Its about CONTROL... Today's topic: "Vitamins".

While this topic was actually brought up in here before, I suspect the lack of attention to it was due to the bias of the OP, perhaps.... maybe I'm wrong, but anyway here's a revamped repost.

http://personalliberty.com/2011/11/11/the-government-wants-to-seize-your-vitamins/

Disclaimer: By no means, do I simply trust one source of information so I've actually read quite a few.... its your responsibility to research further, if you wish, and form your own conclusions. Furthermore, I also suspect that no matter what is posted in this place, it will fall into a Dem/Rep, Lib/Con fight because very few in here seem capable of thinking for themselves and outside of a faction... but that's just my opinion.

Without further delay, would anyone like to discuss the plausibility of said posted scenario? How/if it will affect YOU? Can such a thing be stopped given our current methods and systems?

Carry on.

Badger

Idiocy paranoid nonsense.

From the article...

Now, the FDA wants to act like the past 17 years never happened. The agency has drafted a proposal to regulate what it calls “new dietary ingredients.” If this proposal is implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you take will be pulled from the market. Nutrients like resveratrol, ubiquinol CoQ10, bacopa, strontium and more.

That’s not all. Under these guidelines, the FDA can define almost anything as a new dietary ingredient.

No where on the page or in the article do I see a link to these proposed new guidelines. It would be rather helpful if we could actually see the FDA material that this author has a problem with. Until then, this is unsubstantiated, one sided propaganda.

Yes, I would certainly give a lot of weight to someone (Chip Wood), whose main outlet for posting seems to be: "AntiObamaBlog.com" and "PersonalLiberty.com". But the threat of having my "vitamins" taken away would rank right up there with running out of ammunition and running out of survivalist freeze-dried food....

Edited to add:

Hey there, JMC!! Long time, no see! Good to see you back for a bit... :thumbsup:

Democracy4Sale wrote: Yes, I would certainly give a lot of weight to someone (Chip Wood), whose main outlet for posting seems to be: "AntiObamaBlog.com" and "PersonalLiberty.com". But the threat of having my "vitamins" taken away would rank right up there with running out of ammunition and running out of survivalist freeze-dried food....

Edited to add:

Hey there, JMC!! Long time, no see! Good to see you back for a bit... :thumbsup:

Hey LJ, just needed a break from the stupid posters on here. I feel much better.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: From the article...
No where on the page or in the article do I see a link to these proposed new guidelines. It would be rather helpful if we could actually see the FDA material that this author has a problem with. Until then, this is unsubstantiated, one sided propaganda.

I do agree and wanted to make a point by posting that particular link instead of other ones that sounded far more credible and less propaganda fueled.

But to entertain the "what if", of the topic. Would such a thing affect anyone here? Are we, as a society, regulating ourselves to death?

Surf the net for a while on nearly any subject and off to the sides you read how "this and that law suit could benefit you if you used so-and-so product". Seriously saw one for Sketchers, Shape Up shoes..... "If you were hurt, had ankle problems, etc., call the law offices of....." Seriously, doesn't this fall somewhere on the shoulders of the individual? If the damn things hurt, wouldn't you take them off? "My ankles hurt, but boy does my ass look great!".... placebo effect possibly.... but BTT.

Why is it some agency should dictate what is good, what is right for we consumers? Sure if a product is tested and found to be harmful, don't sell it. But the over-regulation just seems to be getting a little absurd these days in my opinion.

Badger

I should think because it's ILLEGAL to make health claims in commercials that are untrue, or based on junk-science. It shouldn't have to be up to the consumer to try to figure out what's true and what isn't, particularly when it comes to something you ingest, or something you use, expecting a health benefit...(i.e., shoes).

It's also illegal to sell food products, (meat, vegetables, diary, etc.) if you KNOW that it is contaminated...However, we have proof that some businesses did exactly that...Putting profits over people's health might fly with conservatives...but fortunately, most people know better.

In some cases, those businesses no longer exist. Good riddance.

BadgerKustoms wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: From the article...
No where on the page or in the article do I see a link to these proposed new guidelines. It would be rather helpful if we could actually see the FDA material that this author has a problem with. Until then, this is unsubstantiated, one sided propaganda.

I do agree and wanted to make a point by posting that particular link instead of other ones that sounded far more credible and less propaganda fueled.

But to entertain the "what if", of the topic. Would such a thing affect anyone here? Are we, as a society, regulating ourselves to death?

Surf the net for a while on nearly any subject and off to the sides you read how "this and that law suit could benefit you if you used so-and-so product". Seriously saw one for Sketchers, Shape Up shoes..... "If you were hurt, had ankle problems, etc., call the law offices of....." Seriously, doesn't this fall somewhere on the shoulders of the individual? If the damn things hurt, wouldn't you take them off? "My ankles hurt, but boy does my ass look great!".... placebo effect possibly.... but BTT.

Why is it some agency should dictate what is good, what is right for we consumers? Sure if a product is tested and found to be harmful, don't sell it. But the over-regulation just seems to be getting a little absurd these days in my opinion.

Badger

What if? That article does not deal with "what if" and it doesn't appear that you posted that article looking for a "what if." You posted it because you found merit in the article. Your topic "It's about control" also speaks to your topic. No where in your original post, title or the article itself is there a "what if" question asked.

You asked "Without further delay, would anyone like to discuss the plausibility of said posted scenario? How/if it will affect YOU? Can such a thing be stopped given our current methods and systems?"

Can what be stopped? You haven't shown me the guideline, how can I make a decision if something needs to be stopped. Your question above does not speak to "what if" your question assumes that the article is fact and you are asking what can we do about it. There is no way I can answer your one sided question.

The article and you post was presented as fact. Fact that you cannot back up at the current moment. So at this point there is NOTHING to discuss. I don't try to argue one-sided, unsubstantiated dribble. What if you actually had presented us with some facts?

Democracy4Sale wrote: It's also illegal to sell food products, (meat, vegetables, diary, etc.) if you KNOW that it is contaminated...

Definitely agree, but with that said, there was also a case not too long ago about a dairy farm, (if memory serves) that was shut down for selling un-pasturized milk to consumers. Having grown up in relatively rural areas, I have yet to experience any ill-effects from drinking un-pasturized milk. Would you agree to the possibility of over-regulation is such cases?

To TLGOPT:... Sorry I'm still laughing here and have to ask, "What"? Not really sure how you came up with your whole theorum there about how I posted something as "FACT". I found 'merit' in the possibility of the FDA regulating the vitamin market which would be a form of CONTROL. I asked, how plausible such an act by said .gov agency is, how or if it could affect you as a consumer/individual, and can such over-regulation from an entity be stopped... Again, I chose that particular article to prove a point which I haven't really gotten to yet, which is perceived reality. (And ironically you've proven it for me with your "theorum" a.k.a. perceived reality of the situation, and for that I thank you.)

The point of the perceived reality is that give some people a 'plausibility' and they'll turn it into something its not. Again, I don't find this Chip Wood fellow to be credible at all. Merely embellishing a scenario to suit his own political agenda. All of that has already been pointed out by others here, and it was simply a minor point as it were and rather unrelated to the direct intent anyway.


Badger

BadgerKustoms wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: It's also illegal to sell food products, (meat, vegetables, diary, etc.) if you KNOW that it is contaminated...

[snip]

To TLGOPT:... Sorry I'm still laughing here and have to ask, "What"? Not really sure how you came up with your whole theorum there about how I posted something as "FACT". I found 'merit' in the possibility of the FDA regulating the vitamin market which would be a form of CONTROL. I asked, how plausible such an act by said .gov agency is, how or if it could affect you as a consumer/individual, and can such over-regulation from an entity be stopped... Again, I chose that particular article to prove a point which I haven't really gotten to yet, which is perceived reality. (And ironically you've proven it for me with your "theorum" a.k.a. perceived reality of the situation, and for that I thank you.)

[snip]

Badger

Ok... I'll play along. I can't gauge if the FDA is being overly officious or developing guidelines that are unreasonable. That's why we have an FDA, because supposedly they are smarter than me (or the general public). And of course, there is always the possibility that they can act not in the best benefit of the public, but if that's the case, then someone else has to prove that to me before I have enough information to make an informed decision.

Anything that is regulated is control. From the speed limit to the punishment for murder, that's all control. There is not one single second of the day that you are not under the control of someone or some agency. So that's not an issue here either.

Can over regulation be stopped? Sometimes... sometimes not. And there is no magic formula. But I don't go through life looking at every government agency as the enemy, or finding non-existence conspiracies under every rock. I'm grown enough and intelligent enough to known when I'm being fed crap, and at that point I there is a number of avenues I can take. Is this foolproof? I don't think so, but the other alternative is to shack up, stock up and give up and then move to Burland and wait for the revolution.