The FDA is banning ephedra. Ooh, 100 deaths. But several scientists said that it was impossible to prove whether ephedra was safe because studies screen out participants who have health problems - the people most likely to be hurt by the product. Wouldn't that imply that maybe a different study should be done? Tommy Thompson said the ban will set a "new, significant legal precedent" by establishing a framework for evaluating the safety of other dietary supplements. Compared to its work on medications, regulating supplements is nearly uncharted territory for the FDA. Companies making drugs have to demonstrate to the FDA that they are safe before selling them. But the burden of proof is on federal regulators when it comes to supplements. Under a 1994 law under, the FDA can only prohibit the sale of a supplement if it "presents a significant or unreasonable risk of injury." Isn't that the way it should be in an Open Society?

User Options Recent Changes Help Page