It appears that we are deabting two different things. I read some of the Candian law, and parts of it definitely go too far. With plenty of revision, it would become a much better law. So, I do agree with you that this law in its current rendition should be opposed. At the same time, your referencing the DSHEA was a bad idea, for reasons I metnioned earlier. I don't think there can be any doubt that the DSHEA is horrid.
I didn't realize DSHEA was such a mess. I was just thinking of it as being an example of protection from the people trying to categorize all herbals and natural supplements as 'drugs'. Just as a quick exampole, L-tryptophan used to be sold as a single amino acid and it was very effective for inducing sleep and anxiety relief. But one company with contaminated batches that were apparently caused by genetic tampering, sent thousands of people to the hospial with a disease called Eosinophilia-Myalgia syndrome.
Long story short, even when they discovered it was not the fault of tryptophan
per se, they kept the ban on it! Now people there can't get what used to be a very inexpensive supplement. Canada kept it as a prescription only supplement, and lo and behold, what happened? It's expensive as fuck! No good reason either because it was cheap before.It cost's over $50 for a bottle that might last 2 weeks from what I recall. THAT'S what can happen when they force something to be a 'drug'. That's why I'm very concerned...
Even when you stop them from making explicit medicinal claims, they still get around it. For gingko, instead of saying "helps treat Alzheimer's/memory loss," they just say "promotes mental awareness." Shit like this needs to be tested. No, I can't stop you from swallowing a bunch of supplement pills, nor should I necessarily be able to. That being said, if a product makes unproven claims and implies that it can do many wonderful things, it should be taken off the market. Like Wong said, they can just label the damn thing "ginseng" or something, not make the absurd claims, and it'll still likely sell.
But Ginkgo, DOES have some very good clinical studies showing effectiveness for Alzheimer's and other types of conditions. But in reality, they would still fall far short of the type of studies and stages they would need to qualify for a drug. So eventually, it would cost the producers AND the consumers a hell of lot more money. Why should it? It's demonstrated safety in consumption and it's already being sold without problem. I don't see a compelling reason to keep flogging the horse after it's already ran around the track.
Your tack about absolute proof doesn't hold in the medicinal world, and it never has. If I sounded like I was requesting it, I'm sorry. Not even tried-and-true drugs like Aspirin or cisplatin work all the time. Everything about any of these chemicals is based on statistics.
Well no, not absolute proof. That was a poor choice of words, but you get what I mean. A much higher level of proof that is much more expensive. Do remember the one thing that differs from drugs and natural substances. They CANNOT be patented. This is the most important point here and you can't forget that because it's completely relevant to the point of how a recoup of investment is going to be possible.
However, most of these products have no proof whatsoever, and the law can only make blanket restrictions. Unfortunately, this means that stuff like milk thistle may be thrown out for a time. And yes, I know that can put the squeeze on some people with liver conditions. I have to ask, though: are there any conventional treatments for your mother's friend and people like her? From what I know of Canada, couldn't this treatment be had for free?
Huh? There is no such thing as a conventional treatment to aid liver function. Herbs are the only known things to even suggest such a thing. Well, except some other unusual treatments like Castor Oil Packs. The only thing even remotely close would be the suggestion to eat many bitter greens to stimulate certain secretions like bile and so forth.
Drugs are not designed to strengthen the body in a sense like herbs. Certain herbs suggest certain properties that are almost vitamin-like in their ability, but they aren't needed substances, they just seem to have certain strengthening, stimulative, relaxing, adaptogenic, anti-viral, anti-bacterial, etc... properties. As you know many drugs are made from herbs and they become very specialized then, but herbs in their more natural state seem to work very different with the body.
And what are the long-term effects of any of these compounds? Any medicine that works, by definition, changes something in your body. Could this result in long-term damage?
Herbs are more like food. That's the point here. Obviously eating regular amounts of broccoli will affect the body. We assume for the better because we know about antioxidants and phytochemicals that indicate they support health. Herbs are similar. They are NOT really as analogous to drugs as many people here are thinking. Drugs are more like a sledgehammer in actions because they are highly purified and concentrated to do a specific function, and do it strongly. Herbs have evidenced the ability to work a certain way for people that need the effect, and be basically harmless in others who just consume them. At least the grand majority of the ones that are well known with many years of usage behind them. Ginseng, Echinacea, Ginger, cranberry, bilberry.
With anitoxidants, for example, taking very large doses for a long period of time may actually increase free-radical damage. By far the best solution for people like yourself is not to take milk thistle and other herbal supplements, but to keep to a good diet and get plenty of exercise.
Ah but this is actually a good argument for herbs because they have basically said that taking antioxidants OUT of these food products and supplementing with them seems to show questionable benefits. But they stand by having them in the foods. This would also include the antioxidants in herbs. This is a very important point. They really ARE more like foods.
Justforfun000, you seem to be arguing under the assumption that this legislation will make it illegal to sell things like milk thistle. Reading through it, it seems like all the legislation will do is make it illegal to market it as medicinal unless there is proof that it has medicinal value.
I hope you're right. I keep hearing differing interpretations. Hopefully it won't pass without at least a serious revision.
All of your arguments fall apart because nobody will stop you from buying these things. Nobody is taking away your right to consume all the natural supplements you want, they're just trying to protect the rights of the consumer to not be cheated out of money and possibly better treatment by snake oil salesmen.
IF you are correct as above then yes. I dearly hope you're right.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
