Abstract
There exists increasing concern that the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (“DSHEA”) has proven ineffective and perhaps counterproductive. Most illustratively, consider a recent and remarkably candid remark from Tommy Thompson, then Secretary of Health and Human Services: “I really think Congress should take a look at the food supplement law again. It doesn't make any sense to me.”A health law that makes no sense to the Secretary of Health of Health and Human Services should certainly draw the attention of academics and policy-makers alike. Much of the debate concerning DSHEA regards the disparity in legislative treatment between dietary supplements, foods, and pharmaceutical drugs. Specifically, while pharmaceutical drugs must undergo years of costly pre-market testing, most dietary supplements—like most foods—can immediately enter the market, and only after repeated instances of adverse reactions can the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) remove them.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,General Medicine,Health (social science)
Reference181 articles.
1. FDA Regulation of Health Claims under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990: A Proposal for a Less Restrictive Scientific Standard;Michaels;Emory L.J.,1995
2. Adverse Cardiovascular Events Temporally Associated With Ma Huang, an Herbal Source of Ephedrine
3. Effect of Vitamin D on Falls
4. Dietary Supplements and Their Discontents: FDA Regulation and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994;Beisler;Rutgers L.J.,2000
5. Clinical Trials to Receive a Boost, But How Big?;Varstag;JAMA,2001
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献