The reason why we know these supplements have unapproved pharmaceuticals in them is because regulations say: 1) you can't, 2) the FDA has the power to test them, 3) the FDA has the power to force a recall.
The FDA is prohibited from banning supplements that have been in use prior to 1996 (or so). They are also allowed to restrict what can be said about the supplements (they can't make unsupported medical claims).
I don't know about you, but unless a supplement is actually dangerous, I think it's good the FDA can't come in and tell adults what they can and can't put in their own bodies.
If data suggests a supplement isn’t safe, the FDA can ban it.
Plus, you’re not allowed to make specific safety or efficacy claims when selling a supplement. You can be vague about “It’s been used for insomnia”. But that’s about it.
> Under a 1994 federal law, supplement makers must submit some kind of safety data to the F.D.A. if they plan to introduce new ingredients to the market. And manufacturing-practice rules require them to make sure their products contain only the ingredients listed on the labels, with no hidden substances. But, unlike drug makers, supplement makers are not required to prove that their products are safe and effective on humans. Nor do they have to get federal approval before selling their products. That means it is up to the F.D.A. to identify any risky supplements from among the estimated 85,000 on the market, and to prove that they are adulterated or present health hazards.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/business/a-soldiers-paren...
Again, the onus is on the FDA to find supplements that are previously unknown, regulated drugs. If we flipped the requirements, supplement makers would be barred from selling their supplements without clearing them with the FDA first. The active drug in that story has since been banned by the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/productsingredie...
You're not allowed to make specific medical claims. But you are also not required to show any efficacy for what you do claim, and the supplement industry regularly gets as close as they can to "specific medial claim." And sometimes they cross it! And, again, the onus is on the FDA to find such cases.
In terms of the onus being on the FDA, that’s how it should be. A default “it’s banned unless we say so” would limit access to supplements that have been used for decades. They’d need to be pulled off the market. Supplement makers are unlikely to have access to the millions of dollars it would take to a supplement through clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy.
And as for the claims, the FDA issues warning letter by the ton when supplement makers step over the bounds.
its being done, daily.
and the FDA doesn't work the way you think it does; they are the rubberstamp for massive testing on the populace. Look up the scandal with fake sugars during the 1980's.
You can claim it’s used, but t can claim it treats any disease.
>High doses of omega-3s can reduce levels of triglycerides.. Omega-3 supplements may help relieve symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.
My understanding is that there is no evidence suggesting fish oil is beneficial for humans other than these two things. However, regularly eating fish has a few more benefits. So, instead of taking fish oil pills, it probably makes more sense to eat fish once a week.
In my opinion, people should start with topical treatments for arthritis first, such as blue-emu or penetrex cream, as it is safer (not entirely safe, but much safer) than ingesting anything that is a COX-1 or COX-2 inhibitor, or that acts as a blood thinner. I mention Cox-1/2 because many other supplements are in that category (Curcummin, Aloe and many others) but people may not understand what that can mean for them. A lot of folks take Aloe for Arthritis, but not everyone should. It depends heavily on your gut lining and health.
I am reaching a point where I can probably debunk most of the health websites and I might make some youtube videos on the topic, since many of these sites are harming people by not giving them all the facts. NIH being the number one offender. For some time, I thought those articles were vetted and peer reviewed. A few of them are, but most are not. Anyone can publish write-ups on PubMed it turns out.
...and the FDA does regulate dietary supplements.
Strangely enough, his Wikipedia article doesn't mention his championship of the natural health industry, the word "supplement" doesn't show up even once. It must be that even his supporters find the "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994", which he sponsored, too blatantly in favour of the industry and too damaging to public health.