Who's watching the hen house?

Last Updated Aug 2007

For years the FDA has advocated that natural products must be bought under its supervision to protect the American public. FDA officials point to their excellent job in assuring that every drug they approve is safe and effective. Of course, their track record is a little spotty, ranging from Redux for weight loss (with the slight side effect of primary pulmonary hypertension that requires a heart-lung transplant) or Vioxx (it causes heart attacks) and now Traysol, a drug used to reduce blood loss in surgery patients. An independent study has found that patients getting this drug are more likely to die than those who are given vastly less expensive generic drugs. The question is why doesn't the FDA monitor these drugs after they have been approved yet never tested on a diverse patient population? The answer usually is "it costs lots of money." If they want to regulate natural products, will it be the same lax rules they apply to the drug companies?