Appreciate the humor, but have some questions:
Is a product that is created naturally "better" or worse than an chemical that has been created to mimic it?
Why does the FDA not have the authority to review supplements b/f they are marketed?
Do consumers really need to be guinea pigs for the supplement industry?
>> Is a product that is created naturally "better" or worse than an chemical that has been created to mimic it?
I think the general idea is to prefer something that has been eaten by humans with no reported problems. But a molecule's a molecule. Natural vitamin C's no different from lab-created vitamin C.
>>Why does the DFA not have the authority to review supplements b/f they are marketed?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think if the supplements only include ingredients "Generally Recognized as Safe" (
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras ), they don't have to be reviewed.
>> Do consumers really need to be guinea pigs for the supplement industry?
We have to find a balance between ensuring consumer safety and creating unreasonable barriers to entry for food and supplement producers.
If you're that concerned, you can always go with the FDA-approved versions of niacin and Vitamin D. I hope you don't mind paying 42 times as much (
https://gizmodo.com/a-pharma-company-raised-the-price-of-a-daily-vitamin-by-1821217649 ). One of Big Pharma's many nasty tricks is taking cheap, generic vitamins and making a very slight change, then patenting it.
