Atomic Dog wrote:
Many of us in the biz have long theorized that the FDA would lose this case because they wanted to lose the case.
They don’t think the legistlation as written was strong enough.
In other words, they want to make the case for a much stronger law that would either include or set precedence for banning other supplements.
Yeah, but if they lost the case based on a weaker law, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the stronger law would also be overturned? And that’s assuming that Congress passes a stronger law. [/quote]
It wasn’t a law that was overturned. It was a regulatory ban, because the current laws (according to the ruling) were not sufficient to support the ban.
The stronger law would guarantee them of their regulations NOT being overturned.