Europe Choking Supplement Industry?

[PeakT]

I'd love to get someone's perspective that actually lives over there, but, according to this article, the EU is being very strict with supplement manufacturers claim:

"The NHCR has banned 100s of claims on products that consumes across Europe have been familiar and comfortable with for years.  Claims such 'dietary fibre helps maintain a healthy digestive system' and 'glucosamine helps maintain joints' are both well understood.  To ban these, and claims like them, not only prevents our industry from developing products based on well-dcomented science, but also causes confusion in the minds of our consumers.""

[bzarfas]

I'd love to get someone's perspective that actually lives over there, but, according to this article, the EU is being very strict with supplement manufacturers claim:

"The NHCR has banned 100s of claims on products that consumes across Europe have been familiar and comfortable with for years.  Claims such 'dietary fibre helps maintain a healthy digestive system' and 'glucosamine helps maintain joints' are both well understood.  To ban these, and claims like them, not only prevents our industry from developing products based on well-dcomented science, but also causes confusion in the minds of our consumers.""

It seems they are playing it safe,as they do with not fluoridating their water.
what supplements do you think they should permit that they don't?

[PeakT]

It seems they are playing it safe,as they do with not fluoridating their water.
what supplements do you think they should permit that they don't?

They're not banning supplements.  They're not allowing manufacturers to say things like "fibre helps with the digestive system".

[bzarfas]

It seems they are playing it safe,as they do with not fluoridating their water.
what supplements do you think they should permit that they don't?

They're not banning supplements.  They're not allowing manufacturers to say things like "fibre helps with the digestive system".

Interesting, I wonder why?

I want to say it's a hope to get people off the idea they just need to pop a pill, but maybe there's an ulterior motive, like with the FDA and cherrios?


I also wonder why cherrios is no longer allowed to say it helps lower cholestrol


WASHINGTON — Federal regulators are scolding the maker of Cheerios, saying it made inappropriate claims about the popular cereal's ability to lower cholesterol and treat heart disease.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30701291/ns/health-heart_health/t/fda-takes-issue-cheerios-health-claims/#.U3ffhShRNkE

The Food and Drug Administration says in a warning letter to General Mills that language on the Cheerios box suggests the cereal is designed to prevent or treat heart disease. Regulators say that only FDA-approved drugs are allowed to make such claims.

Among other claims, the labeling states: "you can lower your cholesterol 4 percent in six weeks."

General Mills said the health claims on Cheerios have been approved for 12 years and the FDA's complaints deal with how the language appears on the box. The company said in a statement that the science was not in question.

[Inigo]

Perhaps it's a bit like the difference between American and British  libel/slander laws?

Every slandered America wants to sue in British courts, if at all possible, as the slanderer has much more prove in order to win the case. Hence the 'victim' finds winning much easier.  A greater belief in free speech in the US?

(And We do fluoridate our water.)

[PeakT]

A greater belief in free speech in the US?

Could be.  I know it's huge here.  In my case, I hate to see the supplement manufacturers squelched at the expense of the pharmaceutical industry.  I guess as long as it's a level playing field, it doesn't matter.

[bzarfas]

(And We do fluoridate our water.)

right, but why?
you benes from fluoridation?

http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/
11) Benefit is topical not systemic.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.


http://fluoridealert.org/content/who-data/
The following data from the World Health Organization provides the most recently reported tooth decay rates in 12-old-year children in developed nations. As can be seen, many countries with no water fluoridation at all have lower rates of tooth decay than countries that fluoridate more than 60% of their water.

[PeakT]

Phatphish had some int'g comments about putting supplement under FDA control:

https://www.peaktestosterone.com/forum/index.php?topic=4188.0