Replies

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.

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.

You are very wrong. The herb is not a PRODUCT. It grows on its own and was not invented by the people.

If one corporation proves for example that mint tea helps for settle and sooth the stomach (this is a truth known for millenia), it will incures a substantial expense which will be a pure financial loss.

Why? There is no way to pass this cost to the customer since the competition will charge MUCH, MUCH less while benefiting from the demonstration. Growing mint is cheap and almost everyone can do it.

The only way is give the exclusive right to this corporation and CRIMINALIZE unlicenced use/sale.

Now what about all other foods - dairy, poultry, fish, beef, vegetables, fruits known for centuries - they all have some effects known to the general public. Do they have to be legalized, proven and licenced too? Can we breath without permission of government and without paying some corporation. Are we corporate/government property?