Call for proof of herbal health claims, page 1

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:30 PM

link

Call for proof of herbal health claims

www.stuff.co.nz

Natural health products should have labels outlining the level of evidence of any health claims, Sir Peter Gluckman says.

The prime minister's chief science advisor today told Parliament's health committee consumers have ''a right know what evidence exists'' to support any claims, whether it was based on science or traditional use.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:30 PM

link

Absolutely - "natural" health products should be required to have as much truth in advertising as anything else.

For far too long the producers have been able to make or imply claims of benefits without actually being required to support the claims with any evidence.

Very occasionally false claims are bought to court for this or that, but not nearly often enough.

www.stuff.co.nz
(visit the link for the full news article)

Doublemint

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:33 PM

link

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

If people understood that medicin comes from herbs and other things. There are differnces, but why people don't know that is puzzling.

Pirateofpsychonautics

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:34 PM

link

I agree, any health product should be held accountable to verify any prescribed health benefits from a marketed product. Just as the commercial producers of all that awful chemical crap should, theoretically in a perfect world also provide information to consumers.

Won't throw my 2 cents in with regards to the title for fear of being banned or chastised for discussing the topic...

burntheships

+4 more
posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:40 PM

link

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

"natural" health products should be required to have as much truth in advertising as anything else.

This is hilarious...what about GMO truth in labeling. GMO food is poison, yet
it has no label stating such.

edit on 6-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

FissionSurplus

+7 more
posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:46 PM

link

Health benefits for herbal products are usually anecdotal, since studies on them are either discouraged, or slanted. Considering that studies done by colleges are subsidized by pharmaceutical companies, and there is no benefit for them financially, most studies are done outside the United States. Even then, most of the studies are poorly done and easily disproven. Most of what hits the professional journals these days is junk science, peer review not withstanding.

I look at it this way: Herbal supplements have been used for thousands of years. Most modern pharmaceuticals have been used for less than 25 years.

Supplements and vitamins are already prohibited from saying what their benefits are, so what is the point of this thread? Supporting the heavy hand of the FDA?

Do you have a chronic illness which has been helped or hindered by supplements? I do. I have been suffering with rheumatoid arthritis for 13 years, and the only thing which helps with NO side effects are herbal supplements and vitamins. I stand by that statement, as does my doctor.

Since the information about the beneficial effects of nature's pharmacy is usually obscured or tainted by the MSM, those of us desperate for REAL help have had to use ourselves as guinea pigs. And I sure as hell have had better results with herbal supplements than the current regimen of pharmaceuticals which have a slew of side effects so long that it would require another post to list them.

killbot2012

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:49 PM

link

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

"natural" health products should be required to have as much truth in advertising as anything else.

This is hilarious...what about GMO truth in labeling. GMO food is poision, yet
it has no label stating such.

Seriously, right? Smoke and mirrors my friend.

DJW001

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:52 PM

link

reply to post by FissionSurplus

Health benefits for herbal products are usually anecdotal, since studies on them are either discouraged, or slanted.

Then why don't herbal medicine producers do their own double blind studies? Oh yeah, it would cut into their profits. I doubt truth in labeling would make much difference in any event; if people read the labels that are already required, the junk food industry and Big Pharma would be long out of business.

Domo1

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:55 PM

link

reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread816769/pg1#pid13624808]post by burntheships[/

edit on 6-3-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

boncho

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FissionSurplus

Health benefits for herbal products are usually anecdotal, since studies on them are either discouraged, or slanted.

Then why don't herbal medicine producers do their own double blind studies? Oh yeah, it would cut into their profits. I doubt truth in labeling would make much difference in any event; if people read the labels that are already required, the junk food industry and Big Pharma would be long out of business.

I've seen them send their products to independent labs for testing to show they have high purity (to counter shady competitors) so...

Science can't be all that bad to the Herbal world.

UdderlyInsane

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link

I am not surprised that this would be a request in a time when individuals are taking control of their health by natural means. One must learn to educate themselves and learn to care for their own health as well as their families health. Conventional medication or treatments should be used as a last resort or by medical need.

The bill would also require sponsors to declare that they hold evidence to support the health benefits claimed for their products and provide the evidence if requested by the regulatory authority.

Are you kidding me, how many companies selling supposedly tested and sampled medications on the market that have lawsuits or extreme adverse side effects?

If there was scientific evidence, which should also be defined in the bill, it would be ''ideal'' for the label to state the quality of proof with a scale from low to high.

If this is the case it should apply to all creators of "things" designed to improve one's health or well being.

Most herbal or natural remedies are designed to fit the individual and are given with strict instruction. The fear of prosecution by someone who "claims" they did not know. In a world with so much technology ignorance should not be the answer.

Example: There are studies to disprove the effectiveness of Arnica as a treatment for muscle strain and bruising. Want to know why the test failed and there were adverse side effects...it is not intended to be taken as a pill.

There is no shortcut to wellness and trying to point the finger at another source does not hide the fact that conventional medicine can and will kill us all in bulk faster than herbal or natural means ever will.

Just my two cents.

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

"natural" health products should be required to have as much truth in advertising as anything else.

This is hilarious...what about GMO truth in labeling. GMO food is poision, yet
it has no label stating such.

Like this for example??

Do GM foods have to be identified on food labels?

Yes. It is mandatory for GM foods to be identified on food labels in Australia and New Zealand. These requirements became law in December 2001 and were put in place by food ministers to assist consumers to purchase or avoid GM foods, depending on their own views and beliefs.

Really dude - do a little research and try to deny ignorance, not display it!!

And how about you support your claims that they are poison?? In another thread tho' please, 'cos that's not actually the topic for this one!!

boncho

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by burntheships

How is that relevant?

So you're agreeing that herbal remedies should have better labels?

No health claims unless there is evidence for them.

Used to "cure/treat" is different than "used to alleviate symptoms of" is different than used for "aiding ______ condition."

Toxicity should be listed on all herbal health supplements IMO. Beyond that I personally don't care what people are trying to cure themselves with.

JibbyJedi

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

"natural" health products should be required to have as much truth in advertising as anything else.

This is hilarious...what about GMO truth in labeling. GMO food is poision, yet
it has no label stating such.

Typical redirection of attention off the real problems. It sounds like more focus on the direction of making natural supplements and herbs to require a doctor's prescriptions, that old Codex Alimentarius agenda at it again.

Removing all fluoride additives, GMOs, MSG, all Excitotoxins, and anything unnatural in foods and water are no where near a priority by the FDA or any regulatory agencies it seems. Tells a story I think.

burntheships

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link

Originally posted by DJW001

Then why don't herbal medicine producers do their own double blind studies?

Well, case in point....the USDA allows GMO corporations to prove thier
products safe...no double checking, no peer reviews.

So....why should herbal remedies be subject to anything about what GMO
corporatons get away with?

DJW001

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link

reply to post by boncho

I've seen them send their products to independent labs for testing to show they have high purity (to counter shady competitors)

But rarely a study to prove their efficacy. In fairness, the Chinese government has done proper studies that show that some traditional herbal remedies do work. The operative word here is "some." Many others not only do not work, but are actually dangerous. Still more are just plain gross. (Dried seahorse, anyone?)

FissionSurplus

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link

reply to post by DJW001

Most of those manufacturers are too small to afford the double-blind studies and the many hoops the FDA requires them to go through. Word of mouth is usually better than the word of the FDA, in my opinion. I know what works for me, I have researched the supplements and tried them myself. Some were worthless, others priceless.

The last entity I would trust with my health is the FDA, and I have a childhood friend who works for them as a research scientist. This person has to rush through things they know are not studied properly, and has to put up roadblocks for other things which could help people but have no profitability for Big Pharma.

I don't need a Nanny State to tell me what I can and cannot put in my body. If you listen to them, you'll be popping statins and fluoride, think ketchup is a vegetable, and that Cheerios are good for your heart. They used to stand for something good and honorable, long ago. Now, they're just another bought-and-paid-for corrupt agency.

boncho

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link

reply to post by DJW001

(Dried seahorse, anyone?)

I prefer gull bladder bile mixed with my colloidal silver shake thank you very much.

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link

Originally posted by UdderlyInsane
I am not surprised that this would be a request in a time when individuals are taking control of their health by natural means.

Or any other means - informed decision making requires enough information to count as informed in the first place - whether you are a tree-hugging gay whale looking for organic krill supplements, or a reptilian wall street ubermaster wanting to swallow some power pills.

Ae it were

Tecumte

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link

LOL. I love posts like this. ummmm, I think natural remedies ALREADY aren't allowed to make specific claims without proof on botlles, the FDA is pretty clear on this, it send it's goons in often at the drop of corporate hat if it's corporate billion dollar symptom treating market faces any serious competition. Historical data can be found on most EVERY herb, people can decide for themseves the best approach to treat themselves, they don't need BIg Nanny there to tell them what they can or can't put in their bodies,

Actually though if you want to look at serious harm, I would rather look into the 100,000 or so deaths per year from pharmaceuticals, and perhaps start taking the time to actually read the precautions, or let's more fully monitor jusr how well chemo or radiation ACTUALLY work. let's do some real studies starting in the order of actaul harm.. But herbs.....c'mon.... LOL...
edit on 6-3-2012 by Tecumte because: sp.