Reps for Voting in Poll (Research paper)

[Forest239]

A poll on BB.com got approved as a primary source on the research paper I am working on. This means you guys get my reps (not a lot but I will rep everyone who votes even if it takes a month).

Mods if this section is inappropriate for my thread please move it to a section you believe would suit it better, Thanks.

Also voters after voting can you post a short statement about why you chose what you picked? Thanks a lot.


My topic is should the FDA have increased power and authority in the area of dietary supplements. These powers would cover testing supplements to prevent hazardous and contaminated supplements from reaching the market along with the powers to force companies to conduct clinical trials and research into benefits and side effects of products (instead of the current system where disclaimers under outlandish claims exist).

Thanks for voting everyone!

[lerider]

Voted.

[Forest239]

Voted.

Repped

[ExDubio11]

the bias of this forum will show its face, but any intelligent individual would vote yes

[Forest239]

the bias of this forum will show its face, but any intelligent individual would vote yes

Bias towards what?

Also repped.

[sleepypanda]

Voted yes. I think better testing regulations would thin out the bad supps even just a small bit so people don't waste money on stuff that doesn't really do what it says.

[ExDubio11]

Bias towards what?

Also repped.

Half the active community is representatives and owners of supplement companies. What do you think their answer will be?

[Golf2themax]

Voted

[PochoStrong]

Voted

[alacriTEA]

Voted....

Let me start by saying I have no vested interest in any supplement company.

While there should be oversight in the industry, I do not think it should be regulated to the extent you a speaking of. As someone with first-hand knowledge of the clinical trial process I am seriously concerned with the repercussions that forcing clinical trials would have. In general, a pharma company will spend anywhere between $100 and $800 million per drug. If this happens with supplements, even if on a much smaller scale, the cost will necessarily increase. I strongly doubt these companies will absorb this cost themselves.

Just my $0.02
alacriTEA

[ExDubio11]

Voted....

Let me start by saying I have no vested interest in any supplement company.

While there should be oversight in the industry, I do not think it should be regulated to the extent you a speaking of. As someone with first-hand knowledge of the clinical trial process I am seriously concerned with the repercussions that forcing clinical trials would have. In general, a pharma company will spend anywhere between $100 and $800 million per drug. If this happens with supplements, even if on a much smaller scale, the cost will necessarily increase. I strongly doubt these companies will absorb this cost themselves.

Just my $0.02
alacriTEA

Many companies have already run their own safety and efficacy trials. Human trials are not even close to synonymous with the FDA approval process, the latter of which takes several years and a fortune.

[rpeach27]

Voted!

[Forest239]

Out of reps for now, will work on repping everyone.



People keep voting please.

[kidsheart]

Voted.
Ive heard that in australia they are changing the rules so all supps must have a nutrition label. Eg. pre workouts would have to take on the standard energy-
fat-
protein
carbs-
etc etc. labelling, which imo is pretty pointless.
I would like to see the 'proprietry blend's thing canned and companies made to show quantities of ingredients on the label.
Im not overly worried about the outlandish claims, if someone believes taking a prework-out will 'boost your bench press by up to 1001%' they deserve to be ripped off.

[Nomkat]

My votes in...

[kincaid82]

voted

[onedayall]

Voted.

[KurtisB]

voted. good luck with your research.

[gchurchill]

Voted. In an ideal world there would be somebody requiring the efficacy of supplements to be proven before allowing them to market, so I have no doubt many consumers would select yes. Producers would most likely select that they should have less power, since they do tend to outright ban substances the instant some idiot dies after taking ten times the recommended amount.

[thunderstruck90]

Voted, good luck

[Jhemre]

Voted.

[wisdommaster1]

voted

[KReyn]

Voted.

[redbirdfan1]

less power because they are controlled by big pharma. I don't like my choices being taken away from me from some perceived danger that may or may not be real.

[tb4um]

voted

[KingPhatal]

Voted.

[Sumat]

Voted

[Kevin71]

Tough one. I think that there should be more regulation over nutritional supplements and their claims.. But I'm also not sure if the FDA is the correct entity to have the power. Voted anyway

[whiskeysticks]

Voted...agreed with the poster who mentioned the FDA regulations can take forever and their methods for approval are sometimes shady. Big companies, big money, big influence - surprise, surprise.

[E_P_C]

Your reason why the FDA should have more power is too broad. I agree with some things that you are proposing but at the same time the FDA should not be telling people what they should and should not be able to take, example 1,3