* Recommendations on the Scientific Substantiation of Health Claims

Therein lies the sticky widget.  Unless the substantiation is subsidized and/or otherwise a tiny fraction of what the FDA mandates for patented medicines, no one can afford the tests, because you can't patent a natural supplement and every company out there could sell the product without sharing the cost of the "substantiation".

Don't bet for a moment that the recommendations have been welcomed by the supplements industry - at least not the ones which are not owned by Big Pharma companies.  By and large just about all of the supplement advocacy groups have been inflitrated and controlled by the pharmaceutical companies - and in some instances even created by pharma companies.

I like Ron Paul's bill much better - prove harm before banning or prohibiting anything.

Our founders never intended for the government or any other agency to control what we decided to ingest or otherwise use to treat to address our very private health issues.  Maybe when they can assure our food safety without irradiation and can cut the 140,000 annual deaths in the US in hospitals and homes from side effects due to properly prescribed approved medicine to the tiny handful that might be attributed to supplements and alternative therapies, then they might have a reason to look at supplements and other items.

Myself, I say they should get their dirty rotten hands off non-toxic and non invasive items and let us have the freedom our founders intended.

DQ