k.harvey, if it had not come up in your discussions, misrepresentation is one problem, but another is the TGA seem to have a single job, to assure safety, not address quality or efficacy.
Using krill oil as an example, it is a natural and thus variable product described by a “monograph”. Australian manufacturers are not required to show EPA or DHA, while in jurisdictions such as the USA it is required. A few Australian companies provide full labelling but most have no labelling beyond the mg of krill oil. Some companies will not respond to the EPA/DHA question and others answer by claiming all krill is the same. However, the EPA/DHA content varies by almost double across labelled products (including those companies who do not label but are honest enough to answer a direct question), suggesting different quality products are derived from different processing techniques.
The lack of mandated labelling makes it impossible for a consumer to evaluate product quality, however, I did a 3 month study (n=1) with 3 different brands, and the two that had no EPA/DHA labelling required me to take a double or triple dose as compared to the one with mid-upper labelled EPA and DHA to achieve anecdotally similar joint relief.
Perhaps the TGA is a case of politically inspired window dressing appearing to be consumer protection but is really an industry protection mechanism?
