Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday December 20 2017, @04:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-defines-serious? dept.

The FDA is proposing a new, risk-based enforcement approach to homeopathic drug products (alternative medicine):

To protect consumers who choose to use homeopathic products, this proposed new approach would update the FDA's existing policy to better address situations where homeopathic treatments are being marketed for serious diseases and/or conditions but where the products have not been shown to offer clinical benefits. It also covers situations where products labeled as homeopathic contain potentially harmful ingredients or do not meet current good manufacturing practices.

Under the law, homeopathic drug products are subject to the same requirements related to approval, adulteration and misbranding as any other drug product. However, prescription and nonprescription drug products labeled as homeopathic have been manufactured and distributed without FDA approval under the agency's enforcement policies since 1988.

"In recent years, we've seen a large uptick in products labeled as homeopathic that are being marketed for a wide array of diseases and conditions, from the common cold to cancer. In many cases, people may be placing their trust and money in therapies that may bring little to no benefit in combating serious ailments, or worse – that may cause significant and even irreparable harm because the products are poorly manufactured, or contain active ingredients that aren't adequately tested or disclosed to patients," said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. "Our approach to regulating homeopathic drugs must evolve to reflect the current complexity of the market, by taking a more risk-based approach to enforcement. We respect that some individuals want to use alternative treatments, but the FDA has a responsibility to protect the public from products that may not deliver any benefit and have the potential to cause harm."

FDA draft guidance (8 pages).

Also at Ars Technica and STAT News.

Related: Probiotics Come with Bold Health Claims, but the Science is Shaky
What a Gottlieb-Led FDA Might Mean for the Pharmaceutical Industry
Supplement Maker on FDA Blacklist After Deadly Bacteria Found in Water System
FDA Designates MDMA as a "Breakthrough Therapy" for PTSD; Approves Phase 3 Trials
Homeopathic "Healing Bracelet" Poisons Baby With High Levels of Lead
FDA: Love is Not an Ingredient
FDA Cracking Down on Unsubstantiated Cannabidiol Health Claims
FDA Blocks More Imports of Kratom, Warns Against Use as a Treatment for Opioid Withdrawal
Biohackers Disregard FDA Warning on DIY Gene Therapy


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 20 2017, @11:46PM

    by VLM (445) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @11:46PM (#612615)

    Its a classic neocon vs alt right argument. Also there's usually a distinction between criminal fraud and being really good at making business deals, standards of corporate contract law like having a meeting of the minds, also there's some subtle distinction between monopolies (ISPs?) and commodities (distilled water masquerading as medicine). So beyond a fox news level of argument of "regulation = bad" its nuanced.

    As a gross simplification if you take classical republicanism and add a little common sense social stuff you end up with "nationalist socialism" which is actually a pretty good idea although it seems to have a bit of a historical reputation issue.

    Of course if you want it simplified into convenient straw dog format, then it does in fact simplify down to "regulation is badthink", sure, although thats inapplicable in any real form.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2