Because only a drug can make such a claim. This statement has not been evaluated by

[HysteryDiagnosis]

the FDA, blah blah blah. On the other hand, in Italy a patient may sue for not being recommended omega threes for certain heart issues. See second link below or excerpt from it.


http://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/consumerinformation/ucm110417.htm
Why do some supplements have wording (a disclaimer) that says: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease"?

This statement or "disclaimer" is required by law (DSHEA) when a manufacturer makes a structure/function claim on a dietary supplement label. In general, these claims describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function of the body. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of these claims; they are not approved by FDA. For this reason, the law says that if a dietary supplement label includes such a claim, it must state in a "disclaimer" that FDA has not evaluated this claim. The disclaimer must also state that this product is not intended to "diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease," because only a drug can legally make such a claim.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Omega-3-Supplements:-Why-Dont-Doctors-Prescribe-Them?&id=6406784

In Europe, doctors automatically prescribe fish oil supplements to heart attack patients; those living in Italy can actually sue their physicians for malpractice if they do not recommend omega-3 after a heart attack. In the United States, however, hardly any doctor recommends the use of fish oil for patients. This then begs the question - why don't more doctors prescribe omega-3 fatty acids? Why does the average doctor prescribe pharmaceutical medications that cause devastating side effects?

One possible reason is that omega-3 supplements are not licensed to treat diseases in the United States. This means that doctors have to be very cautious when it comes to recommending supplements, and that they cannot promote omega-3 as a treatment or cure for any disease. The reason behind this is to protect the consumer from false advertising and unscrupulous manufacturers. However, this also means that many consumers are left in the dark about fish oil benefits, or are skeptical about what these can do to their health.

Another reason is that pharmaceutical companies do not promote fish oil and other natural supplements because they cannot profit from them as much as they do from drugs. Pharmaceutical manufacturers invest hundreds of millions creating and patenting new drugs, which prevents other companies from copying these for over 20 years. However, only original substances are protected by patent law. Since omega-3 fats can be obtained naturally and have been consumed for decades, they are not covered by patents, which make them less profitable, especially if you consider the mandatory testing the company needs to do to license these as medicines.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6406784

[Fridays Child]

1. Follow the money.

When governments take on the responsibility of health care, the system operates on the premise that the most economical way to get the job done is to implement practices and protocols which are demonstrated to have the best chance of making, and keeping, people well.

Our way of doing things in the U.S. is fundamentally and fatally flawed. The bottom line takes first, second, and third priority over health care and health promotion. The interests of the stockholders, profit and growth, are served to the exclusion of the interests of the other stakeholders in the system. It is not profitable to help people maintain good health by means obtainable without buying a prescription or paying for the use of medical facilities and equipment. To keep making money, the for-profit system requires that people get sick and stay that way.

Additionally, the model of providing health insurance through employers assures that only those who contribute "work product" are allowed access to the for-profit medical treatment system. And killing "entitlement" programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security is intended to get rid of those who can only consume but who no longer can, or who never could, contribute work product.

And it's not difficult to understand why the brokers of this system might also be inclined to support legislation in favor of clamping down on birth control but not so much on erectile dysfunction drugs. After all, when you keep working class consumers desperate, poor, and sick, they die off more quickly and must be replaced with new working class consumers.

I get to see this fucked up, broken system up close and personal, every day, because I provide case management services for children on Medicaid. My clients and their families are impoverished and crushed by despair. It's a river of shit out there and waders are at a premium.

[trotsky]

2. "because they cannot profit from them as much as they do from drugs"

Total and complete bullshit. There are no guarantees that the fish oil capsules you buy from your precious supplement dealer even CONTAIN fish oil in appreciable amounts! You want to talk about profit, sell people water in a gelatin capsule and charge them $20. Pure profit!

[BuddhaGirl]

4. Hyperbolic and untrue

"There are no guarantees that the fish oil capsules you buy from your precious supplement dealer even CONTAIN fish oil in appreciable amounts!"

Do your research...there are many reputable manufacturers. :eyes:

[trotsky]

6. You might want to do YOUR research.

You may believe they're reputable - THEY may even believe they're reputable. But with no regulation to inspect and ensure they are selling what they claim to be selling, you both could be very wrong.

[BuddhaGirl]

8. I am not wrong

Buy GMP products and you know you are getting reputable fish oil caps.

[trotsky]

11. Oh but of course.

A for-profit company would NEVER cut corners to make an extra dime.

[BuddhaGirl]

12. Hyperbole

You can believe whatever you want. Doesn't matter to those of us who take supplements made by reputable manufacturers.

[trotsky]

15. It's hyperbole to acknowledge that a company wants to make a profit?

Well, that's a new one. The same reasoning you use to distrust the companies you don't like isn't valid when it comes to the ones you do. Because they, no doubt, are staffed and run by completely honest and dedicated people from top to bottom. Why, they probably don't even take a salary, they are so committed to providing you with pure supplements.

[laconicsax]

14. "Do your research...there are many reputable manufacturers."

And many disreputable ones.

The existence of reputable manufacturers doesn't even come close to addressing trotsky's claim.

[Sgent]

3. This would be interesting and maybe pertinent

except for:

http://www.lovaza.com/

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. From your link:

>>Possible side effects include burping, upset stomach, and change in sense of taste.<<

GNC has "descented" omega threes. Burping can be alleviated with digestive enzymes, papaya, maybe even some apple cider vinegar.

Lovaza page states that you are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA.

Similarly for the anti-supplement crowd, I have often reported negative side effects from eating salmon to the FDA. I kid of course.

[trotsky]

7. Do you think it's funny that there is a system in place to report adverse reactions to drugs...

but nothing for supplements?

[BuddhaGirl]

9. Uh, there is an AER system in place for supplements

the AER legislation passed in 2006.

[trotsky]

10. Not even close to the same thing. n/t

[BuddhaGirl]

13. Sure

Whatever you say. :eyes:

[BuddhaGirl]

17. right, because supplements have as many side effects and AER's

as PHARMA drugs...NOT :eyes:

[trotsky]

18. They can.

But even so, that point is irrelevant. As long as there's one possible side effect, and/or the potential for other safety issues (contamination, proper dosage, etc.), we should have a strong regulatory body with an official reporting system. Do you agree or disagree?

[HuckleB]

+1,000,000,000,000 ...

[HuckleB]

20. +1,000,000,000,000 ...

[HuckleB]

19. +1,000,000,000,000 ...

[BuddhaGirl]

16. +1

:thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

21. -1,000,000,000,000 ...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

22. Silly human. n/t

[BuddhaGirl]

23. as always!

:rofl: :rofl:

[HuckleB]

24. Not exactly.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

25. Well then totally uninformed about a subject upon you choose to pontificate. n/t