The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Health (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Herbal Supplements (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=31494)

xoxoxoBruce 12-14-2015 06:48 PM

Herbal Supplements
 
1 Attachment(s)
There's been an ongoing battle over the value of herbal supplements. Experts weighing in on both sides as to whether they help, do nothing, or actually hurt. You can't tell from the people taking them because of the extremely powerful placebo effect, researchers are finding has a much bigger effect than they thought possible.

Researchers in Canada, rather than get into that fray, decided to see if the popular supplements were what the label claims. They bought samples in the US and Canada of the 12 most popular supplements. Only 2 were exactly what the label said, 10 were adulterated or contained none of what the label claimed, and two contained Black Walnuts as one of the fillers. That could be dangerous to a nut allergy sufferer.

I can't find the original site where the chart came from but many sites talk about the study. This one presents both side of the fuss.

Clodfobble 12-14-2015 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the link
As a supplement consumer, I certainly want to know which brands passed muster and which did not! So why was this information omitted from the study?

Dr. Newmaster’s response to my question was, shall we say, oblique. “We provide an unbiased ‘watchdog’ service. The herbal industry has been alerted to a problem, and now it has the ability to take action,” he told me.

Bullshit.

Absolutely, absolutely do your research, choose only reputable brands with American sourcing and oversight, etc. There is some poisonous shit out there. But unless these guys tell me the brands, all they've done is stoked the all-or-nothing instinct in people.

monster 12-14-2015 08:41 PM

Generally, avoid anything from China. There is apparently one reliable brand made in China, the rest ...not so much. As for whether it's a real or placebo effect ....who cares if it does what people want it to do? Given the state of the RX industry here, a properly produced official placebo would probably cost more anyway ;)

xoxoxoBruce 12-14-2015 10:10 PM

It's not bullshit, it's of no use to the buying public. The purpose was prod the industry and FDA to get their shit together, not rat them out to the public, but once the press caught wind of it the study spread like wildfire, and most of the links I found didn't even have a rebuttal from the industry trade guy. Even he admits it's a problem in their industry, but claims it's small. If these were the sales leaders it's more than small.

Beestie 12-14-2015 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster (Post 948452)
Generally, avoid anything from China.

Nothing from China makes it past me in our house.

As a resident of the state where country ham is a religion, I was deeply distressed to learn that Smithfield was purchased by a Chinese concern. This is not disclosed on any label (that a non-US entity owns the company). It killed me to scratch one of my favorite brands off the list - and, since its a "Virginia" company, many grocery stores here sell mostly Smithfield.

Google "concerns about pork from China" sometime. On an empty stomach.

Now if China was shipping some of its local pork to the US and shipping some of its US pork to China, who would know?

monster 12-14-2015 10:42 PM

China is a major manufacturer of Herbal remedies (no surprise), but given that a lot of complementary and homeopathic remedies originate with Chinese medicine, people are worryingly OK with taking concoctions manufactured there. Our Natural Living Experts are happy with only one producer out of the whole country. I don't remember which one it is -one that specializes in mushroom remedies, I think

Gravdigr 12-15-2015 01:47 PM

Wait. WAIT. WAIT!!

Are you telling me that the powdered tiger penis contains no actual tigger dick?:eyebrow:

monster 12-15-2015 07:51 PM

oh it does, it does. Tiger Moth Schlong

orthodoc 12-15-2015 08:22 PM

There was a study in early 2015 that looked exclusively at American retailers and the herbal preparations on their shelves; it found that nearly none of the samples tested contained what they claimed to contain. Lots of non-herbal ingredients and random plants, but not the herb being sold. It was reported around Feb. 3 of this year. Here's one link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-fake-herbals/

The study was reported widely, so there may be better links than that one.

Herbal remedies aren't scrutinized for anything other than drastic toxicity by the FDA, because all the manufacturers use the disclaimer that they aren't being sold as medicines. The FDA isn't allowed to do more than check whether they'll kill you. There's NO oversight of these products - they could contain NONE of the advertised herb, or 1/10 of the dose, or every bottle could contain a different dose up to and including very toxic. People have died taking these things (remember Ephedra). There's no protection because they aren't legally medicines. Anyone who buys these things needs to know that.

If it comes from your own garden, at least you know what it is - although you won't know how much active ingredient you're getting. Otherwise it's a total crapshoot, unless you have a gas chromatograph in your home lab.

xoxoxoBruce 12-15-2015 10:35 PM

It's very illegal, however, to mislabel them saying they contain things they don't, and not saying things they do. Unfortunately it's not enforced as it should be. :(

Clodfobble 12-16-2015 04:49 PM

On the other hand, it is completely 100% legal to not disclose an ingredient on a processed food label as long as it is less than 2% of the whole. And that level goes for each separate ingredient, so it could be 1.9% sugar, 1.9% HFCS, 1.9% MSG, 1.9% "natural flavors," 1.9% EDTA, 1.9% sodium benzoate... And legally the ingredient list could just say "apples."

orthodoc 12-16-2015 07:19 PM

Clod makes the case for not eating processed foods. :)

Clodfobble 12-16-2015 07:36 PM

Honestly I'm against eating in general, really. Huge time-waster. But if I have to bother with it...

xoxoxoBruce 12-17-2015 12:47 AM

Harrumph, skinny little whippersnapper. :p:

DanaC 12-17-2015 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 948667)
On the other hand, it is completely 100% legal to not disclose an ingredient on a processed food label as long as it is less than 2% of the whole. And that level goes for each separate ingredient, so it could be 1.9% sugar, 1.9% HFCS, 1.9% MSG, 1.9% "natural flavors," 1.9% EDTA, 1.9% sodium benzoate... And legally the ingredient list could just say "apples."

Wow. Ours have to show all ingredients. They only have to appear in order of prominence above 2%, and can be listed in any order if they're less than 2% - but they still have to be listed.


From wiki:

Quote:

Ingredients – All ingredients of the food must be stated under the heading 'Ingredients' and must be stated in descending order of weight when present at more than 2% in the product. Ingredients making up less than two percent may be declared in any order at the end of the declaration. Moreover, certain ingredients such as preservatives must be identified as such by the label 'Preservatives', a specific name, e.g. "sodium nitrite", and the corresponding European registration number colloquially known as an "E number", e.g. "E250". When ingredients are themselves made of a number of sub-ingredients (i.e. a mayonnaise), these must be declared as well in the ingredient declaration. If ingredients or additives contain one of the listed 14 EU allergens, these must be explicitly named in the list. For example: 'Preservative: E220 (Sulphites)'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ng_regulations

Clodfobble 12-17-2015 09:53 AM

We have laws similar to the one above as well. But we also have a law stating that "incidental" or "trace amounts" (which the FDA specifically chooses not to define) that "have no functional or technical effect" in the finished product don't have to be declared. So legal precedent is really all you have to go on. Historically, if it's over 2%, it's pretty automatically assumed to be important just based on volume. And if it's under 2%, and you add it yourself, it's usually (though not in every case that's been challenged) assumed to be important, because you went to the trouble of adding it. The kicker is when it's an ingredient-of-an-ingredient, they almost always get away with asserting that it wasn't important. So if you add "apple juice from concentrate," and your concentrate supplier added 1.9% corn syrup, it's not an important ingredient to you because you in theory could have used a concentrate that didn't use that syrup and you wouldn't care (except of course you do care, otherwise you would have used a concentrate that didn't add the syrup, but you didn't because it would be less tasty and more expensive.)

So then you get companies creating shell companies, so they can be the concentrate supplier that adds the corn syrup, and then sell the concentrate to themselves and not have to declare the corn syrup because the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Or even more often, that shit comes from Argentina or another country where the regulations are a joke, and everyone fucking knows there's corn syrup in it, but the Argentinian company promises cross-their-heart that it doesn't, so the American company gets to claim it doesn't.

Clodfobble 12-17-2015 09:56 AM

Here, for example, is a great article explaining why your honey is almost never made of honey.

xoxoxoBruce 12-17-2015 10:17 AM

But if they don't take the pollen out, people with hay fever would be sneezing that shit all over when they snort it. :haha:

I think I posted the honey problem once before when we were talking about bee keeping or maybe in the links or charts threads.
Quote:

The packers of Silverbow Honey added: “The grocery stores want processed honey as it lasts longer on the shelves.”
Silverbow seems to have missed the memo, natural honey is the ONLY food that NEVER spoils, EVER. Fucking criminals. :mad:

glatt 12-17-2015 10:26 AM

I knew supermarket honey was not very good compared to farmer's market honey, but that article is depressing.

Odds are that any container of honey you get in a supermarket came from China, and therefore may be tainted.

Clodfobble 12-17-2015 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 948724)
Silverbow seems to have missed the memo, natural honey is the ONLY food that NEVER spoils, EVER. Fucking criminals. :mad:

Exactly. Archaeologists found honey in excavated Egyptian tombs and ate some and it was still good.

Happy Monkey 12-17-2015 01:20 PM

It doesn't spoil, but it can crystalize, and customers might not want that.

Undertoad 12-17-2015 01:56 PM

As long as the pollen and bee parts are less than 2% of the honey, it should be fine.

xoxoxoBruce 12-17-2015 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 948733)
It doesn't spoil, but it can crystalize, and customers might not want that.

Will it do that in sealed jars that haven't been opened since packing?

Clodfobble 12-17-2015 09:25 PM

Sometimes, but it's reversible--all you have to do is warm it gently and flip it back and forth a bit.

Clodfobble 12-17-2015 09:26 PM

Real salt without dextrose can crystallize too. All I have to do is shake the canister once or twice. People are so lazy.

xoxoxoBruce 12-17-2015 09:57 PM

I knew crystalized honey can be easily transmogrified back, but on the store shelves most people are likely to pass on it. But I was wondering if it would crystalize in an unopened container.

Clodfobble 12-18-2015 08:37 AM

My unopened bottles sometimes have the tiniest bit of crystallization up near the top where the sliver of air is. But they're cloudy with pollen too, so it's hard to distinguish.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.