Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 433 posts

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#321

Post by [deleted] »

Veserv wrote: post #311
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a side note, this letter is exactly why I think a regulatory agency like the FDA is absolutely necessary. This isn't what anybody objects to about the FDA. "You have to list what's in the product" is a simple rule that every knows, is easy to comply with, and doesn't require any government interaction even in the case of a suspected violation because the FDA can just buy the product to test it and compare the la…

The problem is that the risk-benefit tradeoff is not accurately labeled and presented. Advertising laws in the US mean manufacturers can and should do everything in their power to obscure and mislead about the tradeoff. A person purchasing a unverified product should have tremendous misgivings. They should only purchase it in spite of tremendous misgivings . Anything less is not informed consent; it is deception masq…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#322

Post by diob »

ben_w wrote: post #300
RobotToaster wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone has to decide what substances safe and prevent them from sold. Why? If someone buys deadly nightshade, and gets deadly nightshade, why should the government care?

My mum was a big believer in homeopathy and Bach flower remedies. The homeopathic sodium chloride and silicon dioxide sugar tablets probably didn't hurt me, but given how dumb Bach flower remedies are it's entirely possible she randomly and unwittingly dosed me with a small quantity of ground up something in the Solanaceae family. Governments care because well meaning hippy parents who don't know any better feeding s…

Yeah, these folks are basically naive libertarians (I know, repetitious). There's a middle ground, yet they go slippery slope and think the government is going to take their freedoms.

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#323

Post by partiallypro »

jdksmdbtbdnmsm wrote: post #170
partiallypro wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't correct, most personal injury lawyers don't charge you directly. They take a percentage of the settlement or victory. There's way more money to be made with the "no fee" model than charging hourly in these instances.

Time and availability are expensive commodities. Who's paying for that?

I literally just said that they make their money on fees from the outcome of the cases. That is how basically every personal injury case works. If they don't think the case will win, they don't take it. Personal injury/tort lawyers do not charge clients in the same way as other types of law. They especially don't do that because a) they'd make less money and b) they are often times dealing with people that couldn't afford hourly rates up front especially as a case becomes more complicated.

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#324

Post by riversflow »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #308
Retric wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're assuming that people would disregard the labels. People do disregard labels including those with allergies. > If the label was only on products with a significant risk of causing cancer from ordinary use, it would be rare and people wouldn't ignore it. In other words, if it was only on the products that would otherwise be banned. Ahh, but the risks are high enough that companies will still put that label on…

> People do disregard labels including those with allergies. Exception that proves the rule. The purpose of the law is to protect people who act within reason. If you have an allergy and don't read the label, that's on you, not the company or the government. > Ahh, but the risks are such companies will still put that label on everything unless companies where required to only put such a label on products with signifi…

> The purpose of the law is to protect people who act within reason.

This is just flat out wrong, and pretty gross.

The purpose of the law is to protect people. Not white people, not land-owning people, not smart people, not literate people, not able-bodied people, not "reasonable" people. People. Full stop.

Assuming people are reasonable is a recipe for disaster, and ablest. Perhaps one day someone you know will get dementia, or have a stroke, or get macular degeneration, or any of the number of ailments that can relieve you of your ability to read and comprehend long texts, lists, and warnings, then maybe you will understand how ridiculous this view is.

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#325

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rchaud wrote: post #318
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a side note, this letter is exactly why I think a regulatory agency like the FDA is absolutely necessary. This isn't what anybody objects to about the FDA. "You have to list what's in the product" is a simple rule that every knows, is easy to comply with, and doesn't require any government interaction even in the case of a suspected violation because the FDA can just buy the product to test it and compare the la…

> accurately labeled product with a risk-benefit trade off, the customer knows what the product is and is exercising informed consent, and the government says they can't have it anyway. The FDA's regulatory purview is to limit the collateral damage (negative externalities) of even accurately labeled products. Informed consent from the customer is one side of the equation. Unfortunately they cannot consent to conditio…

> Unfortunately they cannot consent to conditions like "Don't burden the hospital system if you take the wrong dosage".

By this logic the FDA would have to ban Tylenol and Robitussin. Tens of thousands of ER visits every year.

The government should generally be concerned with preventing deception and coercion and pricing externalities, because otherwise people have the incentive to do them and they would be prolific.

Things nature punishes directly don't need the state to deter them. They happen by accident rather than by motive and we choose purposely to spread the cost of this across the population as a form of insurance and a cost of living in a free society, sometimes even when the misfortune is a result of their own stupidity. Other times we send them a bill for costs.

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#326

Post by Tao3300 »

neaden wrote: post #259
ineedaj0b wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want to sound like a nut job, but please look into how much the FDA hampers drug trails. If you understand how tough it is in one case, think how many trails yearly never get done because of the FDA. The amount of benefit vs. the amount of deaths caused by the FDA being slow likely means many more are deaths at the hands of the FDA than you expect. Cracking down on supplements that people take voluntary hardl…

You're only taking them voluntarily if they are what they say they are, if as in this case they aren't you aren't meaningfully taking them voluntarily.

Buying shady penis pills on the Internet is a voluntary risk. Play stupid games, win stupid heart attacks and priapisms.

Though I do think Amazon should have a share of the blame. Buyer and seller are both wrong here.

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#327

Post by CapitalistCartr »

msla wrote: post #320
ben_w wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mum was a big believer in homeopathy and Bach flower remedies. The homeopathic sodium chloride and silicon dioxide sugar tablets probably didn't hurt me, but given how dumb Bach flower remedies are it's entirely possible she randomly and unwittingly dosed me with a small quantity of ground up something in the Solanaceae family. Governments care because well meaning hippy parents who don't know any better feeding s…

And this is something the "Freedom!"-yelpers don't mention: Yes, adults can be "Free!" to do crappy and dangerous things to themselves, but when it's parents poisoning children, you have to be pretty damned sociopathic to only consider how the rights of the parents are being infringed by regulation. I honestly think some people consider children to be property.

The Libertarian view is that children are property, in that the gov't. should not interfere in child-rearing.

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#328

Post by growse »

RobotToaster wrote: post #257
kayodelycaon wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having things unnecessarily banned is a trade off of enforcing regulations effectively. Someone has to decide what substances safe and prevent them from sold. The FDA could do better but you’ll never fix that problem unless you don’t allow the FDA to enforce regulations.

> Someone has to decide what substances safe and prevent them from sold. Why? If someone buys deadly nightshade, and gets deadly nightshade, why should the government care?

The government's got to pay for the road the ambulance drives you on when you stop breathing.

Re: Amazon receives FDA warning letter for supplements with undeclared ingredients

#329

Post by VBprogrammer »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #308
Retric wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're assuming that people would disregard the labels. People do disregard labels including those with allergies. > If the label was only on products with a significant risk of causing cancer from ordinary use, it would be rare and people wouldn't ignore it. In other words, if it was only on the products that would otherwise be banned. Ahh, but the risks are high enough that companies will still put that label on…

> People do disregard labels including those with allergies. Exception that proves the rule. The purpose of the law is to protect people who act within reason. If you have an allergy and don't read the label, that's on you, not the company or the government. > Ahh, but the risks are such companies will still put that label on everything unless companies where required to only put such a label on products with signifi…

You are being extremely naive I'm afraid. People with allergies have to disregard labels every day. Almost everything edible in the UK had these labels.

I just looked at the back of the chocolate wrapper I just ate and it "may contain nuts, eggs and peanuts." None of those things are ingredients and the warning is just there to prevent a law suit. My friend who has a severe allergy to eggs and nuts would eat it - otherwise he'd have a very bland diet indeed.

Post reply on HN