• Shadow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Why are you complaining about the FDA doing their job, rather than the large corps that likely lobbied to avoid this and make it much harder for them?

    They banned it in cosmetics in 1990, it seems pretty obvious that if it’s unsafe for the outside of our body it shouldn’t be inside either.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      8 hours ago

      If they were doing their job, they would remove dangerous “herbal” remedies people are giving to their kids and hurting or even killing them, not something that has a small chance of causing cancer if you feed a shit ton of it to a rat.

      As I showed to someone else, it took ten years for the FDA to get a company to voluntarily recall a product that was causing seizures in hundreds of babies. https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/13/homeopathy-tablets-recall/

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          In the sense that they are both so poorly regulated that they both have contained all kinds of substances which are actively harmful to people? No, they really aren’t.

          In fact, some claim to be both.

          • Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I don’t know where to start to try to explain the differences because you’re trying so hard to miss the point. They are not the same thing at all.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 hour ago

              Again- in terms of the lack of regulation and the danger the pose, there is no difference. And again, products claim to be both.

              Are you arguing that lack of regulation of these products is a good thing?

              • Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                24 minutes ago

                That’s like arguing cars and treadmills are the same thing. You can move in/on both of them!

                Between homeopathics and herbal remedies, one is a sugar tablet (or should be unless it wasn’t made properly.) The other has been used medicinally in some form likely before Homo sapiens had even evolved. Acting like these things can all “just be regulated” is exceedingly naive. Surely you know there’s more nuance and working parts to that argument.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  19 minutes ago

                  (or should be unless it wasn’t made properly.)

                  Oh hey, you just figured out my point… which you would have figured out to begin with if you had read the article I posted about the “homeopathic” teething remedy that gave babies seizures because it wasn’t made properly and didn’t have to be.

          • finley@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            In the context of this article, they are. Your argument about something else is a straw man and a whataboutism.

            If you think the FDA should regulate something else that it currently does not, take it to Congress. They’re the ones who decide what the FDA does and does not regulate.