Supplements under investigation

slumped

Heard on the news this morning that some supplements are under investigation because they should be classified as medicines.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1019/health.html

S

Hanley

Just a heads up guys.

There's just after being an interview on RTE one. They had somone from the IMB, a doctor and some other muppet on it.

Apparently BSN NO-Explode is a medicine these days. As is Animal M-stak. both of which I've seen for sale in several places around the city.

From the tone of the voice of the IMB person, I think it would be wise to be careful. Looks like there's another major **** storm coming.

slumped

Hanley wrote: »

Just a heads up guys.

There's just after being an interview on RTE one. They had somone from the IMB, a doctor and some other muppet on it.

Apparently BSN NO-Explode is a medicine these days. As is Animal M-stak. both of which I've seen for sale in several places around the city.

From the tone of the voice of the IMB person, I think it would be wise to be careful. Looks like there's another major **** storm coming.

Or see this other thread on the subject

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055168034

Hanley

slumped wrote: »

Or see this other thread on the subject

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055168034

Great, you got there before me. Well done on that!!

g'em

Hanley wrote: »

Apparently BSN NO-Explode is a medicine these days. As is Animal M-stak. both of which I've seen for sale in several places around the city.

It's the Vit B12 content

Hanley wrote:

From the tone of the voice of the IMB person, I think it would be wise to be careful. Looks like there's another major **** storm coming.

There certainly is. Later this month there'll be voting on a new European directive to ban supplements and products that essentially contain over the RDA of all vitamins. Products like Multibionta will be illegal!! :rolleyes:

Recommended Daily Allowances though are only guidelines to prevent you becoming ill, not to maitnian general wellbeing. To put it into perspective, the RDA of Vit C is enough to prevent you getting scurvy, but not enough to support your immune system.

This is an issue that's been ongoing for a few years now, more about it here:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2003/2003_preprint_eu_01.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4670971.stm
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/vitamins2.php

I'm trying to find more up-to-date sources as the directive is due to get a ruling this month. I'll get back to it...

g'em

threads merged btw...

walt0r

****in bastids better not ban my universal animal stak or ill start breakin some heads up in this place

WHIP IT!

F*ck sake... So will things like No-Xplode and Maxi Muscle ProMax require a f*cking prescription now??

What kinda timescale are talking about if this legislation does come in?

g'em

Well that's where it gets a bit confusing.

On 16/10/2007 the IMB published the: IMB Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure of the Herbal Medicines Subcommittee i.e. they're gearing up for dealing with herbal medicines on a much bigger scale (possibly to reinforce EU directives?).

On 31/8/2007 the IMB released the following:

The national regulations required to implement the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive [2004/24/EC] are now in place. The Medicinal Products (Control of Placing on the Market) Regulations 2007 [SI No. 540 of 2007] came into force on the 23rd July 2007. Following on from this the IMB is pleased to announce that the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Registration Scheme is now available for applicants to apply for certificates of traditional-use for relevant herbal medicinal products.

after trawling through pages of EU dircetive beurocracy crap I *think* what's now happening is that products that were on the shelves on or before April 2004 will now have until April 2011 to alter teh products to meet with new regulations. What, exactly those new regulations actually stipulate I still don't know.

There's also a problem (from what I can see) in that exercise supplements are seen as food supplements in some cases and herbal supplements in others, so they can fall under both headings and are subject to both sets of restrictions.

But to answer your question... the IMB are cracking down on it NOW.

LegacyUser

And may I ask which ****ing doctor is going to give me a perscription of no-xplode!?!?!!? Absolutely nobody! So i may as well just buy 30 of them now and stash them in my bedroom.

tribulus

It's very frustrating, I'm continually amazed how some people can be so ignorant about these things, I know it's an EU Directive but someone in the first place had to complain about all these "medicines", probably without much of a clue as to what they really do.

Just last week I got my cholesterol checked and because my HDL was supposedly a bit low (it wasn't) the person suggested I do less exercise :eek:

The next i was speaking to a doctor who's in good nick himself and told him the numbers, he said she was talking rubbish basically! // end barely related rant.

Lets just all get some gear....

LegacyUser

This primarily because kids under 18 are buying these things...there not for them anyway.

pwd

I'd tend to believe the article saying it's primarily because they want to make money selling them as medicines tbh. If they wanted to stop kids from using them they could just put an age restriction on them.
Are they going to require a prescription then, or be sold OTC the way glucosamine is sold now in Denmark according to that article?

Dragan

Come on guys, the world is run by the pharmaceutical companies. Have you ever seen Pfizer Whey????

They don't want you fit and healthy, they want you sick and taking drugs, or at least taking drugs because you THINK your sick.

IMB restrictions are a gateway to D-bol!!!!

Boru.

The IMB derective that G'em sighted above directly affects me as Traditional Chinese Medical Practitioner. I frequently prescriber herbal medicines and formulas in my medical practice and am qualified to write prescriptions to that effect. Of course everyone in the Chinese Medical Community is wondering how this will effect our practice and our representative body will be contacting the IMB in regards to the matter.

The major problem is that they have little or no knowledge about the use of Traditional Herbs and base there statements on hearsay and conjecture. A great example of which was the banning of MaHuang - which was shown in later studies to have absolutely no relation to the heart attacks it was claimed to have cause.

With that said, if it all works out, I'll prescribe you No-Explode Cheesdude.

slumped

I think it's a good thing that some sort of regualtion is being implemented on these sorts of things.

The IMB obviously have their reasons, and as they are professionals and know what they are on about then we should accept it and move on.

S

g'em

slumped wrote: »

The IMB obviously have their reasons, and as they are professionals and know what they are on about then we should accept it and move on.

You realise that if this if passed you won't be able to take the high dosage Vit B complex supplements (you mentioned it in the Lipotrim thread) anymore? Multibionta, Centrum, or any other supps containing over 100% of the RDA will all be banned.

I'm all for regulation, but it's the misinformed banning of otherwise hugely beneficial supplements that gets on my nerves.

pwd wrote:

I'd tend to believe the article saying it's primarily because they want to make money selling them as medicines tbh.

Bingo.

ali.c

slumped wrote: »

I think it's a good thing that some sort of regualtion is being implemented on these sorts of things.

The IMB obviously have their reasons, and as they are professionals and know what they are on about then we should accept it and move on.

S

Oh the irony, you defended your right to self-prescribe lipotrim and now your defending the right of the IMB to restrict the self prescription of vitamins and other supplements?

Sorry but that is nothing if not ironic. Anyhow the RDA is the minimum amount of vitamins one needs not the maximum also the requirement for dietary supplements varys with different stages in life and activity levels.

I think personally it means more money for pharmacutical companies and the medical profession and less for us.

fatal

slumped wrote: »

I think it's a good thing that some sort of regualtion is being implemented on these sorts of things.

The IMB obviously have their reasons, and as they are professionals and know what they are on about then we should accept it and move on.

S

care to share some of those reasons with us?

yomchi

NO-Explode now half price in Pro-Nutrition

This has been coming for a while and to be honest the raid in Capel street didn't help the cause at all. That raid it seems was the first step in the new offensive by the IMB.

slumped

fatal wrote: »

care to share some of those reasons with us?

I dont work for the IMB

slumped

ali.c wrote: »

Oh the irony, you defended your right to self-prescribe lipotrim and now your defending the right of the IMB to restrict the self prescription of vitamins and other supplements?

Sorry but that is nothing if not ironic. Anyhow the RDA is the minimum amount of vitamins one needs not the maximum also the requirement for dietary supplements varys with different stages in life and activity levels.

I think personally it means more money for pharmacutical companies and the medical profession and less for us.

IMB looked at Lipotrim and did not find it to contain anything it shouldnt.

ali.c

slumped wrote: »

IMB looked at Lipotrim and did not find it to contain anything it shouldnt.

Yeah so according to the IMB a very low calorie diet is grand to be self-prescribed but vitamins arent? Really confidence inspiring.

slumped

g'em wrote: »

You realise that if this if passed you won't be able to take the high dosage Vit B complex supplements .

I can still take them. I can still order them from UK suppliers.

Same as anyoe else - let the IMB do what they want - does not mean there arent ways around it.

S

g'em

slumped wrote: »

I can still take them. I can still order them from UK suppliers.

Not if the passed EU directive is enforced, it's European-wide, hence the outcry. The IMB are just the Irish enforcers and they're doing it fast. And customs will get their mits on it if it comes from elsewhere.

Sure, there's ways around these things, but that's not the point. The ban shouldn't be there in the first place.

slumped

g'em wrote: »

Not if the passed EU directive is enforced, it's European-wide, hence the outcry.

Sorry, my bad.

g'em

slumped wrote: »

Sorry, my bad.

No worries But that's why there's such a kick-up about it, and there's oodles of petitions around about it (obviously when I say oodles I mean in health food shops and the like, not on the streets ).

And this has just been posted on Nutraingredients.com a website that covers news about supps and health products in Europe, so consumer pressure IS working...

nutraingredients.com wrote:

CHC blows whistle on Commission over max levels
By Alex McNally

19/10/2007- The European Commission will be reported to the ombudsman for showing "intransigence" and being unwilling to listen to demands to keep high amounts for vitamins and minerals when it comes to setting maximum levels.

This move is the latest attempt by the pressure group Consumers for Health Choice (CHC) to raise the importance of keeping high doses. The Commission is currently in the process of harmonizing levels across the bloc, under the Food Supplements Directive.

Member states at the moment vary dramatically on maximum and minimum levels in minerals and vitamins, which would come to an end once Europe-wide unification is imposed.

But many groups fear a heavy-handed approach could damage trade and consumer choice.

At an annual parliamentary reception in the UK on Wednesday, CHC chairman Mike Peet said the group had been given "encouraging" support but added: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and well-meaning platitudes."

Peet said: "The threat from Europe to the continued availability of hundreds of safe and popular higher potency supplements remains as great, if not greater, than it has ever been."

The reception was in the House of Commons to an audience of MPs, Peers, manufacturers, retailers, regulators and consumers.

Peet blasted the Commission, and said that officials "have demonstrated intransigence of thinking and an unwillingness to listen," and said the group will now report the Commission to the ombudsman.

He added: "The situation that has emerged in relation to the Food Supplements Directive is indicative of all the worst aspects of the European Union - an indifferent, aloof and unresponsive institution, unaccountable to and unheeding of the freedoms of individual citizens, determined to foist a one-size-fits-all approach on diverse national traditions."

In the past few months the pressure group has upped the ante, with tactics including an open letter to commission president José Manuel Barroso in an advert in the European Voice newspaper. In the letter Peet accused the Commission of being "aloof, distant and unresponsive" if it takes an overly restrictive approach.

The group is showing no signs of giving up and said it will launch a series of advertisements, in many different languages, in specialist consumer and practitioner magazines around Europe.

This would not be the first time CHC have threatened to report the commission to the ombudsman. A previous attempt in August failed as the group had not tried to resolve the difference with the commission.

An ombudsman spokesperson told NutraIngredients.com this attempt was dismissed as "inadmissible."

The ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints about maladministration in the institutions and bodies of the European Union.

Maladministration occurs if an institution fails to act in accordance with the law, fails to respect the principles of good administration, or violates human rights.

This can include administrative irregularities, abuse of power, failure to reply or unnecessary delay.

Edit: and ironically enough there's an article on the front page discussing how Vit E supplements have been linked to reduced cardiac failure in diabetics...

Roper

I heard that creatine is a gateway drug to heroine....

Hanley

Roper wrote: »

I heard that creatine is a gateway drug to heroine....

Man that's nothing. Heroin's a gateway to NO-Explode.

JM MARCONI

I was just at The Square earlier and Holland & Barrett have a poster in the window and a petition you can sign regarding this matter.

dudara

JM MARCONI wrote: »

I was just at The Square earlier and Holland & Barrett have a poster in the window and a petition you can sign regarding this matter.

I actually wrote on the petition how I thought it was reprehensible of H&B to essentially sh*tstir about this. I have no particular view one way or the other on the topic, but H&B were asking people to sign without providing any literature/studies to (a) show that the EU regulations were about and (b) provide a counter argument as to why you should sign their petition (other than the argument that the EU is BAD!)

JM MARCONI

dudara wrote: »

I actually wrote on the petition how I thought it was reprehensible of H&B to essentially sh*tstir about this. I have no particular view one way or the other on the topic, but H&B were asking people to sign without providing any literature/studies to (a) show that the EU regulations were about and (b) provide a counter argument as to why you should sign their petition (other than the argument that the EU is BAD!)

The lady in the shop was handing out leaflets with some facts on it. I left it in my girlfriends car. Il post some of the points later.

nesf

Dragan wrote: »

Come on guys, the world is run by the pharmaceutical companies. Have you ever seen Pfizer Whey????

If they could patent it, you would.

Mickk

Somebody called Admin on irish-lifting posted up the flyier
http://www.irish-lifting.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=30#30

hardtrainer

Firstly, RDA levels are defined as "the average daily dietary intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (approximately 98 percent) healthy individuals".

They are not minimum levels, nor are they maximum. The problem with RDAs is that they're very subjective and vary according to which body has set them. The point of the directive is to harmonise these across the EU.

The IMB is taking issue with the fact that many of the supplements openly sold contain substances which are classed as medicines. This point is not about making more money by allowing pharmaceutical companies to sell more vitamins, they have a genuine concern about dosing problems. (Who remembers when you could buy fatburners containing ephedra OTC??)

Again, what this comes down to is the misconception among the public that there is a distinction between medicines (drugs) and naturally occuring herbal remedies. What people don't realise is that many drugs are just purified forms of naturally occuring compounds from plants. The fact that they are naturally occuring doesn't mean that they don't have the potential to do harm. The IMB and the EU directive want to control these substances, not for the purposes of making money, but because there is currently no regulation in this area. Whereas a synthesized drug has a very tightly controlled production system that regulates the exact amount of an active ingredient present in the final pill, 'natural' herbal pills can vary greatly not just in the concentration of the active ingredient, but also the number and concentration of other naturally occuring, but biologically active compounds, which are found in any particular plant.

From a scienitific perspective, I can attest that many plants contain compounds which can profoundly alter body and (more worryingly) brain chemistry. Taking unregulated amounts of these compounds, in the form of some herbal extract, which lacks the stringent production and QC criteria that medicines are subject to, can be quite dangerous.

Where is the money going to come from to go through the testing of all of these products? Well, simply put, there is no money for that, so the easy solution for them is to ban the substances, or at least classify them as prescription only. This has happened many times already, St Johnswort for example. You can still buy that in Germany, but not in Ireland. Ironically, in Ireland you can freely buy codeine (in the form of Solpadeine) OTC from any pharmacy. Apart from the UK, no other country allows this to be sold without prescription. Addiction to solpadeine is a very real problem both here and in the UK.

I think the most irritating thing about the EU directive, is that it is not open to debate, so we, the consumer, are getting no choice in whether we can continue to buy high dose vitamins and minerals and many, arguably useless (or at least harmless) herbal supplements.

The other thing is that there is little convincing evidence to suggest that high dose vitamin supplementation is of any use. There have been a number of papers published this year which suggest the opposite in fact, that high dose vits are potentially damaging to our health. The few studies that have been done with enough power to make inferences (i.e. great enough numbers of participants, double blind and in a clinical setting) have all used chronically ill patients for the really high doses (e.g. studies of high dose Vit E supplementation and cardiac disease/cancer) and even then, they found that the supplementation had no significant effect. Of course it's hard to really take much from these studies as chronically ill patients are not the best model for healthy adults. It's difficult to get ethical approval for a study involving high doses of vit/mineral supplements in healthy people. Sure, LD50 tests have been done to determine the lethal dose of all of these (in animals at least) but such results do not always translate well to other species (think of Thalidomide).

Even the whole Vitamin C debate is still that, a debate, there is some evidence to suggest it helps the immune system, but equally there is evidence to suggest that it is not effective. What people often neglect to think of though, is the potential interactions between whatever 'herbal', 'natural' or merely vitamin supplements they are taking and more traditional drugs and medicines, including antidepressants, contraceptive pill, NSAIDs, antivirals, antibiotics and more. If you take a herbal supplement in particular, you may be risking some unidentified compound in that herb, which you are not necessarily intent on obtaining, interacting in some adverse way with another compound in your body. I don't mean to sound so sensationalist about that kind of thing, but there are very real risks associated with self medication. It is this that the IMB are concerned with and the issue over dosing in particular that the EU directive is hoping to address.

So, with respect to the ban, the directive hasn't stated whose RDA levels will become the new EU wide standard. It would be nice to have some consultation but then when do the faceless men in Brussels (or in fact in the IMB) ever consult with those who will be affected by their decisions. I also think it would make more sense for them to push for legislation of upper limits (UL) levels for vitamins and minerals. I think that would have more value and would be less cause for concern. However, again this comes down to a matter of research and testing and there are ethical issues involved.

At this stage we can't do very much about it, I'm afraid to say. I think it is important to stress though, that there is little real scientific evidence to support much if any benefit to high doses of any vitamins. If you feel you are benefitting from them, so be it, but you'll be hard pressed to find any doctor/scientist who will categorically tell you that there is benefit to be had from 1000% RDA dosing of vitamins (as is often the case). Thats not to say that it's harmful either.


I realise that this post leaves me sitting firmly on the fence and my ass is sore enough from deadlifts. I just felt it was important to take a balanced look at the issues here, rather than just shout and scream like a child who's had his ice cream taken away.

Hanley

The major major MAJOR issue I have with this is that the EU is proposing a blanket ban on something which has no direct link to any type of deaths.

But alcohol and tabacco remain on sale. Funny the power of a lobby group eh?

AlphaMale 3OO

Hanley wrote: »

The major major MAJOR issue I have with this is that the EU is proposing a blanket ban on something which has no direct link to any type of deaths.

But alcohol and tabacco remain on sale. Funny the power of a lobby group eh?

its depressing isnt it. nail on the head.

manmusic

Hanley wrote: »

The major major MAJOR issue I have with this is that the EU is proposing a blanket ban on something which has no direct link to any type of deaths.

But alcohol and tabacco remain on sale. Funny the power of a lobby group eh?

Exactly. To be completely honest if all my supplements were taken away tomorrow I wouldn't really care that much - it's more that they're being taken away in a stupid & hypocritical way that bothers me.

Hanley

To be honest I don't even know how to articulate my thoughts on this.

All I can describe it as is a complete and utter gut wrenching feeling of helplessness. People cannot be saved from their own supidity unfortunately, but for them to let their own narrowmindedness impact on another is unforgivable in my opinion.

I could easily go on a rant about how we're ceasing to become an independant state and moreso a region of Europe, but that's an argument for another day. This new directive symbolises everything that is bad about European harmony. I'll be the first to acknowledge it has been good to us, but the price we're only beginning to pay now concerns me greatly.

And you know what REALLY bugs me? Second hand smoke is a proven carcinogen. We can buy something which allows the user to inflict the threat of death on an innocent bystander, but too much Vit B12 in a supplement? We better make a law against that.

parasite

It's worth listening to the Morning Ireland report just for the hilarity of the rugger-buggers with their voices masked ...
http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/

nesf

hardtrainer wrote: »

Firstly, RDA levels are defined as "the average daily dietary intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (approximately 98 percent) healthy individuals".

They are not minimum levels, nor are they maximum. The problem with RDAs is that they're very subjective and vary according to which body has set them. The point of the directive is to harmonise these across the EU.

The IMB is taking issue with the fact that many of the supplements openly sold contain substances which are classed as medicines. This point is not about making more money by allowing pharmaceutical companies to sell more vitamins, they have a genuine concern about dosing problems. (Who remembers when you could buy fatburners containing ephedra OTC??)

Again, what this comes down to is the misconception among the public that there is a distinction between medicines (drugs) and naturally occuring herbal remedies. What people don't realise is that many drugs are just purified forms of naturally occuring compounds from plants. The fact that they are naturally occuring doesn't mean that they don't have the potential to do harm. The IMB and the EU directive want to control these substances, not for the purposes of making money, but because there is currently no regulation in this area. Whereas a synthesized drug has a very tightly controlled production system that regulates the exact amount of an active ingredient present in the final pill, 'natural' herbal pills can vary greatly not just in the concentration of the active ingredient, but also the number and concentration of other naturally occuring, but biologically active compounds, which are found in any particular plant.

From a scienitific perspective, I can attest that many plants contain compounds which can profoundly alter body and (more worryingly) brain chemistry. Taking unregulated amounts of these compounds, in the form of some herbal extract, which lacks the stringent production and QC criteria that medicines are subject to, can be quite dangerous.

Where is the money going to come from to go through the testing of all of these products? Well, simply put, there is no money for that, so the easy solution for them is to ban the substances, or at least classify them as prescription only. This has happened many times already, St Johnswort for example. You can still buy that in Germany, but not in Ireland. Ironically, in Ireland you can freely buy codeine (in the form of Solpadeine) OTC from any pharmacy. Apart from the UK, no other country allows this to be sold without prescription. Addiction to solpadeine is a very real problem both here and in the UK.

I think the most irritating thing about the EU directive, is that it is not open to debate, so we, the consumer, are getting no choice in whether we can continue to buy high dose vitamins and minerals and many, arguably useless (or at least harmless) herbal supplements.

The other thing is that there is little convincing evidence to suggest that high dose vitamin supplementation is of any use. There have been a number of papers published this year which suggest the opposite in fact, that high dose vits are potentially damaging to our health. The few studies that have been done with enough power to make inferences (i.e. great enough numbers of participants, double blind and in a clinical setting) have all used chronically ill patients for the really high doses (e.g. studies of high dose Vit E supplementation and cardiac disease/cancer) and even then, they found that the supplementation had no significant effect. Of course it's hard to really take much from these studies as chronically ill patients are not the best model for healthy adults. It's difficult to get ethical approval for a study involving high doses of vit/mineral supplements in healthy people. Sure, LD50 tests have been done to determine the lethal dose of all of these (in animals at least) but such results do not always translate well to other species (think of Thalidomide).

Even the whole Vitamin C debate is still that, a debate, there is some evidence to suggest it helps the immune system, but equally there is evidence to suggest that it is not effective. What people often neglect to think of though, is the potential interactions between whatever 'herbal', 'natural' or merely vitamin supplements they are taking and more traditional drugs and medicines, including antidepressants, contraceptive pill, NSAIDs, antivirals, antibiotics and more. If you take a herbal supplement in particular, you may be risking some unidentified compound in that herb, which you are not necessarily intent on obtaining, interacting in some adverse way with another compound in your body. I don't mean to sound so sensationalist about that kind of thing, but there are very real risks associated with self medication. It is this that the IMB are concerned with and the issue over dosing in particular that the EU directive is hoping to address.

So, with respect to the ban, the directive hasn't stated whose RDA levels will become the new EU wide standard. It would be nice to have some consultation but then when do the faceless men in Brussels (or in fact in the IMB) ever consult with those who will be affected by their decisions. I also think it would make more sense for them to push for legislation of upper limits (UL) levels for vitamins and minerals. I think that would have more value and would be less cause for concern. However, again this comes down to a matter of research and testing and there are ethical issues involved.

At this stage we can't do very much about it, I'm afraid to say. I think it is important to stress though, that there is little real scientific evidence to support much if any benefit to high doses of any vitamins. If you feel you are benefitting from them, so be it, but you'll be hard pressed to find any doctor/scientist who will categorically tell you that there is benefit to be had from 1000% RDA dosing of vitamins (as is often the case). Thats not to say that it's harmful either.


I realise that this post leaves me sitting firmly on the fence and my ass is sore enough from deadlifts. I just felt it was important to take a balanced look at the issues here, rather than just shout and scream like a child who's had his ice cream taken away.

Good post.

g'em

Hanley wrote: »

The major major MAJOR issue I have with this is that the EU is proposing a blanket ban on something which has no direct link to any type of deaths.

But alcohol and tabacco remain on sale. Funny the power of a lobby group eh?

Precisely. Heck, why not ban the sale of bags of oranges lest we OD on Vit C?

As much as I'd love to believe that the Directive has the interest of the consumer's health at heart, it just doesn't ring true when the sentiment behind clamp-down is juxtaposed with the government's policy towards cigarettes and alcohol. It's down to €.

There may be little evidence of the benefits of how doses of vitamins, but there are plenty of folk who downright need to take vitamins to supplement their diet, through allergies, disorders and diseases. Instead of going to their local health food shop and spending €7.99 on a month's supply of their required dose, will they now have to pay €60+ for a GP and the prescription costs on top of that?

You make some extremely valid points hardtrainer, but to me the ban still doen't make sense.

Mickk

My new label No-Xplode will be out soon, the servings will be doubled, serving sizes will be halfed and it will be perfectly legal. If you as a consumer decide to go MAD, step on the dark side and take double servings you deserve everything you get...

hardtrainer

Actually, there are very few in Ireland with serious vitamin deficiency that a balanced diet alone cannot rectify. It is debateable whether there are people anywhere in the world, where very high dose (10 fold RDAs) oral vitamin supplementation is clinically required.

This is not an issue of €€€s. It's not a case of people having to go to the doctor to get prescriptions for high dose vitamins. They're not going to prescribe them anyway. Thats the point. They don't want very high dosing going on. The reason the high B12 content was highlighted by the IMB in supplements is because B12 of that kind of dose is very much seen as a medical treatment and is usually injected, by a medic, to treat pernicious anaemia. High dose oral B12 is not effective because those with pernicious anaemia cannot absorb B12 from their gut effectively.

Tigger

Hanley wrote: »

snip


But alcohol and tabacco remain on sale. Funny the power of a lobby group eh?

especiallt tobacco

wtf is going on

anyone can see that tobacco is bad for you

just put an age limit on the vits and supps and go away

surley the fitness industry is worth a lobby group

eroo

does anyone what brands have been dubbed 'medicines'??

yomchi

eroo wrote: »

does anyone what brands have been dubbed 'medicines'??

Anything really with vitamins over the RDA guidlines, or with ingredients deemed medicines by the proper authorities.

Running Bing

OK hate to be the voice of reason here but do the majority of people who take things like NO Explode and the like really know what they contain and what they do to the body?


No I know absolutely nothing about these products so I cannot comment on wheter they are good or bad but isnt their a possibility that they could be detrimental to some people who take them?


Basically what I am saying is companies produce NO explode and the only idea 99% of people have about the product is what is written on the container which is supllied by the company. Im not advocating banning things like mad but maybe a little more transparency/info/research would be a good thing?

fatal

Babybing wrote: »

OK hate to be the voice of reason here but do the majority of people who take things like NO Explode and the like really know what they contain and what they do to the body?


No I know absolutely nothing about these products so I cannot comment on wheter they are good or bad but isnt their a possibility that they could be detrimental to some people who take them?


Basically what I am saying is companies produce NO explode and the only idea 99% of people have about the product is what is written on the container which is supllied by the company. Im not advocating banning things like mad but maybe a little more transparency/info/research would be a good thing?

Thats why I think that products like NO explode should be made available to over 18 year olds or something of that kind,not banned.I think that for the most part grown-ups do ask around and find out what products such as NO explode contain before using them-especially since the common misconception among the average joe's in ireland is that all supplements are illegal anabolic steroids.

Tigger

Babybing wrote: »

OK hate to be the voice of reason here but do the majority of people who take things like NO Explode and the like really know what they contain and what they do to the body?

i'd say yes, yes they do
here not everywhere but this is the realm of the super nerd
strong like tarzan but with big brain and large information accesabality

No I know absolutely nothing about these products so I cannot comment on wheter they are good or bad but isnt their a possibility that they could be detrimental to some people who take them?

you sound like the IMB; look ciggys cause cancer and make you yellow, smelly,sick slow-healing, block oxygen supply and cause all sorts of nasty things.
can i say that once pregnant woman are arrested upon being caught smoking then i'll give you my supply of smuggled jamacian milk powder

Basically what I am saying is companies produce NO explode and the only idea 99% of people have about the product is what is written on the container which is supllied by the company. Im not advocating banning things like mad but maybe a little more transparency/info/research would be a good thing?

yes it would
and an age limit
and a lecture like you get when you by pain killers with codiene in them once in five feckin' years cos of a sprained ankle from hill running while next door fat people stuff themselves with salted animal fats dipped in refined sugar
and complain that their kids are made of allergies

rember that this is the same european board that define hanley as obese

Tigger

fatal wrote: »

snip
especially since the common misconception among the average joe's in ireland is that all supplements are illegal anabolic steroids.

a gaa player i know told his girlfriend i suggested he takes whey shakes to help bulk a bit and she et the hed off me