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.
Originally posted by chris17453
From regulation to Prescription, to vitamins, and next what? Government subscriptions to natural remedy's as well?
Some people do go crazy on the OTC stuff, but we don't outlaw people from eating ad McDonald's, its a choice.
Food Apartheid [US]
The war on fat has just crossed a major red line. The Los Angeles City Council has passed an ordinance prohibiting construction of new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area inhabited by 500,000 low-income people.
We're not talking anymore about preaching diet and exercise, disclosing calorie counts, or restricting sodas in schools. We're talking about banning the sale of food to adults. Treating French fries like cigarettes or liquor. I didn't think this would happen in the United States anytime soon. I was wrong.
Government may ban fast food near schools
Fast food restaurants could be banned from opening near schools as part of a more interventionist approach by the Government to tackling childhood obesity.
Ministers are concerned that many older children shun healthy school lunches for junk food, while younger pupils use "pester power" to force their parents to buy them unhealthy snacks on the way home.
Under proposals to be unveiled as part of the Government's obesity strategy on Wednesday, councils will be reminded of their powers under planning rules to bar new fast food restaurants from the streets immediately around schools, parks and nurseries.
They apparently were the smart ones.
Originally posted by calstorm
There is another thread on this here www.abovetopsecret.com...
but maybe this one will get more attention, as many didn't believe the other one due to the source. I personally find Dr. Mercola more trustworthy than Yahoo.
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.
You have any sources for these claims? Of course not, you're just making stuff up. I know better as an industry insider.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Arbitrageur
The article does not say it is law but proposed. Variations of this have been proposed as law more then once so the article is not inaccurate. They are not doing this just as a guide they know no one would follow this nonsense.
This article is very short sighted. I am a analytical chemistry researcher who has worked on both pharmaceuticals and supplements. The problem right now is that there is absolutely no oversight on supplements.
Let me repeat that just in cased you missed it. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT ON SUPPLEMENTS.
This means that any company can and sell produce a supplement without verifying the amount of the active ingredient. You have no way of knowing if Trader Joes brand is like GMC's for example. The product could (and often does) contain little to no active ingredients. But on the other hand, independent testing of supplements on the market show sometimes they have enough active ingredient to cause an overdose. How do you know what your favorite band has? You don't. One time it could be low, and the next high. And the company itself doesn't have to do any testing what so ever. And if even they do test their product, they don't to report the data to anyone, including you, the person ingesting it. The company I worked with doing this testing was very honest that they don't know what the companies do with the data but they didn't believe the client pulled product off the shelf when they recommended it be pulled.
I know better as an industry insider.