Replies

The primary thrust of SB 722 is to place the so-called "Natural Supplements" under requirements similar to those met by other products marketed as drugs or medicine; namely that they be demonstrated as safe,

To demonstrate it you need to spend many millions of dollars. How will you include this cost in the price of naturally growing plant? Only by giving a licence/patent to sell to those who paid for the testing. Others growers/producers will be prohibited from selling and the price will be comparable to the commercial syntethic medication.

Besides most of remedies/medications have some side effects if incorrectly used, so the logical step will be allowing them on prescription only. It create another illegal market for illegal natural "prescription medications" as the reform will make them expensive and many will not be able to afford them. A boon for exploding prison industry.

that they be accurately labled, that they adhere to strict purity standards, and that any claim made for the product be substantiated.

You cannot "substantiate" all claims even on many of "scientific" (synthetic) medications/supplements.

The end result will be that after cutting off the last affordable alternative (assuming that generic/Canadia medications are also not available) many millions will become a lobby for socialized medicine. So the greedy CEO's/owners/lobbists will cut the branch on which they sit.

Poppycock and blather, A. Pole; every argument you pose is specious. The expense involved with proving the safety and efficacy of any product is a natural and just concomitant to the responsible marketing of said product; if the expense cannot be borne, the product fails, period. Do the regulations pertaining to milk hinder thousands of independent dairies? Of course not ... they comply, and submit to verification, inspection, and testing.

Some of, even key among, the problems with unregulated herbal supplements precisely are the issues of product content and purity, side effects and interactions. The public is placed at great risk by the paucity of information in such regard. To lobby for the continuance of such a state of affairs borders on criminal disregard of minimal acceptable good practice.

Your assertion " ... You cannot "substantiate" all claims even on many of "scientific" (synthetic) medications/supplements." is totally preposterous; an FDA-approved substance by definition must demonstrate it is what it says it is and does what it claims to do. If that requirement is good enough for aspirin, maple syrup, or toothpaste, its good enough for herbal supplements. If something doesn't qualify, it shouldn't get to play. Its not a matter of greed or cronyism or anything of the sort; it merely is responsible. The chief objection of those opposed to regulating herbal supplements specifically is rooted in the unwillingness to be held responsible.

Again, many producers of herbal supplements are diligent and responsible; they will suffer no significant ill effect from SB 722. It is the others, the snake oil purveyors, that will be sorely inconvenienced. Inconvenience does not absolve one from responsibility; it is a legitimate cost of doing business. This is as it should be.