Guest guest Posted May 13, 2002 Report Share Posted May 13, 2002 One of the obscure details hidden deep in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill) is an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) that limits the use of the name “ginseng,” whether on product labeling or in advertising, to ingredients derived from the genus Panax. The Farm Bill specifically amends the FDC Act by expanding the definition of a misbranded food to include any food, including a dietary supplement, that “purports to be or is represented as ginseng, unless it is an herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant classified within the genus Panax.” The Bill also states that “the term ‘ginseng’ may only be considered to be a common or usual name (or part thereof) for any herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant classified within the genus Panax.” In addition, the Bill establishes that “only labeling or advertising for herbs or herbal ingredients within…[the genus Panax] may include the term “ginseng.’” This part of the new law appears to prohibit even the use of a statement like “also known as [xxx] ginseng” for any non-Panax plant. Stephen Morrissey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2002 Report Share Posted May 13, 2002 The info below is from the American Herbal Products Association. Does this type of info interest this group? One of the obscure details hidden deep in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill) is an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) that limits the use of the name “ginseng,” whether on product labeling or in advertising, to ingredients derived from the genus Panax. The Farm Bill specifically amends the FDC Act by expanding the definition of a misbranded food to include any food, including a dietary supplement, that “purports to be or is represented as ginseng, unless it is an herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant classified within the genus Panax.” The Bill also states that “the term ‘ginseng’ may only be considered to be a common or usual name (or part thereof) for any herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant classified within the genus Panax.” In addition, the Bill establishes that “only labeling or advertising for herbs or herbal ingredients within…[the genus Panax] may include the term “ginseng.’” This part of the new law appears to prohibit even the use of a statement like “also known as [xxx] ginseng” for any non-Panax plant. Stephen MorrisseyChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2002 Report Share Posted May 13, 2002 Quite interesting, indeed. On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 03:15 PM, stephen wrote: > The info below is from the American Herbal Products Association. Does > this type of info interest this group? > > > One of the obscure details hidden deep in the Farm Security and Rural > Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill) is an amendment to the Federal > Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) that limits the use of the name > “ginseng,” whether on product labeling or in advertising, to > ingredients derived from the genus Panax. > > The Farm Bill specifically amends the FDC Act by expanding the > definition of a misbranded food to include any food, including a > dietary supplement, that “purports to be or is represented as ginseng, > unless it is an herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant > classified within the genus Panax.” The Bill also states that “the > term ‘ginseng’ may only be considered to be a common or usual name (or > part thereof) for any herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant > classified within the genus Panax.” > > In addition, the Bill establishes that “only labeling or advertising > for herbs or herbal ingredients within…[the genus Panax] may include > the term “ginseng.’” This part of the new law appears to prohibit even > the use of a statement like “also known as [xxx] ginseng” for any > non-Panax plant. > > Stephen Morrissey > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2002 Report Share Posted May 13, 2002 It interests me. For one thing, it alerts me to forthcoming labeling changes. Frances stephen wrote: <?fontfamily><?param Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>The info below is from the American Herbal Products Association. Does this type of info interest this group? One of the obscure details hidden deep in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill) is an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) that limits the use of the name “ginseng,” whether on product labeling or in advertising, to ingredients derived from the genus Panax. The Farm Bill specifically amends the FDC Act by expanding the definition of a misbranded food to include any food, including a dietary supplement, that “purports to be or is represented as ginseng, unless it is an herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant classified within the genus Panax.” The Bill also states that “the term ‘ginseng’ may only be considered to be a common or usual name (or part thereof) for any herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant classified within the genus Panax.” In addition, the Bill establishes that “only labeling or advertising for herbs or herbal ingredients within…[the genus Panax] may include the term “ginseng.’” This part of the new law appears to prohibit even the use of a statement like “also known as [xxx] ginseng” for any non-Panax plant. Stephen Morrissey Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2002 Report Share Posted May 14, 2002 Stephen, Like Z'ev, I'm also interested in this and all other information related to the redefinition of terms. It points yet again to the necessity of developing our own standards based upon the long standing meanings of the terms that have constituted the nomenclature of the subject for centuries. If we don't, someone else will; and as this example illustrates, the process of being redefined can have severe implications. Ken , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Quite interesting, indeed. > > > On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 03:15 PM, stephen wrote: > > > The info below is from the American Herbal Products Association. Does > > this type of info interest this group? > > > > > > One of the obscure details hidden deep in the Farm Security and Rural > > Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill) is an amendment to the Federal > > Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) that limits the use of the name > > " ginseng, " whether on product labeling or in advertising, to > > ingredients derived from the genus Panax. > > > > The Farm Bill specifically amends the FDC Act by expanding the > > definition of a misbranded food to include any food, including a > > dietary supplement, that " purports to be or is represented as ginseng, > > unless it is an herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant > > classified within the genus Panax. " The Bill also states that " the > > term `ginseng' may only be considered to be a common or usual name (or > > part thereof) for any herb or herbal ingredient derived from a plant > > classified within the genus Panax. " > > > > In addition, the Bill establishes that " only labeling or advertising > > for herbs or herbal ingredients within…[the genus Panax] may include > > the term " ginseng.' " This part of the new law appears to prohibit even > > the use of a statement like " also known as [xxx] ginseng " for any > > non-Panax plant. > > > > Stephen Morrissey > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2002 Report Share Posted May 14, 2002 , " " < zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Quite interesting, indeed. since so many chinese herbs are misidentified, but still sold anyway, I see no problem with this. It mainly affects those who stand to make a profit on direct to consumer sales. It should have zero effect on professional practice and informed consumers. I will prevent deception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.