It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you are taking will be removed from the market. This includes many fish oil formulas and natural plant extracts.
In order for these ingredients you are using today to return to the market, the FDA will require manufacturers to conduct outrageously expensive studies using absurdly high doses, in some situations multiplied by a "safety factor" up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis.
The FDA proposes that new dietary supplement ingredients should adhere to aggressive safety margins, which are typically reserved for chemical compounds known to be dangerous in all but the most miniscule concentrations.
Since food additives or preservatives such as aspartame, monosodium glutamate, and sodium nitrate are known to cause cancer or other severe health problems, the FDA has implemented safety guidelines which limit allowable concentrations of these food additives to levels that are supposed to be physiologically inert.
Originally posted by summer5
I am not saying that this wont happen, I have been hearing this for many years now. I think it was probably 10 years ago, I had signed a petition regarding the banning of supplements.
Funny enough, I believe it was Mercola who I had heard this from way back when.
Originally posted by Human_Alien
Does this really, I mean REALLY come as a shock?
We are heading to a time when we're going to have to pay to flush our own toilets and ask to get a drink of tap water.
So, better enjoy your freedoms (we have two left, right? Breathing and sleeping?) while they last!
Homeless persons are not a suspect class, nor is sleeping out-of-doors a fundamental right. See D'Aguanno v. Gallagher, 50 F.3d 877, 879 n. 2 (11th Cir.1995) (homeless not a suspect class); Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242, 1269 n. 36 (3rd Cir.1992) (same); Davison v. City of Tucson, 924 F.Supp. 989, 993 (D.Ariz.1996) (same); Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F.Supp. 344, 355 (N.D.Tex.1994) (same), rev'd on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.1995); Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F.Supp. 843, 859 (N.D.Ca.1994) (declining to be the first court to recognize fundamental right to sleep), dismissed, 87 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir.1996); State of Hawaii v. Sturch, 82 Hawai'i 269, 921 P.2d 1170, 1176 (App.1996) (noting that there is "no authority supporting a specific constitutional right to sleep in a public place" unless it is expressive conduct within the ambit of the First Amendment or is protected by other fundamental rights). But see Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551, 1578 (S.D.Fla.1992) (indicating in dicta that homeless might constitute a suspect class), remanded for limited purposes, 40 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir.1994), and directed to undertake settlement discussions, 76 F.3d 1154 (1996). Consequently, rational basis review is appropriate.
Anything in such a large dose will cause issues, ANYTHING. If you mega dose nearly any vitamin at this level you are asking for trouble.
I'm sure it'll be law one day...
FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in Agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.