Should teens be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements (not steroids)

Thank you, Kabirgrover.Negative CasePremise: Peer pressureNot objected to. My opponent agrees that teenagers are poor decision makers whom are often swayed by their peers.A1: Lax governmental regulationWhilst my opponent argues some of the points under this heading (addressed by me under counter-arguments), my opponent never addresses the sources I provided, hence they are conceded.The idea that teenagers are inexperienced decision makers, in regards to consumer products, was also an issue that went uncontested.Counter-arguments"Sometimes , what you talked about can happen."My opponent concedes that this issue of toxic ingredients is a real possibility, that it happens "sometimes". Is it okay that sometimes, people's health is put at serious risk due to this problem?"But the rules are strict now. The company called "ConsumerLab" tests rach and every supplement that is made."Does this company test products made in various countries? To what standard does this company test things to? Is the company free of corruption? Does this company even exist? Without citing any information, all we are presented, via my opponent, is that there might be a company that might test "each and every" supplement made to perhaps an acceptable degree. My opponent provides absolutely no evidence to support his claim, making it a bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy [1]. "Parents can check the reputation of the company and also go into the depth of the ingredients used."No they cannot. As both of my uncontested sources showed, companies are not required put much information about the ingredients imbedded within their products."Parents don't want teens to take supplements because they think that they are shortcuts and "steroids" where as they are not."My opponent now begins to psychoanalyse all parents without a shred of evidence; to give my opponent this point, you would have to believe that he is able to read the minds of parents from all over the world. Again, this is merely another bare assertion."Supplements arae sometimes important for teen bodybuilders because they add an amount of protein that is difficult to obtain from a natural diet." Just another bare assertion."I do agree that supplements should be used not abused, but doesn't that apply for everything in our life? Even consuming 15 apples a day can harm you." My contention was never that consuming in excess was an issue, rather that consuming at all was the issue, due to the potential toxicity of the products. Remember that my opponent conceded "sometimes" the product being consumed is toxic. ConclusionMy argument that teenagers are poor decision makers, due to peer pressure and beng inexperienced consumers, sets the context for this debate (and went unaddressed). In the event that parents are making the decision, my sources indicated that they are an a poor position to make decision due to companies not being required to provide much information about the ingredients of the product (sources were never contested). Due to this poor position, it "sometimes" happens that toxic ingredients are able to slip past minimal governmental checks and potentially harm anyone who takes the product. For these reasons, teens should not be allowed to take body-building supplments.In opposition to this argument, my opponent has largely provided bare assertion after bare assertion, of which are logical fallacies. If my opponent's claims were substantiated with sources like mine were, then he/she might have had a case, but they were not. Hence, my arguments still stand and there is very good reason a vote my way is the right way.Thank you kabirgrover for the debate and thank you for reading =)Reference[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...