CODEX Alimentarius

silversword(9A)March 27, 2013

Hi everybody :)

From what I hear, this group has been around since the 60's and is rapidly making healthy alternatives (turmeric, ginger, vitamin c) illegal to prescribe by doctors to treat disease.

I'm reading about it, but wondered if anyone had any information they'd like to share?

Here is a link that might be useful: One link...

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I can't get through it. I just can't. Our ancestors were not healthier. They just died sooner of unknown causes. If they lived long enough, they too, might have a "higher incidence" of diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. because it would finally be diagnosed. Diagnosis is the difference, not their diet or health. Sorry Silver! I just can't give it any credence.

I will tell you what I know about herbal remedies. It is not a regulated industry, FDA!, and it can be quite hit or miss. There are few studies that verify the claims made. But that doesn't mean they're not doing good things. The National Institutes of Health tracks what they can find and it is posted on a publically accessible website which can help an individual make decisions. I did have great success with St John's Wort which had NO side effects (until I found out my asthma medications were the cause of the depression. No more meds, no more depression). And I got my herbs from a source that has been around for decades, and I know, with NO doubt, they regulate themselves as though the FDA was monitoring them. No doctor suggested I take it, I just knew because I worked at an organization that promoted wellness. Wellness wasn't even a term until this organization existed. It wasn't even thought of until the "health craze". Prevention? That was a new idea too. But I digress.

Since it's not a regulated industry, it does make sense to make it hard to fall under any umbrella for illicit activities. How are they doing this? I don't know any doctors who "prescribe" it. My son's physician suggested he try melatonin for his sleeping irregularities, and suggested which dosage to take. But prescribe? Wasn't gonna happen. She never even attempted to.

Here is a link that might be useful: NIH website

    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 4:13PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Didn't we talk about this once or twice, a couple of years ago or thereabouts... and there were a mixed bag of responses, as I recall... from outright denial, to some actual conversation on the issue. I can't remember if any of the threads reached their limitation in posts, though.

Nothing surprises me where the ability to increase or produce profit is concerned... from the smallest lax in ethical behavior... right down to actual murder. So, I find it rather easy to believe that we're being systematically poisoned and duped for the profit of those few at the very top of the food chain, so to speak.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 4:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kimka(Zone 6B)

According to their web site, they've been around since the 1960s as a standing United Nations committee.

Their latest press release gives you an idea of their main work:

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, the United Nations food standards body, has agreed on a set of residue limits for the veterinary drug ractopamine in animal tissues. Ractopamine is a growth promoter, it also keeps pigs lean.

Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted maximum residue limits for the amount of the drug allowed in the tissues of pigs and cattle. The decision was made after a rigorous process of scientific assessment to ascertain that the proposed levels of residues have no impact on human health. This assessment was carried out by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, a group of independent experts convened by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) that provides scientific support to Codex. The Codex Alimentarius Commission reached a decision through a vote, carried out in accordance with the Commission's rules and procedures. The limits were approved with 69 votes for, 67 against, and seven abstentions.

The ractopamine limits set by the Commission are 10 micrograms per kilogram of pig or cattle muscle, 40 micrograms per kilogram in liver and 90 micrograms per kilogram of the animals' kidneys.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, a joint programme of FAO and WHO, sets international food safety and quality standards to promote safer and more nutritious food for consumers worldwide and ensure fair practices in food trade. Codex standards serve in many cases as a basis for national legislation, and provide the food safety benchmarks for international food trade.

If anything they seem to have somewhat of an antibiotech position, so I don't see where the killing off of organic farming comes in.

I did some quick web walking on the topic and most of what I found were consipiracy theorists who never offered much in the way of proof that the group is taking over the world.,

From one discussion:
For example, observe paragraphs 3-4 of ==Scope==: "As unbelievable as it may sound, Dr. Grossklaus actually declared nutrients to be toxins in 1994." Actually, Paracelsus (1493 - 1541) said this first: "All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing a poison" [1]. This is a famous and logically-grounded conclusion assumed by most food scientists - for example, drinking too much water can shut down the renal system, and thus can considered a toxin. Toxicologists don't label substances as "toxins" and "non-toxins"; rather, they painstakingly determine "how much does it take to be harmful?" since everything is potentially harmful in overdose. This seems like a relevant aspect of nutrition standards and labeling, no?

    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 4:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that even some of the prescription meds that have been approved by the FDA have been quite "hit or miss". Accutane for example. Just because the FDA approves it doesn't make it safe and vice versa.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 4:27PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I can give you a better idea on that FDA thing. Large scale clinical trials are quite difficult to come by, as most people are unwilling to be "guinea pigs". And even if you can get a good sized trial done, that trial may or may not get every type of person in it. So no one can know every side effect a drug might have.

It can be a 1 in a million case of sudden death... since Accutane isn't a life saving drug, that one person can yank a drug forever. It's not worth the one life lost to save acne. It's not quite hit or miss. Hopefully, genetic screening will make that obsolete. At least, that is the theory. But talk about conspiracy theories, try suggesting that every person get genetic testing done at birth, for just such an event, avoiding sudden death from non-essential medication, and whoa boy do the sparks fly. Whole nuther subject.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 4:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Just as Microsoft pushes operating systems to market before all the bugs are worked out, and later down the road one requires patches and upgrades to fix issues... I do believe the pharmaceutical industry and other corporations push products to market in order to reap the profits, knowing full well that there are problems with certain products.

Profit before people... it's become the American mantra.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 6:51PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Actually Jodi we had this convo very recently, with the same responses.

I do not want "anybody" telling me what I can ingest ... sound familiar? Less you (collective you) tis the typical response to regulation on foods.

Americans are guinea pigs, every time I have been "prescribed" a drug there has been nasty side affects ... the worst a "blood clot". Why do you think there are class action lawsuits? "Death by doctor" who just so happens to get a kick back from big pharm.

So I will "regulate" my own medical care thank you very much, and y'all eat what you want. Deal ?


    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 7:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Far be it from to disagree with you, but please read my post right above you. I assure they're jumping through unbelieveable hoops to protect patients. Promise. I get to see it from the inside and there is so much care, it is very wonderful. They're doing their best.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 7:24PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

I used to post quite a bit about the workings of subcommittees of the CA, especially those writing up rules and standards for organic production, animal husbandry, and additives acceptable in food processing.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2013 at 9:23PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

OM, that seems directed to me. I am not lying. The drug companies (for whom I do not work) run studies with people who volunteer for the study before the drug is ever released to the general public. A panel of physicians (multiple!!! with many years of education and experience) go over the results and decide if the results of the testing show anything. It could be an adverse effect from the drug to an incident that was concomitant, but not as a result, with the drug's actions. Everyone in the world must adhere to the International Review Board (put in place in 1974 after the 1972 Tuskegee Syphilis Study). They make the rules as to what is reasonable for a person who volunteers for the study to be subjected.

The patients are fully informed (more than jurors in a court room. Several pages of instructions and information related to the study are read to them before they submit to the test and the team discusses everything with them before they'll even sign them on) of what the potential of the drug could be, be it side effects or benefits, and then what should happen, what could happen, and what actions will be taken should anything go wrong.

The studies are done in hospitals. With a team of staff and physicians. Just like you would be cared for if you were admitted. At the end of it all, it's also possible for the patient to be financially compensated for their actions. Sometimes it can be sizeable. I was offered $2500 for an asthma study. I turned it down because it involved sedation. I am highly allergic to that stuff.

This entire process goes on for a very long time. Usually, if you're really really lucky, there teams across the US and/or around the world doing the same thing with their volunteers. Hopefully, you will have gotten enough people to have included all types of populations, and genetic pools. The chances of having ferreted out harmful side effects are fairly large. But not guaranteed. At no time is anyone a "guinea pig". These people are beyond ethicial. Even if the IRB didn't require what they do. I don't know why you don't believe me, but now that you have the facts, I hope you research it more to find out if it I am right. Instead of accusing people of testing. This is not the world of Ms. Ever's Boys.

We're even hitting it on the backside of "blind" (my term) testing (that which lacks genetic information), and the biobanks are verifying the things we thought to be when it came to interactions with genetics and drugs. When we reach the world of prevention testing, that will be an amazing thing. It'd be as easy to avoid allergic reactions, or losing your hair from chemotherapy that wouldn't help (because your body needs a different type of treatment), as it is to avoid breast cancer from mammography. We're not there yet. But that's the goal.

I will tell you, I've had every adverse reaction known to man. I have complete systemic reactions to antiobiotics. My blood pressure drops so dramatically every time I have to have a surgery (or give birth) they spend more time trying to revive me than waht they did the surgery for... the list goes on. But I know that they are trying really hard. I just have f'ed up genes.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 8:09AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

......and I called you a liar about what?

Yes you do (edited to change this to "pharm does a small testing on a drug not "you"), and when these drugs hit the market "millions" of people become guinea pigs cause we are not all created with the same genes/DNA's.

You also have repeatedly said you do not want to gubmint to "regulate" what you eat, I agree ..... and do not want anyone regulating what I ingest.

This post was edited by ohiomom on Thu, Mar 28, 13 at 8:32

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 8:27AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I'm not mad, but you act like no one ever does any testing before hand or try to avoid bad outcomes-that kind of lying. No one is a guinea pig. They volunteer. We do need some info here. They do try to test as many as possible from as many walks of life as possible. The IRB even requires (not that we wouldn't already do it) to try to include as many "minorities" (in the US may be minority, but other places not, and women can be considered minority here, hence the quotes) as possible, be it Inuit, Asians, etc.

What alternative would you suggest? There is only so much in silico and in vitro testing that can happen. Eventually, it has to make it out there and there are people begging for better more effective drugs. And they need them. It's a process. But what changes do you suggest?

Edited to add this: That's why we're pushing for genetic testing. To know ahead of time.

This post was edited by rob333 on Thu, Mar 28, 13 at 8:43

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 8:39AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

My question is why are you trying so hard to accuse me of something when all I am doing (like every other person here) is giving my thoughts/opinions.

Bad outcomes happen Robb, no amount of research on a "test group" will account for every single person who is prescribed these meds.

But that isn't even what I was talking about, the OP (remember that?) was about alternative meds and the fact that I do not want anyone to tell me what to ingest.

Lighten up Robb, you are looking for a fight where there is none.

Opinions are like.....

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 8:50AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I said I wasn't mad. But it's puzzling to hear the same things repeatedly.

The entire healthcare system is not f'ed up. It needs to be overhauled in the payment processes.

There are no "guinea pigs". And I've offered you the solution. Genetic testing. If you want to see "alternative meds" subjected to the FDA standards, go for it.

It's fine to have an opinion, but there don't seem to be enough information to decide about alternative or other meds. Like the healthcare battle, I am likely not to say anything further. No amount of information is changing anyone's parroting, but here is the information now. Believe it or don't, but the processes in place are on target until advances are seen.

I guess I was merely puzzled. I am no longer. Seems the rants of the day have become anything related to the medical world (which no one around here seems to have anything other anecdotal information)??? So be it.

Doesn't make me respect you any less. I still do. I'm still not mad, nor fighting.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 9:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo


    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 9:08AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

It does sound familiar, and I would have to agree with you, Ohiomom... which is why we travel so far to see our doctor. He operates a small, independent practice free of conglomerates, doesn't take kickbacks, hates dealing with sales people selling pharmaceuticals, and isn't happy with many restrictions that keep him from treating patients as he feels is best for the patient. His starting point is diet... better health through better nutrition... and he takes the time to listen and understand, which we like a lot. I'd never trade him for another doctor.

Robin, I would believe that big pharma has everyone's best interests at heart, except for a few details... the US is one of the only countries not bargaining for better pricing and the people are getting hugely ripped off, there are too many class action lawsuits regarding drugs that are pushed to market only to be named later as dangerous in one or more ways, big pharma pays out huge money in lobbying and to doctors for prescribing, etc...

That's not to say that individual lab personnel are not ethical and working hard toward better health for people through modern medicine... but at the corporate and market levels it's obviously about huge profit.

There's no doubt in my mind that some results are not publicized, or are purposely hidden under the rug in order to push products to market. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't take long to search out news articles and other information confirming it.

The entire cycle of our compromised food source through big ag, food manufacture, health insurance, big pharma, and medical industries are suspect, and all lead to one thing... gigantic profit for shareholders and the upper corporate tier. The profit is in the maintenance of health issues... not so much in curing the problems at their root cause. And so many are so obviously completely curable... but for that cycle.

It's not hard to see the pattern, and I don't want any part of it. I'd like to consume the things I want to consume, and treat my health as I see fit... and I don't think it normal or wise to throw a pill at every issue without exploring the cause, and more natural, organic ways of treating my health. After all, it IS my body.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 10:08AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Jodi speaking of "health", did not want to start an entire thread but wanted to let you know since "giving up bread (and like products ie: wheat) for Lent how much better I feel. I cannot believe the difference, more energy and a feeling of "lightness" (how non medical is that :)

Also gave up beef/pork and eating some fish/chicken but mostly vegetarian diet.

Profit before people ... tis the American way :)

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 10:18AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52 Zone 6

"Dietary supplements" - everything from St John's wort to Ginger extract etc. are not tested for efficacy or side effects. There are no standards for purity or contaminants. The Food and Drug Administration has no legal authority over anything when it comes to dietary supplements.

Thats not to say they don't work. There are indeed serious scientific studies - double-blind, thousands of test subjects, etc. with some of these supplements that clearly show that they're efficient in doing what they say - example conjugated linoleic acid - studies in weigh loss and diabetes have shown to be just as effective as prescription drugs.

But then other 'dietary supplements' can destroy your kidneys, see link

There is, on the one hand, 'concerned doctors' who would like to see dietary supplements better regulated - tested for efficacy and toxicity.

On the other hand, the suppliers of these supplements, which include some of the largest pharmaceutical companies, don't want that because they're raking in money hand over fist with little or no legal recourse against them.

And in this country, its going to take a lot more than a 'concerned physician' or two to regulate this.

Its buyer beware. In full disclosure, I take a few dietary supplements that I've researched and found to be effective. And there are a whole lot of them I wouldn't go near.

Here is a link that might be useful: oops! I just destroyed my kidneys

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 10:38AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Huge profit. Now that is something with which I'll agree. But we're still at payment processes. Both for the consumer and at the lobbyist levels. I fully agree with that! The actual testing and administration is highly regulated, and well it should be.

So here we are at FDA regulating herbs/alternative meds. I think they should be. David is more than correct, if that is possible, about herbal supplments. All of it. Especially the buyer beware portion. I'm glad for the NIH's information, I trust that. And I trust my purveyor, but will not buy outside of their organization. That's how wary I am! What about y'all? Do you take them?

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 11:37AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

As I'm sure you're aware through my postings, Ohiomom, we gave up processed grains, corn sugars, and a plethora of other adulterated, processed, or chemical laden foods quite some time ago... and since detoxifying, my Lupus and our general health have improved so much, and I can't tell you how much better we feel! I'm glad you feel better, too, as a result of dietary changes! :-)

It's remarkable, isn't it, what a simple change in diet can do for a person?

And to think... our Federal agencies operating to protect us and keep our food source safe allow such terribly unhealthy products and processes to remain legally acceptable... mind boggling, to say the least... although, we all know why. We all know to what end things remain as they are, or worsen...

Certainly, "buyer beware" should be the consumer mantra... but still. How is it possible that our agencies allow products to be marketed that either aren't very safe or are nothing more than snake oil dressed in pretty labels and outrageous claims? And on the flip side, why won't the FDA allow testing of, or approval of, certain herbal remedies or practices that do, indeed, carry health benefits, etcetera?

Some of what I see going on only has one purpose... and that would be to profit hugely, kowtowing to certain influences or interests... never mind the consumer.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 12:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52 Zone 6

....why won't the FDA allow testing of...

No, its the congress who won't all the FDA to test, because of - you guessed it - lavish campaign contributions from those who are profiting so handsomely selling unregulated supplements.

"Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released research demonstrating that the dietary supplement industry spent millions of dollars on well-connected lobbyists and made numerous campaign contributions to successfully thwart increased regulatory oversight of supplements. " snip

Here is a link that might be useful: link to yet another example of our system of legal corruption

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 12:34PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

It's ok, Rob. I'm not asking anyone to slog through it. I came across it from a friend and couldn't make heads or tails of it, didn't have the time and thought I'd pop over here in case someone had already done the legwork ;)

If Aspertame/HFCS/GMO is legal, so should EVERYTHING THAT GROWS NATURALLY.

just my opinion.

And I agree with everyone who says the "Natural" food business/supplement business can be/is just as corrupt/misleading as big Pharm.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 2:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

My bad, David... that Congress won't allow to be tested or accepted...

The corruption borders on the ridiculous, as does the glut for profit.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2013 at 2:25PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

I don't even take vitamins (though may have to reconsider that decision) and generally avoid OTC herbal supplements. I have tried a number of mineral supplements to good effect and am thankful for prior regimens of Chinese medicinals designed for me by a Chinese-trained practitioner and pharmacist.

Now if I could only say no to vanilla ice cream. :)

Like OMom, I always feel better when skipping wheat-rich foods.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 8:58AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Marshall I don't take anything except for the occasional aspirin, but I reserve the right to "ingest" what I please. I sure do not want some government agency telling me what to eat, drink etc.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 9:31AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Marshallz, we have come to the realization that age and other circumstances sometimes force us to ingest or use that which we would prefer not to, but have little choice if we want a quality of life.

It can mean having hormone levels checked and balanced, which can make a huge difference. Or it can mean we have to rely on certain medicines to live decently. For us, diet plays a large role.

We do use certain mineral supplements that our food source no longer contains... and we're very aware of lacking nutrition levels in various foods.

One a day vitamins are not something we would take, either... nor are the multitudes of commercially hawked products, each claiming some miracle or other. We like to know the details.

My husband has always been very interested in nutrition and medicine, and what makes the body work efficiently... mainly as part of animal husbandry, but also pertaining to humans. The commercial market is overloaded with snake oils, placebos, and ways to slow poisoning...

There's a lot to be said for many older remedies and methods... some of the best and most natural ideas are no longer practiced.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 9:55AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Rob, have you heard about this recent book by Ben Goldacre, "Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients." It was published in the U.S. a month and a half ago. In it:

Goldacre argues in the book that "the whole edifice of medicine is broken," because the evidence on which it is based is systematically distorted by the pharmaceutical industry.[2] He writes that the industry finances most of the clinical trials into its products, that it routinely withholds negative data, that trials are often conducted on small groups of unrepresentative subjects, that it funds much of doctors' continuing education, and that apparently independent academic papers may be planned and even ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies or their contractors, without disclosure.[3] Goldacre calls the situation a "murderous disaster," and makes a number of suggestions for action by patients' groups, physicians, academics and the industry itself.[4]

That kidney toxicity link isn't very convincing to me because with many products, they are citing one incident. This doesn't mean that I don"t believe the natural substances are not capable of causing the problems, but the sample size is too small to draw any firm conclusions.

Here is a link that might be useful: wikipedia

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 10:18AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

I haven't read it. Interesting. I can't say that is true in the area in which I am associated. The drugs under scrutiny are the life importance kind. They are meant to stop heart problems, not cause them. So it could be that the bias here is towards the other end, erroring on the side of caution. You gotta wonder about others though. I mean, all drugs cause side effects. And all drugs have the possibility of allergic reactions (right? Dont' they all say "if you experience any of the following symptoms or those listed in the SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS section, call your doctor immediately: difficulty breathing or swallowing, swelling of the face, throat, tongue, lips, eyes, hands, feet, ankles, or lower legs...), so why not say it was merely coincidence that it was an allergic reaction for the person who has an adverse reaction and who suffered worse than other study participants?

But, the premise of the argument is still hard to prove. Who is to say adverse reactions would not have happend anyhow? That the person actually ate something they were unaware of being allergic to it? Or a concomitant event that would've occured even if they hadnt' been taking a medication, e.g. stroke? It'd be hard to prove.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 10:33AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Rob, the spin you have just written is a good example of questionable review.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 10:59AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo


No, it was just all of my thoughts :) I'd still have to read it. Very interesting premise.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 11:00AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Rob, it will be good to hear your thoughts after you have read more. :)

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 11:39AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

Rob, I suspect you are conditioned to think that way by exposure of the spinning of others in your field of work. We all develop myopic spots from such processes of conditioning.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 11:40AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52 Zone 6

There's a lot of grey area here in the big pharma bid'ness.

I don't think its any secret that the primary aim is to make oodles of profit.

It also isn't a secret that many of the 'new, improved' drugs are tested against a placebo/control, not an existing drug, because if they were, it would show that there isn't much improvement with the 'new, improved' vs the now much cheaper generic.

But when it comes to some of the stronger heart medications, its basically if you don't do something, you're gonna die soon. And so the trade off is - yes, there are nasty side effects. Yes, taking this medication over the next 20 years will likely kill you. But you'll live longer than if you don't.

One of the fascinating cases out there is the Vioxx hiding the heart attacks, Cleveland Clinic / Dr. Eric Topol blowing the whistle, the industry / jealous colleague blowback against him shining a light on the whole 'drug company pays famous Dr lavish speaking fees' and now, finally, we have the same pain killers back on the market.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 11:56AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Nope marshall. I'm on the other end of it. I only live in the patient's world. Everything for their protection, damn the meds! My personal physicans in this same place, prescribe the cheapest possible with the least amount of side effects while still accomplishing what I'm after. They know I am poor and accommodate me.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:01PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

My son is a pharmacist... and I recently had a conversation with him that made me see how the industry has groomed his thought process on much the same things we're talking about, here...

He'll always be on the side of industry, because that's what he was taught. He doesn't even realize that he "spins" information when talking about his line of work versus the natural world... because he doesn't study both sides of the coin... only that which his industry tells him is gospel, so to speak.

He's a very intelligent guy, and an excellent pharmacist... but his views have been biased by his chosen industry.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 12:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sleeplessinftwayne(z4-5 IND)

Well, if you haven't decided that Snopes is involved in the conspiracy, you might read what they have to say about it. According to them the accusation is either false or misleading. I think I read about one paragraph before I decided it was mostly bunkum and by the time I finished I was ready to go eat a BLT, heavy on the bacon, easy on the lettuce.

You can solve your food fears by using common sense: everything in moderation. If you have been eating it your whole life it is probably not harmful. If it makes you feel lousy, don't eat it or drink it. If you crave it, you might need it but it is just as likely you simply have a taste for it.

The problem with 'natural' remedies is they are rarely the same strength from batch to batch and they are frequently adulterated.

The problem with even FDA approved medications is that not every person reacts to them the same way. That is why they come with a script and dosage requirements. Read it. Discuss your concerns with your Doctor. If someone says you are acting weird, you may be having a reaction. (My DH gets absolutely hysterical if he takes antihistamines. My late sister-in-law took many OTC drugs daily and wound up with cirrhosis of the liver. It killed her.) Tell your Doctor without a delay. Don't take supplements or Natural remedies in addition to a prescription. Remember, most of our modern medications were developed from plants, at least originally.Unless you have degrees in botany, chemistry and medicine you likely have no idea how things are mixed or how they react or how you will react.

I can't claim any expertise but i see a dozen different supplements on the shelves that I know are dangerous to take for one reason or another every time I go to buy one I have been told by a doctor that I actually need. And yet they sell and sell. A chemist I know says the only reason there are not more problems with them is that most are too weak and/or adulterated to have a full effect MOST OF THE TIME. My friend says don't take a chance, my doctor says don't take a chance, the books I have read over the years say don't take a chance. So I don't and I won't.

I figure my chances are better with a prescription that comes with a full warning. But I will question the need even for those drugs.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 3:11PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

When I read stuff like this on that link, I have a tendency to tune it out:

GMOs are genetically engineered so seeds would not germinate without pesticides like Roundup a Monsanto product.

· GMOs have raised cancers, allergies and a host of rare and uncommon diseases that doctors do not know to cure or diagnose.


    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 4:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52 Zone 6

From Consumer Reports:

We Americans do love our dietary supplements. More than half of the adult population have taken them to stay healthy, lose weight, gain an edge in sports or in the bedroom, and avoid using prescription drugs. In 2009, we spent $26.7 billion on them, according to the Nutrition Business Journal, a trade publication.

What consumers might not realize, though, is that supplement manufacturers routinely, and legally, sell their products without first having to demonstrate that they are safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration has not made full use of even the meager authority granted it by the industry-friendly 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).

As a result, the supplement marketplace is not as safe as it should be.

We have identified a dozen supplement ingredients that we think consumers should avoid because of health risks, including cardiovascular, liver, and kidney problems. We found products with those ingredients readily available in stores and online.
Because of inadequate quality control and inspection, supplements contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, or prescription drugs have been sold to unsuspecting consumers. And FDA rules covering manufacturing quality don't apply to the companies that supply herbs, vitamins, and other raw ingredients.
China, which has repeatedly been caught exporting contaminated products, is a major supplier of raw supplement ingredients. The FDA has yet to inspect a single factory there.

The lack of oversight leaves consumers like John Coolidge, 55, of Signal Mountain, Tenn., vulnerable. He started taking a supplement called Total Body Formula to improve his general health. But instead, he says, beginning in February 2008, he experienced one symptom after another: diarrhea, joint pain, hair loss, lung problems, and fingernails and toenails that fell off. "It just tore me up," he said.

Eventually, hundreds of other reports of adverse reactions to the product came to the attention of the FDA, which inspected the manufacturer's facilities and tested the contents of the products. Most of the samples contained more than 200 times the labeled amount of selenium and up to 17 times the recommended intake of chromium, according to the FDA.

In March 2008 the distributor voluntarily recalled the products involved. Coolidge is suing multiple companies for compensatory damages; they have denied the claims in court papers. His nails and hair have grown back, but he said he still suffers from serious breathing problems.

The dirty dozen

Working with experts from the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, an independent research group, we identified a group of ingredients (out of nearly 1,100 in the database) linked to serious adverse events by clinical research or case reports. To come up with our dozen finalists, we also considered factors such as whether the ingredients were effective for their purported uses and how readily available they were to consumers. We then shopped for them online and in stores near our Yonkers, N.Y., headquarters and easily found all of them for sale in June 2010.

The dozen are aconite, bitter orange, chaparral, colloidal silver, coltsfoot, comfrey, country mallow, germanium, greater celandine, kava, lobelia, and yohimbe. The FDA has warned about at least eight of them, some as long ago as 1993.

Why are they still for sale? Two national retailers we contacted about specific supplements said they carried them because the FDA has not banned them. The agency has "the authority to immediately remove them from the market, and we would follow the FDA recommendation," said a spokeswoman for the Vitamin Shoppe chain.

Most of the products we bought had warning labels, but not all did. A bottle of silver we purchased was labeled "perfectly safe," with an asterisked note that said the FDA had not evaluated the claim. In fact, the FDA issued a consumer advisory about silver (including colloidal silver) in 2009, with good reason: Sold for its supposed immune system "support," it can permanently turn skin bluish-gray.

Here is a link that might be useful: link

    Bookmark   March 29, 2013 at 5:56PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Now I recall the threads of the past...

And I still think the public has a lot to be worried about.

While a few bits and pieces written might not be true in the sense of the actual wording used, I still don't place any trust in our food or ag agencies, and I still believe our food source and other industry is terribly compromised for the purpose of profit.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2013 at 9:09AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sleeplessinftwayne(z4-5 IND)

The reason these products are still on the market is that they are not legally defined as drugs. The FDA has been trying to change that for years. Until Congress changes that definition, they will continue to be sold OTC.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2013 at 6:41PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Anyone remember this?
I just love this show. Just thought about it again...
N.H. fourth-graders’ hawk bill veers into abortion debate
From the Granite State. More proof that these Legislators...
Dinosaurs are bad!
This is hard to believe! Ummmm...anyone have an idea...
The Governor of Maine v. Stephen King
King - 1 LePage - 0 (IMO, the Governor is one of...
Now THIS is a “hot topic”
.Better than a Rita’s water ice on 1st day of spring. Sorry...
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™