Only 30% of the 298 health foods passed human trials, and innocent animals became experimental subjects. The agency called for changes in the rules.

Share288 + 1 Tweet EmailShares 288

Do "health foods" that claim to have "health benefits" need to pass "human trials"? The Taiwan Animal Society Research Society held a press conference today (29). It was pointed out that only 30% of the 298 health foods in China had been tested and proved to be effective in human beings, while the remaining 70% of the products claimed to have health care efficacy only based on the results of animal experiments. Even the Ministry of Health and Welfare did not require health food safety tests and health efficacy test laboratories to comply with the "good practice for non-clinical trials of drugs (GLP)."

Chen Yu-min, deputy chief executive of Taiwan's Animal Society Research Association, questioned how health food tested only through animal experiments can prove that its efficacy is really useful to the human body. If the laboratory is not required to comply with the GLP specification, how can the test method be proved to be effective? "unnecessary animal experiments are animal cruelty. Lax animal experimental design is not only disadvantageous to animals, but also likely to cause human harm."

(right) legislator Lin Shufen (left) Chen Yumin, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Taiwan Animal Society Research Association (Photography / Lai Yuwei)

FDA: reconsideration with reference to international standards

The Animal Society of Taiwan called on the Food and Drug Administration to revise the "methods for evaluating the efficacy of health food" and abolish animal experiments for "efficacy evaluation" and replace them with "human trials" to ensure that the efficacy is really effective. and experimental mice will not suffer as a result of animal experiments; safety tests should also give priority to the alternative of "non-living animals".

In response to the appeal of the Taiwan Animal Society Research Society, Lin Chin-fu only responded that the Food and Drug Administration did not promise to change the two-track system, but if it heard voices from the outside world, it would study it with reference to international standards.

Share288 + 1 Tweet EmailShares 288