Talk:Regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Nutrient presence claims?

Doesn't the FDA regulate claims of nutrient presence (i.e., "low-fat") and the nutrition labels? I'm wanting someplace to link to an orphaned article, the Jelly bean rule. Allens (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it does, but I don't have the facts at my fingertips. bd2412 T 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to look it up after I get some other stuff done (I'm currently procrastinating on grading lab reports...) - of course, feel free to do so yourself if you get around to it before I do; I'll check the page before I work on looking things up. Allens (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging content forks

Over time, other articles have discussed the "Regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration". I just moved all the content from some of these articles to here, and replaced the content with the lede from this article and a link to this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

From Food and Drug Administration

Extended content

The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is the branch of the FDA that is responsible for ensuring the safety and accurate labeling of nearly all food products in the United States. One exception is meat products derived from traditional domesticated animals, such as cattle and chickens, which fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. Products that contain minimal amounts of meat are regulated by FDA, and the exact boundaries are listed in a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies. Medicines and other products given to all domesticated animals are regulated by the FDA through a different branch, the Center for Veterinary Medicine. Other consumables that are not regulated by the FDA include beverages containing more than 7% alcohol (regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Department of Justice), and non-bottled drinking water (regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)). CFSAN's activities include establishing and maintaining food standards, such as standards of identity (for example, what the requirements are for a product to be labeled, "yogurt") and standards of maximum acceptable contamination. CFSAN also sets the requirements for nutrition labeling of most foods. Both food standards and nutrition labeling requirements are part of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there are no approval requirements. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe. Manufacturers of dietary supplements are permitted to make specific claims of health benefits, referred to as "structure or function claims" on the labels of these products. They may not claim to treat, diagnose, cure, or prevent disease and must include a disclaimer on the label. Bottled water is regulated in America by the FDA. State governments also regulate bottled water. Tap water is regulated by state and local regulations, as well as the United States EPA. FDA regulations of bottled water generally follow the guidelines established by the EPA, and new EPA rules automatically apply to bottled water if the FDA does not release an explicit new rule. Federal bottled water regulations have been criticized as weaker than the tap water regulations facing city water supplies.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

From Dietary supplement

Extended content

In the name of deregulation, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 restricted the Food and Drug Administration from exerting authority over supplements as long as manufacturers made no claims about preventing or treating disease. As a result, the FDA currently regulates dietary supplements as a category of food, and not pharmaceutical drugs. In contrast with pharmaceutical manufacturers — who must demonstrate their products are effective as well as safe — supplement manufacturers are not required to demonstrate efficacy. Supplement manufacturers must, however, indicate a product is safe prior to introduction. The product cannot be marketed for 75 days following filing of this information with the FDA. Listing the information, however, does not mean the FDA regards the product as necessarily safe. In practice, the FDA has said it has lacked funds to determine whether a given supplement should be considered "hazardous" and, thus, removed from the market. In one situation where this standard was reached (Ephedra), the agency faced significant opposition from the supplement industry and the U.S. Congress, and thus limited itself to making announcements about Ephedra's problematic safety records on the FDA website. In 2007 the FDA implemented a "good manufacturing practices" policy to ensure dietary supplements "are produced in a quality manner, do not contain contaminants or impurities, and are accurately labeled." Also in that year, the FDA implemented a rule requiring that supplement manufacturers submit reports of serious adverse events involving their products. Because of the 1994 legislation, the FDA must demonstrate that individual supplements are unsafe using its adverse events reporting system, which may capture only 1 to 10 percent of all adverse events linked to supplements. In 2012 the director of the FDA’s Dietary Supplements Program, called the level of non-compliance with regulations on dietary supplements “astonishing." Based on audits completed by the FDA’s compliance division in 2011 and 2012, the official, Dan Fabricant, said it was estimated that nearly 70% of dietary supplement manufacturers are currently not compliant with rules governing "good manufacturing practices." Fabricant also indicated that FDA had concerns regarding under-reporting of adverse events. A 2001 study, published in Archives of Internal Medicine, found broad public support for greater regulation of dietary supplements. According to Consumer Reports, the 1994 law "has left consumers without the protections surrounding the manufacture and marketing of over-the-counter or prescription medications" and it became the FDA's responsibility to prove that a supplement is not safe. Similarly, Time described the 1994 legislation as "ill-conceived and reprehensible", that "gives the industry virtually free reign [sic] to market products defined as dietary supplements, while severely limiting the FDA's ability to regulate them". FDA rules require that supplements meet specifications for "purity, strength, and composition and has been manufactured, packaged, labeled, and held under conditions to prevent adulteration." FDA inspectors can look at a company's records upon request. However, enforcement is difficult given the number of supplement manufacturers and the 16% decline in FDA investigators from 2003 to 2006. Suppliers provide certificates of analysis stating that they have tested the material. In the U.S., contamination and false labeling are "not uncommon". The United States Pharmacopeia offers a "seal" that may indicate that the product has been tested for integrity and safe manufacturing, and it is the only certification program that conducts random off-the-shelf testing. In 2008 ConsumerLab.com criticized the USP for proposing a 10 microgram per daily serving limit on lead in dietary supplements and drugs. It noted that under the FDA's 2006 guidance on lead in candy, only 0.2 micrograms of lead per serving are allowed. Consumerlab randomly tests some dietary supplements and makes the results available to subscribers. It has reported that 25% of the supplements it tests have problems, and half of the multivitamins category had similar problems. NSF International, HFL Sport Science, and the Natural Products Association also have dietary supplement certification programs. The FDA says that if a product sold in the U.S. as a dietary supplement is promoted or claimed as a treatment, prevention or cure for disease, it is considered an unapproved — and thus illegal — drug. In addition, all supplements must, in the U.S., include on the label a statement that all claims by the seller "have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration," and that the product "is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." Supplement makers are permitted, however, to claim their product supports the structure or function of the body (e.g., "glucosamine helps support healthy joints" or "the hormone melatonin helps establish normal sleep patterns"). The FDA must be notified of these claims, which must be substantiated according to FDA rules. In reality, however, inaccurate claims are very common. For example, the compound hydrazine sulfate is promoted as a treatment for cancer, despite no significant evidence that it is either safe or effective. In the U.S., a supplement may include vitamins, minerals herbs, amino acids, or any substance historically used as a diet supplement. Products must also be for ingestion as a pill, capsule, tablet, powder or liquid and not represented for use as a conventional food or as the sole item of a meal or diet. Finally, the products must be labeled as a "dietary supplement". FDA reports 50,000 health problems due to supplements each year. It does not have the resources to oversee the market. According to FDA, 70% of the companies do not follow basic quality standards.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced editorializing about supplements

There's a bunch of unsourced (and probably unsourceable) claims in the Dietary Supplements section that should be fixed or removed. Consider this bit:

> In many cases, the risks involved in taking dietary supplements outweigh the possible advantages. Several dietary supplements do contain health-boosting ingredients, such as Omega-3 fatty acid, which can reduce bad cholesterol in the blood stream. Nevertheless, these contents essential for health can be obtained from consumption of regular, wholesome foods. While specific categories of people may be able to glean insignificant health benefits from the consumption of dietary supplements, these products should be used with caution, and never as a sole strategy for weight loss.

Regarding the risks involved in taking dietary supplements outweigh the possible advantages - who is making that determination? The FDA? The end consumer? Some omniscient God's-eye perspective? Adding an "In many cases" qualifier might make the statement trivially true but also renders it useless, as most people would WANT to take supplements in the OTHER cases where it's NOT true.

Then consider the last sentence: While specific categories of people may be able to glean insignificant health benefits from the consumption of dietary supplements, these products should be used with caution, and never as a sole strategy for weight loss.

Again: who is claiming the benefits are insignificant, who is saying it's wrong (unwise? illegal? immoral?) to use supplements "as a sole strategy" to solve some problem and based on what citations do we determine this information verifiable? In fact, why is this text or anything like it even here - what makes it relevant to THIS article? Blogjack (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)