The Pharmaceutical Industry

[Clodfobble]

I don't know how you classify things over there, but if it's been tested and must be taken "under medical supervision" then it's not the kind of thing HM is talking about. The FDA does have authority over the safety of dietary supplements, BTW, they just have less-restrictive guidelines than full-blown "drugs."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's also a question of severity. When an herbal supplement fails, the result is: nothing.

How do you know? That hasn't been tested either. "Natural" doesn't mean "harmless". The only way to be sure something has no side effects is if it has no effects.

There is at least one differentiation: untested substances must put a disclaimer that the FDA has not tested it and it is "not intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent any disease."

"Wink wink, nudge nudge. But go ahead and use it for your disease anyway."

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I don't know how you classify things over there, but if it's been tested and must be taken "under medical supervision" then it's not the kind of thing HM is talking about. The FDA does have authority over the safety of dietary supplements, BTW, they just have less-restrictive guidelines than full-blown "drugs."

I won't speak for Dana, but she did say "can have a very serious impact on health if not taken carefully and under medical supervision", not "must be taken under medical supervision", which have different meanings, especially if we take "must" to mean by law.

I'm not sure how much authority the FDA has over dietary supplement safety. All I've seen is that they can verify that they actually contain the listed ingredients.