First it was fish, now it's supplements

Lergnom
Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:44:15 +0000

[Here[/url] is a study - described in [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?src=me&ref=general]this NYT article](http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7015-11-222.pdf) - which says that herbal supplements aren’t what the label says. (The reference about fish is the numerous DNA tests that show the fish we’re sold, particularly in restaurants, isn’t what they say it is and usually is something much cheaper.)

Only 2 of 12 companies provided “authentic” samples, meaning they contained the ingredients they claimed and nothing else. 32% of the samples showed “substitution”, meaning they didn’t have what was claimed but had something else. And so on. Some products were basically sawdust.

They also run through other work that shows similar results.

So yet another product you can’t trust.