I’ve been wondering how a company actually manufactures homeopathic remedies. I know you mix the ingredient 10/1 in a carrier (water, alcohol, sugar), take a tenth of that and mix it again 10/1, and do that 20 or 30 times until there’s no measurable amount of the original ingredient left.
But, how do we know the manufacturer is actually doing that? How could we tell they’re not simply packaging sugar pills? I’m sure they could save a lot of money, and nobody could ever tell the difference.
There are no legally enforceable definitions, only legally enforceable trademarks. If you want to use a particular trademark, you need the permission of its owner. And the owner may enforce whatever standards it wishes.
I can’t find any restrictions on using the term homeopathic in United States.
I wonder what the people who work at these kinds of fake “drug” manufacturers are allowed to say? Like, presumably they are intelligent, educated people (this isn’t some little hippy heath food shop, it’s a major international company) they must know it’s all bullshit. But presumably if they say that in written communication that’s the basis for a huge lawsuit. So is there an “elephant in the room” where they all know what they are doing is bullshit, but no one is ever allowed to say that? They all need to keep up the fiction that they believe what they are making isn’t bullshit?
Surely that’s not the case. I can’t say my product is hand made by apache craftsmen in the high desert when it’s made in a factory in New Jersey. Even if there is no official organization of Apache desert craftsmen whose trademarked certification I’m using without permission
I have heard of pharmacists filling prescriptions for homeopathic “remedies” with ordinary tap water from the sink in the pharmacy, on the grounds that it’s a generic equivalent with the same active ingredient.
At those ridiculously dilute homeopathic levels, the actual active ingredient (whatever ghost of a molecule remains) would cost almost nothing—probably fractions of a penny. A sugar carrier would likely cost more than the “active ingredient.” The real expense? Packaging, labeling, shipping, quality control, and regulatory paperwork.
Though it’s a lot of work for someone to do, and you need to pay them to do it (and make sure they are trained well enough so you don’t end up, say, getting bacterial contamination ). If you want zero atoms of the active ingredients in your base, it’s much cheaper and easier to just not put any of them in to begin with
I think he means that there are no legally enforceable definitions of “kosher” or “halal”. It is, in fact, totally legal to claim that your ham-and-cheese sandwiches are kosher, it’s up to the consumer to evaluate your trustworthiness. Which is as it should be, we don’t want the government deciding who is defining religious law the “correct” way.
Even in the case you mention, you could be sued for consumer fraud, but even then the plaintiff would have to prove that a reasonable consumer wouldn’t have purchased your product if they’d known the label was inaccurate. There have been frivolous lawsuits where people claimed to have been defrauded because the snow-capped mountain on the label of their bottled water didn’t accurately depict the area from which the water was drawn, for instance.
They’d still have to pay people to fill bottles with the carrier/inactive ingredient(s), and they’re subject to inspections, regulatory compliance, and paperwork. Skipping the active wouldn’t meaningfully cut costs, but it could get them fined, shut down, or publicly embarrassed.
)
). If you want zero atoms of the active ingredients in your base, it’s much cheaper and easier to just not put any of them in to begin with