URGENT: FDA Threat, April 30th, This Year. READ!

[glitterbizkit]

It's kind of like that old "all saturated fat is bad for you" "study" from maybe some 50 or 60 years ago if I recall - basically, the vegetable oil industry, wanted more of the pie of cash, published a study stating that coconut oil was linked to heart disease, etc. - the things which too many people have blindly attributed to healthy fat. Of course what they didn't disclose at that time was that the "evil coconut oil" they studied had been hydrogenated - and we all (I hope) know that chemically altering dietary fats is a great way to promote disease.

I've read about this somewhere, and it sounded interesting, but I didn't know whether to believe it or not because the source I got it from didn't seem too reliable. Do you know of any reliable source that has more information about this? I mean it does kind of make sense that coconut and palm oils would be more healthy for people as they are less processed and have been around for longer than oils extracted from seeds etc.. but I'd like to know more about it.

 

[Banquo]

Thank you for having the common sense to agree/admit that prohibition would be too much. As for quack science, I'm quite sure that one could find a great deal of "quackery" within the world of approved conventional, pharmaceutically based medical treatment, too.

But, sir, clearly some government oversight is better than none. For every one Vioxx-type drug, there are hundreds of dangerous drugs that never make it out of clinical trials because of the FDA approval process. If there were no screening at all, then all of these dangerous substances would now be on the market, so your approval argument doesn't stand up to basic logic. (It's also worth noting that more juries have acquitted Vioxx's manufacturer than juries finding it liable, and your heart attack number falsely implies a causal link. Incidence of heart attacks among Vioxx-users and a control group would be more accurate for same.) Even if bad drugs slip through the system at a small error rate, that does not mean that the whole system is wrong.

Moreover, selective anecdotes can be used to justify anything. Vague accusations about the vegetable oil lobby just don't cut it and neither does foreboding language about mistreated soil and irradiated foods. Produce some evidence or impartial studies instead of more quackiness.

It's not like you're out to protect Joe Farmer either. Supplements are a multi-billion dollar industry. They are protected by their lobbyists just like big pharma. They have lobbied to keep dangerous supplements over-the-counter in the face of consumer deaths.

Since you like anecdotes so much, here are couple about a supplement manufacturer:

Metabolife founder Michael Ellis charged with lying to FDA

Ephedra Manufacturer Previously Charged with Manufacturing Methamphetamine

Again, prohibition is a mistake. But it's important to be sensible about all of this.

 

[R.ticle One]

IN RESPONSE TO glitterbizkit:

What I found so far:

How did coconut oil get such a negative reputation?

The question then is, how did coconut oil get such a negative reputation? The answer quite simply is, initially, the significance of those changes that occurred during animal feeding studies were misunderstood. The wrong interpretation was then repeated until ultimately the misinformation and disinformation took on a life of its own.

The problems for coconut oil started four decades ago when researchers fed animals hydrogenated coconut oil that was purposefully altered to make it completely devoid of any essential fatty acids. The hydrogenated coconut oil was selected instead of hydrogenated cottonseed, corn or soybean oil because it was a soft enough fat for blending into diets due to the presence of the lower melting medium chain saturated fatty acids. The same functionality could not be obtained from the cottonseed, corn or soybean oils if they were made totally saturated, since all their fatty acids were long chain and high melting and could not be easily blended nor were they as readily digestible.

The animals fed the hydrogenated coconut oil (as the only fat source) naturally became essential fatty acid deficient; their serum cholesterol levels increased. Diets that cause an essential fatty acid deficiency always produce an increase in serum cholesterol levels as well as an increase in the atherosclerotic indices. The same effect has also been seen when other essential fatty acid deficient, highly hydrogenated oils such as cottonseed, soybean, or corn oils have been fed; so it is clearly a function of the hydrogenated product, either because the oil is essential fatty acid (EFA) deficient or because of trans fatty acids (TFA).

People need to realize that fat, doesn't automatically make you fat. It's what kind of fat, and what kind of every other building-block-of-body-life-nutrient they consume. I keep trying to tell people, that they're better off eating 600 calories from slow burning vegetables, fruit, and leafy greens everyday, than 300 calories every two days from a processed non-food.

 

[fasteddie]

The supplement industry (billion$/year) always manages to fight off FDA re-classification. There is so much quack science (just read through this thread), fraud, and even danger involved with some of these supplements that's it is surprising that this fails. More consumer protection and enforcement would be nice but prohibition would be too much, imo.

I think a lot of the protections that are enjoyed by "alternative" remedies orginated with some Senator, once upon a time, who was a homeopathic doctor.

I once made some money doing business with a homeopathic pharmacy. The man who ran it spent a bunch of time explaining it to me, and he was quite sincere. But, I don't believe in it. I never claimed to: I just made sure that I was selling the man with the checkbook what he wanted.

I refused to do business with another fellow, once, despite being in some serious financial hardship, who was in the business of selling "alternative" remedies to cancer victims.

I'd rather cook crank. Though, I don't do that either.

 

[R.ticle One]

But, sir, clearly some government oversight is better than none. For every one Vioxx-type drug, there are hundreds of dangerous drugs that never make it out of clinical trials because of the FDA approval process. If there were no screening at all, then all of these dangerous substances would now be on the market, so your approval argument doesn't stand up to basic logic. (It's also worth noting that more juries have acquitted Vioxx's manufacturer than juries finding it liable, and your heart attack number falsely implies a causal link. Incidence of heart attacks among Vioxx-users and a control group would be more accurate for same.) Even if bad drugs slip through the system at a small error rate, that does not mean that the whole system is wrong.

Moreover, selective anecdotes can be used to justify anything. Vague accusations about the vegetable oil lobby just don't cut it and neither does foreboding language about mistreated soil and irradiated foods. Produce some evidence or impartial studies instead of more quackiness.

It's not like you're out to protect Joe Farmer either. Supplements are a multi-billion dollar industry. They are protected by their lobbyists just like big pharma. They have lobbied to keep dangerous supplements over-the-counter in the face of consumer deaths.

Since you like anecdotes so much, here are couple about a supplement manufacturer:

Metabolife founder Michael Ellis charged with lying to FDA

Ephedra Manufacturer Previously Charged with Manufacturing Methamphetamine

Again, prohibition is a mistake. But it's important to be sensible about all of this.

Hey. Thanks for keeping a level head about this. As I said, if people wish to use the system which I am not in favor of, it is their choice, although I feel it is of detriment to those who choose not to, as well. Let me agree with you that some governmental oversight is better than none. I do not deny that the FDA has prevented other equally/even more dangerous drugs from entering the market. However - If I am wrong on this, then "my bad": did they not put Vioxx back on the shelves even when it's manufacturer had it pulled due to it's risks?

But government oversight to the degree proposed is folly. I feel that the FDA has a severe double standard issue when it comes to regulation. One must be naive to believe that they are free from "influence" (great pressure and/or cooperation) of the pharma industry. These are the same people who went after cherry growers for making legitimate health claims:

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=63456-fda-cherries-arthritis-cancer
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_awsi_01.htm

Conflict of Interest?:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/4/429

Here, please chew on this "quackiness":
http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html

Please forgive me if I sound foreboding, or impassioned. And for the record, this has, for me, as much to do with protecting "Joe Farmer" as it does maintaining access to supplements. "Joe Farmer" is to me, hard working and honest, and has a genuine beyond-income interest in how good his crops are and the life-content of the soil in which they're grown. Not just how much he can sell them for. I know "Joe Farmers", and they care about the sustainability of what they're doing, beyond the size of their bank account, which isn't all too often that big. And I give a shit about the sanctity of food. We all deserve to have food that isn't tampered with. Sometimes even a semi-Joe-Farmer or non-small timer gets raped by agribusiness:

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive80.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/779265.stm

Irradiation:
http://www.mindfully.org/Food/2003/Irradiation-Cancer5mar03.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=12734067&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/irradiation_probs.htm
http://www.iicph.org/docs/food_irradiation_revisited.htm

Allow me to close this response by stating that:
It is difficult to talk about complete impartiality when discussing something which touches two fundamental pillars of living: food and medicine. Admittedly, some of the links to which I refer you above host studies on sites which take a pro-natural stance, though the studies and articles themselves are not all necessarily from a supplement lobbyist group. Just as easily are found positive reviews for synthetic drugs in articles within Journals and mainstream publications, the research for them funded by the pharmaceutical industries. My hope is that you do not attempt to dismiss the entire content of what I have posted as further "quackery", because the last thing that I want this thread to turn into is an article-war/flame war and I think that I have posted something more than unsubstantiated opinion. Neither of us are stupid. Let's keep it civil. We both agree that prohibition of a modality of healing which is referred to as "natural health/alternative health/Complementary Alternative Medicine", et al, is nonsensical and excessive. And whether or not you agree with this, I would say that: the extent to which such an FDA proposal goes (as well, Codex), crosses the boundaries of morality and ethics, and perhaps legality, too. It is reflective of a paranoid industry that fears it's time is running out. And sometimes, personal anecdotes speak volumes. I've heard volumes from many people who have tired of the same formulaic "treatment" offered by convention, and who are tired of being belittled by their doctors when they question something or suggest something different, and who have found the success they sought with alternative therapies and practitioners who didn't feel granted the right to arrogance over the genuine questions of a person in their care.
----------------------
R.ticle One

 

[karma_bum]

To bring this issue up again because this bill unfortunately PASSED the senate, with only one senator against it (Vermont). It is now up to the house... show your support if you care.

http://tinyurl.com/2epjp7

 

[karma_bum]

For shame that for the campaign donations and the political favor virtually the entire US Senate sold you and your families down the health river. For shame that they voted for a bill that eliminates the concept of "conflict of interest" and allows FDA regulators to virtually totally dependent on huge "User Fees" from the very companies they are seeking to regulate.

For shame that the US Senate passed a bill that extends the already corrupt power of an organization which oversees the use of drugs which are now known to be the single largest killer of the citizens of the United States and every other industrialized nation WHEN USED PROPERLY.

For shame that they took no steps to protect food and dietary supplements, the single greatest economic competitor to pharmaceutical profits from a marauding FDA which already seeks to put the competition, natural medicine, out of business.

For shame that this Senate could not protect the American people from the same FDA which has issued their FDA Guidance on the Regulation of CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) which Representative Ron Paul, MD (R, TX) calls an abuse of the power of the FDA.

 

[rocksalt]

This is a chicken little thread.

There's nothing in these bills that will take natural supplements off the market. It will simply require supplements to meet FDA production standards to avoid things like this.. Big pharma doesn't see the naturopath industry as a threat, only policies limiting what they can charge for their drugs (which this bill certainly helps).

Also, all this stuff about drugs causing disease is strictly BS. You want to understand the incidence of cancer in modern nations? Take a look at alcohol and drug abuse, smoking, waistlines, sedentary lifestyles, and the massive increase in life expectancies since the turn of the century. Now look at the most recent statisitics and discover that *gasp* cancer rates steady and mortality is decreasing.

What accounts for this? Well, modern life sucks for the human body. We pump it full of junk food, nicotine, and alcohol, and watch 4 hours of TV every day. We drive the half block to pick up our smokes and then use the elevator to get to our second floor apartment. Like many things we see today, we are changing our internal environment more quickly than nature can adapt to it, and that causes disease. The decrease in cancer mortality is attributed to modern medicine: improved screening and better drugs.

Bitch and moan all you want about the FDA, but at least you won't have to worry about chelation therapy.

 

[fatpig]

I quite like this animation, really sums up the way Medicine works nowadays.

http://www.mercola.com/townofallopath/townofallopath.htm