> For natural supplements, the regulatory problem is far worse [...] So the better trade-off for the consumer here is to amend existing law so that as drugs go through clinical trials, disclosure and peer review of FDA inspection findings during the trials is a condition for marketing approval.
- The FDA already has the power to regulate supplements, for the most part they just choose not to. So the idea that supplements just need FDA regulation like 'regular drugs' is largely fallacious.
- Why should supplements need clinical trials for marketing approval when that isn't the standard for other any other comparable drugs on the market? I.e. almost all drugs that were in use before the 50s are allowed to be marketed without any testing for safety or efficacy, and since almost all supplements have a much longer history of human use, why should they be treated differently?
> The FDA already has the power to regulate supplements, for the most part they just choose not to.
The FDA has some power to regulate supplements, but the relatively light touch they use on them is not something the FDA chose independently, but a direct result of the limits on the scope of their power and the bases on which they may exercise it in the authorizing legislation, which Congress made very weak after a supplement-industry sponsored publicity campaign painting the effort to grant the FDA regulatory authority over supplements as an effort to "ban supplements".
The FDA already has the power to regulate supplements, for the most part they just choose not to.
No, the "natural supplements" industry has carved out for itself a huge exemption from most of the regulation that applies to drugs, on the one hand, or foodstuffs, on the other hand. See a group blog post on "Big Supp"[1] for more information about this. For years, that industry had a champion in Congress[2] who resisted more effective and rational regulation.
The FDA, on their own website, says it's their job to make sure that supplements are unadulterated and not mislabeled. If 80% of supplements are in fact completely fake, then I don't see how you're using the problems of the supplement industry to show how well the drug industry is regulated in comparison.
- The FDA already has the power to regulate supplements, for the most part they just choose not to. So the idea that supplements just need FDA regulation like 'regular drugs' is largely fallacious.
- Why should supplements need clinical trials for marketing approval when that isn't the standard for other any other comparable drugs on the market? I.e. almost all drugs that were in use before the 50s are allowed to be marketed without any testing for safety or efficacy, and since almost all supplements have a much longer history of human use, why should they be treated differently?