Talk:United States Pharmacopeia

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements Low‑importance

	United States Pharmacopeia is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

It is requested that an image or photograph of the USP label on a bottle be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Needs logo

USP recently did a branding update, and their logo has never been put on this page. Here is a link to the logo: http://www.usp.org/themes/usporg/images/interior_logo.png. This is the logo currently in use on their main site at www.usp.org.

Cleverbutter884 (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article incorrect

This article is titled United Statates Pharmacopoeia. However, on the web pages of its publishers, which does indeed have the second o in the spelling of its name, United States Pharmacopoeial Convention, Inc., in the list of acronyms at http://www.usp.org/pdf/standards/acronyms.pdf it is listed as

USP: United States Pharmacopeia
USP DI: U.S. Pharmacopeia Dispensing Information
USP-DQI: USP Drug Quality and Information Progarm
USP-IV: U.S. Pharmacopeia’s Ingredient Verification Program
USP–NF: U.S. Pharmacopeia–National Formulary

Gene Nygaard 19:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I renamed (moved) the page--Ryanjo 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The publisher of the USP misspell the word pharmacopoeia and never noticed that. Maybe someone should inform them about their mistake? 131.220.136.195 13:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a misspelling. Discussion of the three valid spellings appears in this related article. David Spector (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More material

The following was on Unique selling proposition but probably belongs here:

USP also refers to, in the medical and pharmaceutical world, a standard of quality.

The United States Pharmacopeia (USP) is the official public standards-setting authority for all prescription and over-the-counter medicines, dietary supplements, and other healthcare products manufactured and sold in the United States. USP sets standards for the quality of these products and works with healthcare providers to help them reach the standards. USP's standards are also recognized and used in more than 130 countries. These standards have been helping to ensure good pharmaceutical care for people throughout the world for more than 185 years.

USP is an independent, science-based public health organization. As a self-sustaining nonprofit organization, USP is funded through revenues from the sale of products and services that help to ensure good pharmaceutical care. USP's contributions to public health are enriched by the participation and oversight of volunteers representing pharmacy, medicine, and other healthcare professions as well as academia, government, the pharmaceutical industry, health plans, and consumer organizations. USP promotes the public health by developing and disseminating quality standards and information for medicines, healthcare delivery, and related products and practices. Our standards and information help patients and practitioners maintain and improve health.

USP establishes public standards to help assure good quality medicines, dietary supplements, and related products used to maintain health and treat disease. Prescription and over-the-counter medicines available in the United States must, by federal law, meet USP's public standards, where such standards exist. Many other countries require the use of high-quality standards such as USP's to assure the quality of medicines and related products. USP disseminates its standards to pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacists, and other users through its USP–NF and other publications, official USP Reference Standards materials, and Pharmacopeial Education courses.

USP also conducts verification programs for dietary supplement ingredients and products. These programs involve independent testing and review to verify ingredient and product integrity, purity, and potency for manufacturers who choose to participate.

I didn't want to add it directly to the article; if someone else wants to, feel free. -- pne (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion?

Is this in any way related to the labeling of medications? For Example: 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP or Povidone-Iodine, USP anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.190.35 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2009

Yes. The "USP" designation means the ingredient meets the Pharmacopeia specifications for that material (purity, definition of terms, etc.). DMacks (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the definition of each such ingredient is not free public information, but sold by USP, a for-profit corporation. To know exactly what chemicals are in your food and medicines, you would have to pay $500 U.S. or more for the documentation. David Spector (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USP Certification vs. GMP Certification

Does anyone know which is a higher standard of quality, USP certification vs. GMP certification? I'm specifically talking about dietary supplements. Toni H.98.190.145.197 (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the reference standard of water not listed at.......

http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=en&safe=strict&q=water+site%3Awww.usp.org%2FreferenceStandards%2F&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

--124.78.213.44 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.uspcatalog.com/uspcatalog/20100506#pg1

--124.78.213.44 (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notability

this article has exactly zero references. why is it notable? hope someone doesn't find this question absurd, although i wouldn't be surprised as we live in a absurd world. 188.2.160.48 (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this should be deleted. The only sources are itself or those unrelated to the organization. I suspect this is a page designed to enhance the credibility of the organization and its book. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prices and online access to the information

I would think it relevant to the article to state that documentation of "USP" medicines and food additives costs $500 and there appears to be no free online access to this important information. The heart of standardization of ingredients is a for-profit corporation. No one cares? There is no controversy over this? No WP editor wants to research this? David Spector (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, just because an organization charges a fee for a service or information, doesn't make them for-profit. The USP is a non-profit organization - and wouldn't be able to claim so, with their current position with the FDA, if they weren't. In fact, charging for services and information pertaining to their purpose, is how just about every non-profit pays for the expenses accrued in performing their function. I work for a non-profit that's a professional development association - they aren't raising money with bake sales.

Second, if you have a source for your information, you should post it. I've searched on several relevant keywords to your comments, and found zero information of relevance. I haven't so much as found a random online forum where people are complaining about whatever it is you're requesting investigation of.

Lastly, what are you requesting investigation of, because that is entirely unclear? The article and the organization's web page document that they aren't even the creators of the FCC that is used for standards, and the full text of the USP-NF public standards appear to be visible on their site. I don't remotely qualify myself as an 'editor', but I know enough to know that they don't just go researching every accusation someone throws up on the Talk page, without a clearer path to understanding the basis of the accusation. CleverTitania (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use in advertising

I'm not sure how this fits in, but . . .

The first time I ever heard of "USP" was in a commercial for Nature Made supplements.

In fact, it's the only time I hear about "USP" on TV --- in Nature Made commercials.

At the "Nature Made" redirect to the article of Pharmavite, it's stated that "Pharmavite works with the United States Pharmacopeia's (USP) Dietary Supplements Verification Program on some of its products."

Should this 'connection' be mentioned in this article?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I suspect this is some kind of promotion. I would move the article for deletion. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is article wrong about the organization's name?

The first sentence of the article says that "U.S. Pharmacopeia" is the name of the published compendium, and "the United States Pharmacopeial Convention" is the organization that publishes it. (Both are referred to as USP.) However, the organization's press releases and Twitter feed say the organization's name is also "U.S. Pharmacopeia," suggesting that the page's first sentence is wrong. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]