First of all, health care products are not medicine, can not replace medicine, can not treat diseases. The state was right to introduce this law. Later, in order to manage the health care product market more effectively, it has been perfected: health care product publicity can not prevent and treat diseases! In order for the public to understand the government s decision, the government will prevent companies from commercially associating health products with diseases.
It is the duty of a citizen to uphold the laws of the country, and it is permissible to give democratic advice. Health care products can not prevent and treat diseases: It means that health care products can not clearly prevent the occurrence of certain diseases, let alone treat certain diseases, due to their own characteristics and positioning. However, our people cannot mechanically understand that health care products are completely separated from diseases, or even that health care products are not remotely related to diseases. This is not in accordance with the facts, not in accordance with thousands of years of Chinese medicine and food homology and nutrition facts.
Even in some local cases of health care products, it may become: as long as health care products are related to diseases, as long as they have effects on diseases, it may be equivalent to selling health care products as medicines, which is illegal or even criminal. In fact, many health care products are the same as medicine and food, it is functional; It is effective for people's health; For example, immune-boosting products can reduce the risk of certain diseases; Many of the 27 health care functions approved by the state are adjuvant improvement and adjuvant treatment for various disease indicators. It's all related to the disease. How do you separate it? These are also in health care products Baidu encyclopedia inside the clear.
If a company advertises a health product with the explicit statement: This is a medicine, it is to cure you, and it will definitely cure you, then it is sold as a medicine, and that is crossing a red line. If not, just stay on the efficacy of this product, the improvement of the disease will be helpful, to extend the scope of the part of administrative punishment. If the health care products are completely separated from the disease, it is a thorough idealism, but also the broad line of law and regulation management. Many formal health care products are some of the formulations of traditional Chinese medicine, but also many are biological extracts. And many of the medicines in our country are also extracted from Chinese herbal medicine and biological essence.
Of COURSE, BOTH are different on the standard. For this reason, relevant national departments have stipulated that health care products are declared only in 27 functions. And most of them have to go through animal experiments and have data to back them up. At the same time, the final product can only be declared on a certain item, and it is illegal to advertise beyond this content. We also support this regulation.
Objectively speaking: in the actual process, because of the complexity of the individual, a product in the actual role of the human body, can achieve the effect of the approval of the document, there must be limitations. Can there be some other help in the individual outside the approval, in fact, only consumers themselves can understand. The provisions of these 27 functions can be as close to the facts as possible, which is the law and regulations to define the actual functions of products and to achieve the largest common divisor.
So can new resource food, functional food and special diet food play a role? Can you talk about efficacy? Can it help with the disease? There is no doubt that many of these products, which are based on nutrients and food extracts, are not medicines that cannot cure diseases. However, there is room for deliberation and communication as to whether it can talk about its effect, its efficacy, and whether it is helpful to the disease. Chinese medicine and food have been homologous for thousands of years. Many foods are medicines themselves, which are both used as medicine and food. There is no absolute dividing line between them; Many foods can be used to prevent disease; Many foods have effects on the human body; This is a summary of the living experience of the common people for thousands of years.
Celery on blood pressure, garlic can kill bacteria, monascus can reduce fat, these facts do exist objectively. Since these foods have objective effects on the human body, it is possible to talk about the effects of various functional foods extracted from these foods in the scope of this material component, otherwise it is not logical. Talk about efficacy, but don't exaggerate or even promise efficacy. This is a practical attitude towards things. Laws cannot distort the nature of the objective existence of things.
No matter new resource food, functional food or special diet food, they are all scientific existences in nutrition. The state has clear academic definitions and precise divisions for these foods, and the relevant academic materials are introduced in detail. For example, new resource food: the state encourages the development and research of such products. What is it developed for? If it doesn't work and it doesn't work for human health is it put on the market for people to eat and fill their stomachs? Doesn't make sense? National relevant department, professional organization approval audit these products can not waste national resources?
New resource food is clearly defined: if it has one or more functions, it will not be marked in detail in the product introduction. It is clear: the new resource food is functional for the human body. For example, the conditioning effect of bifidobacterium on intestinal flora and the antioxidant effect of astaxanthin have long been recognized in the world nutrition level. The definition of functional food clearly reads: enhance physical fitness, prevent disease, regulate function, delay aging; Special dietary foods are clearly defined to meet the nutritional needs of patients with certain diseases. Whether it's new resources, functions, special dietary foods these are not drugs, they can't cure diseases, it's a matter of principle. And does it work? Does it help with the disease? It's worth considering.
In the case of some foods around the world it may evolve into; Not medicine, not health care products, as long as the propaganda has the effect, propaganda and disease has the effect, may be to treat food as medicine to sell. It's illegal even on a criminal level. We may not know what new resource foods, functional foods, special diet foods are. The law is more professional and rigorous in this field, which is a strong demonstration of the national judicial credibility. Many cases determine the future and fate of a person and an enterprise. It's worth exploring the rigor.
Whether health care products, food as medicine to sell? The core criteria: whether they are for the purpose of curing diseases, whether they mislead consumers by treating them as drugs, and clearly promise that they can cure diseases and cure diseases. If you just talk about some efficacy, talk about some help to the disease, you should strike within a reasonable range.
Whether it's health supplements or functional foods. Does it work? Can we not talk about efficacy? Does it help the disease? This is not just a matter of policy, nor a matter of law. More importantly, it is a matter of fact, which is determined by the facts themselves. Regulations can not "have the effect" regulations "away", nor can "no effect" regulations "have", any thing, should be established on the basis of facts, to "seek truth from facts" principle to treat.
Whether it's a nutraceutical product or any functional food, if the ingredients have the benefits that are supported by nutritional science, they can be clearly consulted. On some level, this is already objective to a certain extent. Then the starting point of the stipulation: respect its objective existence attribute, allow it to introduce the right of efficacy within the scope, strike and punish is: exaggerate its efficacy and promised that the other party will surely obtain this efficacy!