I am not sure what you are taking issue with. I don't know what the legal
defintion is of neutraceuticals. I did not define it as something the
body produces. I was taking issue with that definition. Or, are you
saying any product the body produces should be unregulated (insulin, growth
hormone, testosterone, etc.) I suspect the legal loophole has to do with
marketing. As long as the manufacturer makes no claims for its product, it
is essentially unregulated. But of course it can encourage someone to
write a book about it. Anybody out there with experience in drug
regulatory affairs?
Incidently, I do not consider Cosequin to be the worst abuser of this
loophole. My understanding (third hand rumor) is that they are actually
doing some controlled testing.
Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net
----------
> From: Tivers@aol.com
> To: ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: Re: Cosequin is not a drug
> Date: Wednesday, December 04, 1996 11:37 AM
>
> In a message dated 96-12-03 20:24:06 EST, you write:
>
> << Hormones are also produced by the body. They are highly regulated and
> abused. There is a new one undergoing clinical trials that is a equine
> growth hormone. There may be a difference between a pharmaceutical and
> neutraceutical, but it is largely a legal difference that reduces the
> testing necessary before marketing.
>
> Duncan Fletcher >>
>
> The same can be said for vitamin D, carbohydrates, and many other
nutrients.
> Nutrients like fats and carbohydrates can have dramatic impacts on
athletic
> performance, depending on quantity, quality and timing of
> feeding--nutraceuticls, but your definition. Why don't we ban nutrition
until
> we get it all sorted out and properly legalized? Can your horse go
without a
> few meals--couple of decades, perhaps?
>
> ti