There is no simple easy answer, it's a massively hard problem. The regulators have to balance benefit and risk, and for the most part do a hugely impressive job where they already have to add in judgement.
There is no simple easy answer, it's a massively hard problem. The regulators have to balance benefit and risk, and for the most part do a hugely impressive job where they already have to add in judgement.
No, you do not. Just look at the market of dietary supplements.
Hopefully I do them justice to their arguments by saying that the benefits from supplements (if any) are tiny - as in a hazard ratio of death is pretty much 1 unless you are actually deficient. Equally however the potential downside of them is pretty much zero - expensive wee is what they can mostly be summarised as. Whilst they may be money wasted, the're mostly benign, save the odd tragic case.
If supplements had the side effects of chemotherapies however, they'd be banned straight away - without evidence of benefit, the risks would be too high.
For a more authoratative take, one of my heroes: http://www.dcscience.net/2013/11/18/we-know-little-about-the...