How Do Scientists Track Bees Inside BeeHives? Use QR Codes?

Source: C&E News

Tracking bees can be a complicated job.  Especially, when from the macroscopic level (human eye), each bee appears to be the same in appearance.  Which causes a person (at least me), how would a scientist studying bees track individual bees within a bee colony (or beehive)?  Further, why would a scientist want to keep track of individual bees within a beehive?  Well, in short, your answers are below.

How Do Insecticides Affect Bees?

Over the last couple of decades, there has been controversy surrounding the use of insecticides (certain classes of insecticides).  An insecticide is a substance (chemical or compound) which is used to kill an insect.  The difficult question is whether certain insecticides which are aimed to kill specific insects also have adverse (negative) impacts on unintended target insects (such as bees).  The specific class of chemicals in question are the 'neonicotinoids' which are shown below on this graphic:

Source: Compound Chemistry

The chemical structures of the neonicotinoid family of compounds shown on the left hand side of the infographic above are shown below in greater detail:


(1) Acetamiprid,

Source:  Jü - Own work, CC0, Link

(2) Clothianidin,

Source: Jü - Own work, CC0, Link

(3) Imidacloprid,

Source: NEUROtiker  Link

(4) Nitenpyram,

Source:Jü - Own work, Link

(5) Nithiazine,

Source: Ed (Edgar181) - Link

(6) Thiacloprid 

Source: Edgar181 -  Link

(7) Thiamethoxam

Source:Epop -  Link

The compounds above are classified as neonicotinoids due to their chemical similarity to the chemical structure of nicotine shown below:

Source: Nicotine - Harbin - Link

As a chemist, I always tend to wonder what aspects of each molecule make that molecule great for binding to a given receptor.  You may think that I am speaking gibberish at the moment, but let's take a brief exploration into the mechanism (mode of action) by which these chemicals operate in the insects body (to become toxic) provided by Compound Chemistry:

This leads us on to how neonicotinoids exert their effects on insects. They are effective against a wide range of different pests, and all act in a similar manner. Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides – meaning they are water-soluble, and can be absorbed by plants and distributed through their tissues. When insects ingest them, they bind to and block nicotinic receptors for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the central nervous system of insects. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter in many organisms, including humans. The effect of blocking the receptors for this neurotransmitter is overstimulation, which leads to paralysis and eventual death for the insects.

We also have nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, both in our central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system, so you might wonder why the neonicotinoids don’t pose just as big a danger to us. This is because, although both insects and us have the receptors, they are differently structured, and the upshot of this is that the neonicotinoids don’t bind to our receptors as strongly as they do to those of the insects. As such, they are much more toxic to insects than they are to us, or other mammals.

An insect doesn’t need to ingest a great deal of a neonicotinoid pesticide for it to exert its deadly effect. The exact figure is, of course, variable, depending on the specific species of insect. Values for the median lethal dose (the dose that kills 50% of test subjects) range from 1 to 90 nanograms per insect. For comparison, the lethal dose figure for neonicotinoids is several orders of magnitude lower than for older insecticides such as the controversial DDT.

The current study (discussed briefly below) aims to check to see the lower limit of exposure to the toxic insecticides.  At what concentration, does a change of behavior occur?  How long does the exposure take to translate into adverse effects on beehive colonies.

What about the current scientific study of bees?

You may have thought that the content above is a 'divergence' from the study at hand.  The title of the current study is Neonicotinoid exposure disrupts bumblebee nest behavior, social networks, and thermoregulation.  The study which aimed to track the behavior of bees as a result of 'dosing' the bees with different concentrations of insecticides.  Why is this important?



Because the insecticides which are commonly used on crops have been associated with adverse (negative impacts) phenomenon such as 'colony collapse disorder' -- which is when the majority of the 'worker bees' leave a beehive and the colony (or hive) will eventually perish.  Why does this phenomenon occur?



One contribution (a part of the aim for the current study) is the exposure of the 'worker bees' to the insecticide (in this case imidacloprid) while carrying out their duty as 'pollinators'.  Pollination is the process of fertilizing the flower to produce seeds (offspring) -- i.e. the next generation.  The importance of pollination to the agriculture industry cannot be overstated. 



For the study published, the insecticide of choice was imidacloprid.  The range of concentrations varied between 0.1 nanograms and 9 nanograms.  What?  Yes, the lowest concentration which served as the control group was between 0.0000000001-0.000000001 grams.  Whereas for the group being dosed with a toxic dose was around 9 times the top of the control group range = 9 nanograms or 0.000000009 grams.  Or stated in terms of 'parts per billion' -- control group = 0.1-1 parts per billion...and the toxic dose was 9 ppb (parts per billion).



A recent write up of the study appeared in a trade journal -- Chemical & Engineering New.  Here is the brief which appeared in a recent (late last year) issue of C&E News:

Source: C&E News

Wait...How did the scientists track the bees in the beehive?  The scientists glued small QR codes onto the bees.  Then the tracking was accomplished by using robotic platform with an imaging system known as BEEtag.  An example is shown below (24 seconds in length):

What were the results of the study published?



The results of the study using the BEEtag imaging platform were straightforward.  At the control concentration of 0.1 ppb of imidacloprid, no change in bee behavior was observed.  Whereas at concentrations of 6-9 ppb showed noticeable change (adverse effect) in beehive behavior.  The indication was that the bees exposed to toxic amounts of imidacloprid were observed to move eventually toward the outside of the beehive.  Additionally, the workers were less active and became more sedentary.



Nonetheless, the imaging technology used above has opened the door to observing negative impacts of chemical exposure previously only speculated about.  This is tremendously exciting to say the least.  For further details of the study, click on the title of the study above.  Next steps include to see if the other compounds (chemicals) in the neonicotinoid family of substances produce the same adverse effects at the equivalent doses.  Stay tuned.



Related Blog Posts:


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


What is the next big step in Mental Health Research?


Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why 'Space Force' is nothing new...


Scientists should find similarities rather than focus on differences


Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!


President Trump finally fills the Office of Science and Technology Policy position - Yeah!

Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection

Source: Wikipedia

We are inundated with a variety of news from a large amount of sources everyday.  How do we make use of such information?  How do we verify the deluge of information?  In keeping with the tradition of educating the public on how scientists view various events portrayed in the media along with life in general (i.e. how do scientists think), a new piece of useful information has surfaced for readers to mull over.  Scientists compare the misinformation in the news cycle to a viral infection.



In a past issue (December of 2017) of 'Science' magazine the following "letters" were sent into the Journal.  The "letters" section is composed of chosen comments sent in by readers regarding earlier commentary/reporting from the science community which was published in an earlier issue.  In the particular issue mentioned in the comments section -- there were a couple articles about the circulation of 'misinformation' in the mainstream news.  The scientists drew parallels to the inoculation against an infection in biology:

The unprecedented spread of misinformation threatens citizens' ability to form evidence-based opinions on issues of societal importance, including public health, climate change, and national security. In his Editorial “Nip misinformation in the bud” (27 October, p. 427), R. Weiss argues that fact checking after misinformation has spread is often ineffective. Decades of research in cognitive science (1) have buttressed this concern by establishing the robust “continued influence effect”: Post-publication retractions and corrections often fail to eliminate the influence of misinformation. In some cases, they reinforce falsehoods simply by repeating them. The more exposure people have to a falsehood, the more truth-value they ascribe to it (2). The networked nature of online media enables misinformation to spread rapidly, much like a viral contagion (3). Accordingly, Weiss calls for a solution in which scientific facts reach the public before misinformation has a chance to spread and take hold.

A growing body of research suggests that this may be possible, but it must be done preemptively. This process of “inoculation” adheres to a biological analogy: Just as injections containing a weakened strain of a virus trigger antibodies in the immune system to help confer resistance against future infection, the same can be achieved with information. Recent studies find that misinformation can be used against itself: By preemptively warning people against misleading tactics and by exposing people to a weakened version of the misinformation, cognitive resistance can be conferred against a range of falsehoods in diverse domains such as climate change (4, 5), public health (6), and emerging technologies (7). In the battle against misinformation, it is better to prevent than cure. The benefit of inoculation is that it can spread, too, online and through word-of-mouth (8). News outlets and the public can help inoculate each other to achieve societal immunity against misinformation.

The concept of preemptively warning people will work in theory.  In fact, depending on the culture from which the person is from, preemptive action might work more effectively.  Different countries have different models of regulatory procedures - for instance - which make such actions work in much different ways.



Here in the United States, the regulatory system appears to be at the moment more of a 'reactionary' system rather than a 'proactive' system.  Which means that preemptive measures do not necessarily work very effectively.  That is, of course, not to say that in our country every resident believes this to be true.  There will be a sizable percentage on which preemptive knowledge might work quite well on informing.  Although, over the range of the entire population, this kind of warning appears not to work as well as in other countries.  Why?  I have no idea at the moment.



As an example, take the recent attempt by the White House (and government agencies) to cover up a health report on the potential dangers of the class of chemicals known as perfuorinated chemicals.  Recently, I wrote a blog post on the cover up.  Then I followed the initial blog post up with an update to the initial introduction of terrible news.  On top of the breaking news, during a supposed conference held to discuss solutions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff attempted to throw journalists out of the conference.  The agency's actions were an obvious attempt at covering up important news.



The terrible aspect of the news is that there are inherent dangers associated with the class of chemicals -- which are well known.  This is a blatant example of a reactionary system.   Why not put in place measures to replace this class of compounds with another class of chemicals which are less harsh on humans along with the environment?  Another related 'reactionary' measure instituted in the United States is the Chemical Safety Board.  The Chemical Safety Board is charged with investigating the aftermaths of tragedies (chemical hazardous spills, fires, accidents, etc.).  Why not have a 'proactive' system in place?  Currently, the fate of the Chemical Safety Board is in jeopardy -- read about that here.



The regulatory system in other countries -- say Britain for example -- is built on the 'preemptive' system.  Instead of 'reacting' to a given tragedy, the British will put in place laws and regulation -- voted on by parliament - which are 'proactive' in nature rather than 'reactive'.  Therefore, a 'preemptive' strike would work quite well over in that part of the world.  Why there is such a large difference in different parts of the world is beyond my understanding at this time.  If you (the reader) has any inputs (ideas) on this difference, please feel free to contribute in the comments section below.



Conclusion...



The United States is made up of a regulatory system which is 'reactive' in nature rather than 'proactive'.  I would love to see the system change in the near future.  How to change the system exactly I do not have the solid idea?  Although, any change in the United States definitely has to build from the ground up through voting/speaking out to our respective political representatives who make/create law/regulations on our behalf.   Additionally, a better informed society is willing to take a risk and become 'proactive'.  That is not to say that we are a nation of 'dummies'.  I believe that each of us could educate ourselves on a range of matters which in turn would create a better country - that might resemble a proactive rather than a reactive system.



Of course, in order to do so takes time and effort on each of our parts.  What have you done to make the world a better place?  What steps are you taking to help inoculate the public against 'fake news'?  Rather than spend your time upset, take action to reduce the spread of fake news.  Here on this site, I try to bring to light news about issues in hope of communicating the importance of understanding the issue.  At least to provide a platform from which the reader (you) can further investigate the matter in greater depth.  The path is yours to pursue to educate yourself and others.  Inoculate yourself by educating yourself.



Related Blog Posts:


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


How Dangerous Are Cigarettes?


Thoughts: What Does National Institute of Health Director Francis Collins get asked in front of Congress?


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?

Source: EPA

The week began with an update (a blog post) regarding the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to hold 'a conference' to explore the dangers of PerFluoroOctanoic Acid (PFOA) and PerFluoroOctaneSulfonic Acide (PFOS).  This conference was in response to the breaking news last week that the White House was suppressing a health report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which was about to be released regarding the safety of the chemicals above.  The levels of the PerFluoroAlkyl compounds which were found in various geographical areas were disturbing as uncovered by Politico news.  Below is the disturbing update regarding the conference at the EPA -- which began with quite a hiccup to say the least -- or was it a hiccup?

Day 1 of PFAS Conference at EPA

As I just stated, the two day conference which was held at the EPA started roughly to say the least.  According to early reports by 'Politico Energy' the following disturbing event occurred at the beginning of the conference:

MAKE SOME ROOM — PFAS SUMMIT ENTERS DAY 2: It's the second and final day of EPA's summit on dangerous chemicals cropping up in drinking water supplies around the country. Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler will deliver opening remarks, but the rest of today's agenda is pretty vague, mostly listing "open discussions" among the state regulators, federal officials and other participants.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced Tuesday that he would take the first step toward regulating PFOA and PFOS. Today's proceedings will be closed to the press, an agency spokesman tells ME. EPA initially tried to bar reporters from most of Tuesday's proceedings, before reversing itself a few hours later, but the outcry over that move overshadowed much of the event (more on that below).

'NOBODY EVER ASKED US': Ahead of today's meeting, Pro's Annie Snider and Emily Holden confirmed that a controversial — and still unreleased — HHS chemical safety assessment will find that the contaminants can be dangerous at much lower exposures than EPA has previously said were safe. "Nobody ever asked us to change the numbers," Patrick Breysse, the head of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within HHS, told POLITICO. Breysse, who worked on the study, said the agencies involved were "getting close to finalizing it in January," but paused its release to come up with a better communications strategy to describe its findings. At the time, as POLITICO reported last week, a White House official worried of a "public relations nightmare" if the study were made public and asked EPA to intervene. While speaking on a panel at EPA's summit Tuesday, Breysse said the minimum risk levels reported last week for PFOA, PFOS and two other similar chemicals will remain the same when the assessment is released "soon."

Following up: Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito told reporters she is "not totally pleased" with EPA's response to the blocked release of a health study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis and would be following up with agency later this week after a national summit on the issue. "I think the health study that HHS put forward needs to be released," she said. "I want to have the full information and I want to find out what kind of levels are acceptable and then remediate the problems." And does she think Pruitt can adequately respond to her concerns? "Time will tell, honestly," she said.

— Separately, Sen. Tom Udall demanded to know why EPA tried to bar reporters from Tuesday's session — a decision that was eventually reversed a few hours later. Udall sent a letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt to express concern over EPA's "disturbing treatment" of journalists. "This intimidation of journalists seeking to cover a federal official presiding over important policy-making is un-American and unacceptable," Udall wrote, calling on Pruitt to apologize to reporters.

But EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox defended the agency in a statement, noting an Associated Press reporter who had been physically removed from EPA headquarters, "showed up" after being told ahead of time the event was at capacity. "When we were made aware of the incident, we displaced stakeholders to the overflow room who flew to Washington for this meeting so that every member of the press could have a seat," he said.

Which was after the evening reporting by news agencies which resulted in a tweet by Senator Tom Udall shown below:

Here is the 6 and 1/2 minute video below from CNN:

Wow.  Read more about the event (barring of news) from two additional news sources -- Politico and Reason Blog.  According to reporting on the website 'Reason' the conference was proposed based on chemical levels reported earlier by Politico as shown below:

The Summit is being held on the heels of the revelation in Politico that the EPA is apparently suppressing a new report on the safety of PFAS from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. That report suggested that the EPA's safe level of exposure at 70 parts per trillion is about six times too high. Most of the concerns about exposure to PFAS are based on a large number of epidemiological studies that detect fairly subtle health effects. Subtle, however, does not mean no effects.

Wow.  That was only on the first day of the conference.

Day 2 of PFAS Conference at EPA

After the press being thrown out of the EPA hosted conference on the first day, the EPA took a few heavy hits from congressional leaders and the press -- and rightfully so.  One would think that the possibility of throwing the press out of the conference on the second day would be not possible.  But, leave it to the Pruitt Administration to have the gull to attempt the ejection of the free press from the conference again as reported by Politico:

EPA staff Wednesday morning barred POLITICO and reporters from at least two other publications from entering a national summit on toxic chemicals, a day after a partial media blackout at the same event brought criticism from congressional Democrats and a pledge by the White House to investigate the incident.

The agency on Tuesday had allowed a select group of reporters to cover the first hour of the summit's introductory remarks, including comments by Administrator Scott Pruitt, but then escorted press out. EPA reversed its decision to ban media after news coverage of the policy and reports from the Associated Press that one of its journalists was forcibly ejected from the building by a security guard. Reporters were invited back for Tuesday afternoon.

But on Wednesday, the agency again said no reporters would be allowed to attend.

The event, where attendees are discussing whether and how to regulate a class of chemicals linked to immune disorders and certain cancers, included federal and state officials, health groups and industry interests on Tuesday. On Wednesday, it is limited to the agencies that handle chemical oversight and state regulators, according to an EPA statement.

This was such an outrageous action that Politico's Editor even made a statement on behalf of the press about the restriction of access to the conference:

"The summit was focused on an important public health crisis that has affected drinking water supplies across the country, and chemicals that are present in the bloodstreams of nearly all Americans," she said. "We believe it is important that the news media have access to the entirety of this discussion to keep the public informed with fact-driven, accountability coverage of this important issue — we would much rather be writing about the agency's efforts to address this health problem than about reporters being excluded."

Even more congressional leaders took to their twitter accounts.  Senator Tom Carper of the Environmental and Public Works Committee posted on twitter:

"I can’t believe I have to say this two days in a row, but @EPA works for the American people," Carper wrote. "Unfortunately, it’s clear that this EPA is more concerned with protecting the EPA chemical summit from the public than it is with protecting the public from harmful chemicals."

I am really amazed at the obvious lack of understanding of the current Administration that the government works for the people of the United States.  Their actions are funded by tax-payer money.  The actions of the EPA over the last couple of days have called on the Society of Environmental Journalists to take action and send a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt which is shown below:

May 23, 2018

Scott Pruitt, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 1101A

William Jefferson Clinton Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20460

via e-mail: Pruitt.scott@Epa.gov

Dear Administrator Pruitt:

The Society of Environmental Journalists strenuously objects to the Environmental Protection Agency’s selective barring of news reporters from your “National Leadership Summit” on per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water, and to the EPA physically forcing an Associated Press reporter from the premises.

It beggars understanding that the EPA would prevent any reporters from covering a topic of such intense nationwide interest and concern. But these are just the latest additions to your pattern of antagonism toward the press, and disregard for the public’s right to know what EPA is or is not doing to protect their health and the environment.

This meeting, organized well in advance to gather input on a critical public health policy initiative, as a matter of course should have admitted news reporters in order to inform the public about what occurred. But as recently as a couple weeks ago, your staff was informing reporters that there would be no room for the press at this invitation-only event, because there was not enough space in the room selected for it.

This is patently ridiculous. Surely, larger rooms were available at the EPA headquarters or in a nearby federal building or hotel.

Evidently your staff relented at some point on May 22 and agreed to admit reporters for some news organizations. But not all: The Associated Press, CNN and E&E News, all highly respected news outlets serving enormous national audiences, were turned away at the door.

A female AP reporter has recounted that when, in response to being barred, she asked to speak with a public affairs staffer, guards instead laid hands on her and removed her from the building by force. This is completely unacceptable.

The livestream of the May 22 event provided by EPA - which has been offered as some sort of alternative to on-the-scene coverage - turned out to be highly selective as well, with most of the summit’s morning session held without being broadcast online.

Finally, though you allowed press coverage the afternoon of the summit’s first day, your agency once again excluded at least some reporters on the session’s second day, May 23.

While informing the public via news media is just good policy, holding the meeting open to the public is also legally required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 USC § 1-16) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. §552b). According to your own agency’s press release, the summit included representatives from more than 40 states, tribes and territories, 20 federal agencies, congressional staff, industry groups and non-governmental organizations, and the agency intends to use information from the summit to help it develop a management plan. There is no justification for secrecy here.

On behalf of SEJ’s 1,400 members and all other journalists covering the EPA, we urge you to:

• Repudiate this hostile approach to dealing with the press and public.

• Consistently open up important meetings, announcements and events to the public and press.

• Never discriminate against a news outlet based on the content or editorial slant of its coverage.

• Make arrangements to accommodate rather than restrict access by the press and public — and to answer their questions.

• Withdraw your objections to the publication by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of a draft assessment of water contamination by these chemicals. According to news reports, that study is still being withheld from the public.

Your failure to release this report, along with the difficulties inflicted on reporters trying to cover the summit, inhibit public understanding of how the EPA is regulating water quality and constitutes an abuse of the free press and the public’s right to know. We emphatically urge you to end these practices immediately.

The behavior described (the actions of the EPA officials toward the press) are unprofessional and violate unwritten rules and regulations within the government.  Since when does any EPA official have the right to handle another personal in a physical capacity.  The EPA official could be brought up on charges of assault.  At the very least, the EPA official should have called a security official.  But the above removal of a person in the press are just another reminder that this administration believes that they exist outside or above the law -- which is very unfortunate.

Conclusion...

I would hope that after the unfortunate events, the nation can move on and learn from the events of the past.  The current Administration at the EPA needs a strict reminder from congress regarding the behavior toward the public.  Each public official should remember that ultimately the tax-payer is deciding their course in the future.  Based on the actions over the last few days, the EPA seems to have been taken over and funded exclusively by the Private sector.



The blatant disregard for the public should make any citizen sick to their stomach.  After all, the fall-out of the decisions being discussed and made result in resources which we need for every day living.  No person should have to drink or be exposed to contaminated water just because the federal regulating agency (i.e. EPA) is unwilling to do their job.  Further more, disease needs not be spread due to a lack enforcement on government, state, and local facilities.




Related Blog Posts:


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?


What Does America Drinking Water Look Like With Little-to-No Regulation?


Why Is The Science March Important?


Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?


Should Pollution Concern Us?


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


STEM Outreach Is Useful For All Participants!


20 Questions Politicians Answer Regarding Science Issues


How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!


A Perfect Example Of Why Science Outreach Is Critical: Science Needs Simplification!

Why Doesn't Pre-Regulation Of Consumer Products Exist?

Consumer products flood the marketplace and the screens on the devices that we carry with us on a daily basis.  This begs the following question regarding safety of consumer products released on the market:



But why are there more regulations regarding the safety of such products?



I really do not know the answer to this question.  If you are a reader who does know the answer or can shed some light on information (websites, books, journals, etc.) on the subject, please leave a comment.  At this point you might be asking yourself the following question:



Why is he concerned with the regulation of consumer products?



The reason is due to an article I read today about the efficacy of 'supplements' in 'The New York Times' article titled "Studies Show Little Benefit in Supplements".  Specifically, the excerpt that produced the thought was the following regarding regulation stated below:

The passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 opened the floodgates to an industry that can bring these products to market without submitting any evidence to the Food and Drug Administration that they are safe and effective in people. The law allows the products to be promoted as “supporting” the health of various parts of the body if no claim is made that they can prevent, treat or cure any ailment. The wording appears not to stop many people from assuming that “support” translates to a proven benefit.

After 1994, sales of a very wide range of supplements skyrocketed, and because the law allowed it, many continued to be sold even after high-quality research showed they were no better than a placebo at supporting health. The government can halt sales of an individual product only after it is on the market and shown to be mislabeled or dangerous.

 The law seems to open up the door to the 'wild west' of supplements to which the world is exposed to.  A few years ago, I remember listening to a radio show where the regulator said of this law that the consumer is exposed to literally "whatever the manufacturer decides to put into the product.  The consumer could be buying dirt in a gel coating."  I was appalled to say the least.



This puts the safety and efficacy of a consumer product on the consumer.  Which, if the last sentence of each paragraph in the excerpt are picked out for the stand alone inspection below translates to:

The wording appears not to stop many people from assuming that “support” translates to a proven benefit.

And ...

The government can halt sales of an individual product only after it is on the market and shown to be mislabeled or dangerous.

I don't know about you, but I get a tingly feeling running down my spine when I read either sentence.  I can say that I as a consumer have confidence in the manufacturer that they would operate on 'good faith' to make a reliable product.



As I study more, I become more aware of how gullible I have been.  Although, the solution to such a matter involves the following question:


What alternative is there?



Education to start with.   In the case of supplements or vitamins, many consumers do not realize that the important active compounds (vitamins) in a supplement (some of which) are not digestible in the human body.  Therefore, you take a pill or drink a drink and pee the minerals and vitamins right out the other end.



Understanding that you can get the same nutrition from different fruits and vegetables along with with other food is crucial to the safety and health of yourself and your family.  Many manufacturers play on the inability of the consumer not to pay attention or ask questions about the efficacy of their product.



I will leave you with this thought.  Education can take you only so far.  At some point, you do have to live with the understanding that toxicity is a spectrum.  Every compound is a degree (a data point) on the spectrum of toxicity.  Although, the more education that you put forward toward understanding the consumer products and their effectiveness versus adverse effects, the better off you will be!



So, go educate thyself!



Have a great day!