I disagree, and I believe you are reading too much into the article. It wants to distinguish between a dietary supplement, which "supplies one or more essential nutrients missing from the diet" and other supplements, including "even hormones, such as DHEA and melatonin." Where is the limit? Do you agree that an industrial chelator like OSR, untested on even animals, should not be considered a supplement?

Let's take DHEA as an example: it's advertised that it "may be beneficial for a wide variety of ailments" (quoting Wikipedia), but none of those claims seem justified, based on experimental testing. While on the other hand, "High doses may cause aggressiveness, irritability, trouble sleeping, and the growth of body or facial hair on women. It also may stop menstruation and lower the levels of HDL." (again, Wikipedia). So we have something which doesn't seem to be useful, and has side effects such that a sugar pill might be better.

Let's suppose a supplement has no observed benefits, and has observed and negative side effects. Note that the tests which fail to show benefits do not cost "hundreds of millions of dollars." At what point should that supplement be pulled from the market? Should ephedra be on the market?

Some supplements are harmful, if only because of "because of criminally shoddy manufacturing standards." You mention the factor in NJ and implied it was only one of a few examples. The linked to article says "one in four supplement manufacturers has received a warning letter, which is considered significant." That doesn't sound like a few examples to me.

Where do you see the author proposing a change to the law? The author wants the existing laws to be enforced. He complains that the supplements industry fights even these basic requirements, and bemoans that the FDA is not fast enough at upholding the law. Where do you see the argument that there should be more regulations for them to enforce?

You say the author is like a politician saying "hey, our team may have completely screwed up the economy, but that just means we know more about to fix it!" I believe the claim is that the FDA has been hobbled by Orin Hatch and others, through the law, and that political reasons have meant that the FDA's oversight of the multi-billion dollar supplements industry is not the same team as its oversight of the food industry or the drug industry. So I don't believe your analogy holds - the government is not a homogenous team.

Going back to human testing. Tests are done. "Jaako Murso and colleagues followed 38,772 older women for 25 years. ... the risk of death INCREASED with long term use of multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc, and copper." "The authors concluded that 'there's little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements.'" Or, Eric Klein and colleagues studied 35,533 men over the past 10 years, looking at whether vitamin E or selenium would decrease the risk of prostate cancer. ... the risk of cancer INCREASED for the min taking vitamin E, selenium, or both. Although the increased risk is small, it is abundantly clear that neither of these supplements is helpful against prostate cancer." (Quoting Forbes.)

So, okay, I can accept the idea that supplements can go on the market without being tested. What should the industry result be if subsequent testing shows that the supplement doesn't do anything useful? If the answer is "don't change and keep selling", then I wish it wouldn't associate itself so closely with health and well-being and would instead say it's more like a PEZ.