We all know that (at least in the U.S.) homeopathic "medicines" are required to have that little caviat on the back-- "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease". Yet these products are marketed as treatments, cures, and preventions (never seen one that claimed to be a diagnostic tool). Since when did it become OK to sell a product that has a warning on the back that blatently contradicts the claims you make to get people to buy the product in the first place!? Could I sell burnt out flashlights in boxes that say "IT WILL LIGHT UP YOUR ENTIRE BLOCK!!" on the front and "This product is not intended to produce actual light" on the back? ... or would I get my crappy product pulled from the market and get slapped with fines for fraud. How the heck is this crap legal?
Why is homeopathy legal?
- Thread starter Skepiroth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy legal
thatguywhojuggles
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,335
When I bought the sea monkeys from the back of the comic book was the day I became a skeptic.
JPK
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 1,870
Good evening.
Excellant point. I suspect that it has more to do with the politics of going after something that people have strong beliefs in. In another thread Test your MP you can see how this works.
JPK
Excellant point. I suspect that it has more to do with the politics of going after something that people have strong beliefs in. In another thread Test your MP you can see how this works.
JPK
Steven Howard
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,797
new skeptic said:
Probably not. However, you could probably get away with a couple of similar methods.
The front of the box could just list a set of symptoms without explicitly promising to do anything about them: "DARKNESS", "DIFFICULTY READING", "BUMPING INTO THINGS", "INABILITY TO FIND SMALL OBJECTS THAT HAVE ROLLED UNDER THE SOFA", "APPEARING ON A TV DETECTIVE SHOW AND NEEDING TO VISUALLY CONVEY THE ACT OF LOOKING FOR CLUES." Then the fine print could say that your product doesn't actually fix those problems.
Or, you could sprinkle in a few weasel words. So you can't say your broken flashlights will light up the entire block, but you can say that they "may help relieve the frustration and inconvenience often associated with sudden or excessive darkness."
heh... I guess I would like to think that SOME legal body would do something about people serving up glasses containing an unproven cure that is so diluted that you would be lucky to even have one molecule in your glass (hell... I'd drink a glass of VX if it were 20X diluted).
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
new skeptic said:
I am happy that in the U.S. homeopathic products ( all ? ) have to carry the label " These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease ": then the informed consumer is free to evaluate and make his/her own decisions.
I think this is the better solution, that informes the consumer that the product actually does not work leaving him/her free to buy or not the product.
In Italy I think we do not have such labels ..
Things may be about to change here in the UK. There is a European Directive to ensure that everything sold by health shops that have claims to improve health should be tested for safety.
The idea is to have the same controls on health foods as they do on drugs.
This paper from Healthwatch points out (at the bottom) that it not only covers the safety of the items, also the efficacy needs to be proven:
http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/nlett05.html#homeop
As you can imagine, the health shops are doing their nut. Holland & Barrat have been running advertising campaigns, slashing prices by 80% and generally causing a big fuss.
Hilarious to watch.
The idea is to have the same controls on health foods as they do on drugs.
This paper from Healthwatch points out (at the bottom) that it not only covers the safety of the items, also the efficacy needs to be proven:
http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/nlett05.html#homeop
As you can imagine, the health shops are doing their nut. Holland & Barrat have been running advertising campaigns, slashing prices by 80% and generally causing a big fuss.
Hilarious to watch.
Abdul Alhazred
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
However (USA) the FDA will certify that all ingredients are "generally recognized as safe". So it's legal as long as they aren't making any specific claims on the label.
In the UK, c'mon. The Royals are into it.
In the UK, c'mon. The Royals are into it.
CurtC
Illuminator
Do homeopathic products have that label? I thought it was just for supplements.
Psi Baba
Homo Skepticalis
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Messages
- 4,027
Re: Re: Why is homeopathy legal?
This was absolutely brilliant (no pun intended). In reposnse to the OP question, I'd say that even though herbals are potential more dangerous than homeopathy because they can cause adverse reactions, homeopathy should be considered consumer fraud on the simple basis that the makers are selling you water or lactose pills that contain nothing, yet are being represented as actual remedies. In my mind, it's no different than selling a bottle of plain water and marketing it as lemonade or soda or juice. But of course, the fact that they're passing it off as medicine makes it all the more insidious. Harmful herbal remedies will be weeded out more quickly, but at the expense of unsuspecting users (cf. ephedra), but with homeopathy it will take longer for people to realize, if they ever do at all, that it's not doing anything.Steven Howard said:
Thinking in CT
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 59
new skeptic said:
In the US "Health" products are primarily regulated by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). If the product is a "drug" its sellers must prove that it is "safe and effective", however, if the product is a "food" (presumably any product to be consumed other than a "drug") then it need only to be shown to be "safe", i.e. not poison. By placing the above quoted disclaimer on the product, its sellers thus avoid the FDA requirement to establish efficacy.
There is another regulatory system that can be appied to the sale of these remedies and that is the federal and state consumer protection laws, specifically the Unfair Trade Practice acts. Those laws provide that it is a violation for any seller of consumer goods & services to make any "false or misleading" statements (or claims) to induce the sale of those goods and/or services. Thus if the claim that the product "works" in some way can be shown to be a "false or misleading" statement, such claim can not be undone by a disclaimer. The problem, however, with consumer protection laws, in this context, is that they are consumer complaint driven. In order for an individual, or the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), or state consumer protection agency to bring a case under the unfair trade practice laws there must be: complaining consumer(s), who were induced to buy based on a misleading statement, and who suffered economic harm. Of course the burdon of establishing these elements falls on the plaintiff/complainant. The buyers of these homeopathic remedies are not very likely to admit that the remedies don't work, admit that they were duped by the seller into buying, and seek redress for their $25 economic loss.
There is hope though, a couple of years ago the FTC brought a case against the distributor of the "Q-Ray Bracelett" who had claimed that it was a remedy for various aches and pains. The company had to pay restitution to many consumers, pay significant sums to the FTC and cease making health claims for its product. This case was brought, however, after numerous complaints were filed with the FTC.
Rolfe
Adult human female
If you really want to understand viscerally why homoeopathy is legal, read the Test your MP thread.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.