Your Right to Use Vitamins Is in Jeopardy, Senators Push Regulatory Assault on Vitamins

HUMAN EVENTS ^ | 09.03.03 | Dr. Julian Whitaker

[Coleus]

Your Right to Use Nutritional Supplements Is in Jeopardy

Senators Push Regulatory Assault on Vitamins

by Dr. Julian Whitaker

Posted Sep 3, 2003

	Text Size:  S   M   L
	printer-friendly
	email to a friend

Government Ignores the True Cost of Medical Care 

 

Pharmaceutical Firms Latest To Learn That No Good Deed Goes Unpunished 

 

Hillary's Back! 

 

Admitting Real Costs Could Have Killed Drug Bill 

 

Medicare?s Insolvent Entitlement 

 

We need to take action, and we need to take action now. There is a movement in Congress to push through legislation that would restrict your freedom to use nutritional supplements, and could destroy the nutritional supplement industry?and, in the process, endanger your health.

Here is the problem. Reacting to the hysteria over ephedra, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D.-Ill.) has introduced S. 722, cosponsored by colleagues Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), and Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.). The bill gives unprecedented power to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove nutritional supplements from the market. Here’s how:

• It calls for a reporting system for adverse reactions to nutritional supplements.
  
  
• It empowers the FDA to act on a single adverse reaction report and immediately take the product off the market while it is being investigated.
  
  
• In addition, the FDA could force the manufacturer to undergo prohibitively costly safety analyses of the product, similar to what is required for new drugs.
  
  Here’s a possible scenario. Mrs. Jones in Somewhere, USA, is taking a supplement containing vitamin C. One afternoon she has some diarrhea. She faints, falls in her bathroom, hits her head, and is hospitalized with a head injury.
  
  Believe it or not, an adverse reaction could be pinned on vitamin C. Based upon this single event, the FDA could at its discretion move to restrict sales of vitamin C throughout the entire country until an investigation proves that vitamin C did not cause Mrs. Jones’s problems.
  
  Smokescreen of ‘Safety’
  
  The bill also gives the FDA license to require supplement manufacturers to submit safety information that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, patterned on regulations required for new drugs.
  
  This is absurd. New drugs need rigorous safety testing because they are compounds that have never been ingested by human beings. The ubiquitous use and long history of safety of nutritional supplements are apparently irrelevant to the sponsors of this bill.
  
  The nutritional supplement industry arguably has the best product safety record of any industry in the country. According to Rep. Dan Burton (R.-Ind.), a maximum of 16 deaths were attributed to a nutritional supplement last year. (Excessive doses of ephedra were the suspect in the majority of these cases, and the supplement link was definitively proven in only a few of them.)
  
  Meanwhile, the FDA turns a blind eye to the 106,000 deaths from adverse effects of prescription drugs and the tens of thousands of deaths from aspirin and other over-the-counter drugs that occur every year.
  
  This isn’t about safety. It’s about control.
  
  Harmful Bill
  
  This bill is a good example of government irrationality.
  
  According to a 2002 report by Washington, D.C.,-based Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the use of antioxidants, folic acid, calcium, zinc, and other nutritional supplements could reduce the incidence of neural tube birth defects by 70%, hip fractures by at least 20%, and sick days caused by infectious diseases by 50%?Heart disease, stroke, cataracts, macular degeneration, some types of cancer?nutritional supplements have been shown to prevent or delay all these conditions and others.
  
  Furthermore, CRN reports that by delaying the onset of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and hip fracture alone, nutritional therapies could potentially save $89 billion a year in healthcare costs!
  
  Yet S. 722 would empower the FDA to dismantle the supplement industry and prevent you from receiving the astonishing benefits that only nutritional supplements can deliver.
  
  Immediate Action Needed
  
  The only way to stop this bill is for us to flood our elected representatives and senators with so many e-mails, faxes, and phone calls that they will be forced to say no to this bill.
  
  Grassroots Effectiveness
  
  Don’t underestimate the power of such a grassroots movement. Ten years ago, Health & Healing readers were instrumental in rallying the passing of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). Millions of letters were written to our congressmen and senators in support of this legislation?it generated more letters than any other issue in U.S. history. Because of DSHEA, which reduced the FDA’s power to block the production, sale, and use of natural substances, we have free access to herbs, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and other nutritional supplements.
  
  An FDA Power Grab
  
  You may have read in the press that we need new laws because there is no regulation of nutritional supplements. This is simply not true. DSHEA gives the FDA tremendous regulatory power, and in fact, it already has the power to pull any supplement it feels is unsafe off the market.
  
  Yet because DSHEA also gives supplement manufacturers some autonomy, the FDA has attempted to circumvent it from day one. This agency fought hard against the passage of DSHEA ten years ago and, in a thinly veiled attempt to get rid of or amend it, has refused to act responsibly within its confines ever since.
  
  Time is of the essence. S. 722 has recently been referred to committee and may be tagged onto the Agriculture Appropriations Bill. We can and must act quickly to stop this legislation.
  
  Send a message to your senators today asking them to vote against S. 722. (See box for information.) If you’ve already done so, do it again. Tell your friends about this threat and encourage them to take action as well.
  
  If each one of you could commit to generating just a handful of e-mails, faxes, or phone calls, over a million messages would descend upon Washington. You may not realize how powerful a grassroots campaign like this can be, but our elected officials cannot ignore something of this magnitude.

  Dr. Whitaker is editor of Health and Healing, one of the country's leading health newsletters.

  Herbal Supplements and alternatives are under attack!! Take Action

  Click here to send your message now!

[Coleus]

The Dietary Supplement "Safety" Act (S.722)

 The Dietary Supplement “Safety” Act

Don't Let Congress Overturn the Hard-Fought Victory of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994
 

A new bill called the "Dietary Supplement Safety" Act (S.722) has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Despite its title, it would allow no more consumer protection than current law – the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) – provides. It would, however, significantly undermine many of the freedoms that American consumers of dietary supplements hold dear.

Oppose this Legislation!
The Food and Drug Administration must not be granted new and unprecedented authority to subject safe and beneficial products to additional and unnecessary scrutiny.

This bill would subject nearly all vitamins, minerals, herbal products and other supplements to a level of scrutiny that is both unwarranted and unnecessary. Products that have been used safely for hundreds – and in some cases, thousands – of years would be subject to clinical evaluation using standards that are at the complete discretion of the FDA.
For more information and to e-Mail online to your particular representative go to the NNFA:

National Nutritional Foods Association

It's easy and fast, and locates your Representative by zip code.

Vitamins on the FR

[Coleus]

Sponsored by Dick Durbin, Co-Sponsored by: Sen Clinton, Sen Feinstein, Sen McCain, Sen Schumer,

[cyborg]

MC CAIN????

[steplock]

Since this bill is from LAST YEAR ----

Did you look up the current status? did it pass / fail / tabled ???

[Clintonfatigued]

Has anyone announced opposition to the bill? If so, maybe they should filibuster it.

[cyborg]

done! I should expect nothing less from Hillary Care.

[Lunatic Fringe]

http://www.drwhitaker.com/

Dr. Whitaker has a vested interest in selling unregulated supplements. And I don't by his hysterical argument about the FDA pulling vitamin C off the shelf because someone gets diahhrea.

[shaggy eel]

,,, vitamins? Why have something that's good for you when there's... [CLICK HERE].

[grania]

This comes up every year. The pharmaceutical industry keeps trying to get its buddies in Congress to pass laws against nutritional supplements. As it is, the current laws make it really easy to take a supplement off the market, even if misuse caused medical problems.

It's inane. Can you imagine how many pharmaceuticals would be left on the market under those conditions? Can you imagine what it would cost health insurance plans and the government if people who paid for their own vitamins and supplements instead used products that are covered by insurance policies and government programs?

Is the day going to come when I'll have to go to Canada to purchase vitamin pills? Or, is everyone going to be a zombie with the government deciding what pills they should take? Keep in mind that it has already happened with some adolescents and Ritalin.

[cyborg]

There are a lot of people who don't sell vitamins who have to keep their officials on their toes about this. As you know, the government thinks they know your health needs better than YOU do.

[TX Bluebonnet]

done. Thanks for posting.

[Coleus]

Dr. Whitaker has a vested interest in selling unregulated supplements. And I don't by his hysterical argument about the FDA pulling vitamin C off the shelf because someone gets diahhrea.

So go ahead and support Hillary Care, this bill will hurt the free market and the consumer, like me and 70 million Americans, who takes these products. Who cares about Whitaker besides you?

[ModelBreaker]

Dr. Whitaker has a vested interest in selling unregulated supplements. And I don't by his hysterical argument about the FDA pulling vitamin C off the shelf because someone gets diahhrea.

Your argument is no different than the standard leftist blah blah about any person or business that argues that regulation of its business is a bad idea. 'Well, they have a financial interest.' So rich people complaining about taxes should be ignored because of their financial interest. Farmers complaining about environmental regulations should be ignored, etc.

As to your 'hysteria' argument, you should read up on the history of the FDA's attempts to regulate supplements. It reads like a little slice of Brave New World. It's like a poorly publicized ATF during the Clinton administration. FDA cops swooping down on warehouses of Vitamins that have labels they haven't approved etc etc etc. It's happened many times.

The most important question is: is there a compelling argument that we should give another robust and successful American industry over to the tender ministration of the Feds. I have never seen any good argument that the Feds would make things any better. Given goverment track records, it will probably make things worse.

In the case of the FDA, its even worse than the typical regulators. It's a classic case of an agency that is owned by the regulatees. Many FDA officials are former large pharmaceutical company executives. Most FDA officials go onto lucrative jobs with large pharmaceutical companies.

The result is that the FDA prevents any new competition with the existing large pharmaceutical companies with absurdly expensive testing regimes that force smaller pharmaceutical companies to license the big ones in order to get thru the testing for FDA approval.

The supplement market is creating thousands of jobs in America with a much better record of safety than the pharmaceutical industry. The feds should keep their hands off.

[dcwusmc]

PINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

[Colorado Buckeye]

Sponsored by Dick Durbin, Co-Sponsored by: Sen Clinton, Sen Feinstein, Sen McCain, Sen Schumer,

Well what do you know, a bunch of gun-grabbers going after another slice of our freedom. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

[hermgem]

IL Sen. Durbin for years carved himself a career and gained immeasurable exposure by investigating oil companies whenever gas prices went up. Problem is, he never, not once,
found evidence of price gouging as he originally alleged under great fanfare.
He is currently at it again, while at the same time he voted against Bush's energy policy allowing for exploration in Alaska and is part of the Democratic energy filibusterers.
His voting is also against corn for gas interests in his own corn growing state.
This man is at it again highlighting himself under another consumer protection disguise.
The media loves him, while he so skillfully maneuvers himself into media news, gains popularity with the uninformed, without having to show results as all will be dropped and forgotten when he eventually jumps onto another project.
Durbin is the ultimate consumer protection news hound coming up with dry holes.

[Coleus]

Dr. Atkins called them the FnDA and we both know why. That David Kestler was the worst, I think Atkins once  called him a Nazi.

David Kessler’s Legacy at the FDA

Home

[tdadams]

Where the hell does the Constitution say "Congress shall have the right to make laws determining which vitamins and supplements are suitable for consumption by American citizens, and the right to deem disfavored substances harmful, and the right to ban such substances from the open market"?

I must have missed that clause.

[Coleus]

I must have missed that clause. >>

Yea, me too, some day we will return to the great constitutional republic our forefathers designed and followed.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[discostu]

I have a right to use vitamins?! The fact that this group is adding yet another imaginary right is good enough reason not to sign.

[Wolfie]

Unless the Constitution expressly gives the government overisight, then yes, you do have the right to use vitamins.

[discostu]

No, that kind of thinking is how the whole "penumbra concept" BS got started. While I agree that this is unconstitutional interference in interstate trade that oesn't mean I have a right to use vitamins, what it means is the government doesn't have a right to try to crush this industry. Important difference.

[Wolfie]

I must have missed that clause.

Most people believe the Constitution works the opposite way. That is, if the right is not expressly listed in the Consitution, then the people don't have it. Understandable, since in reality that is how it has come to work over the years.

[Wolfie]

So there are no such things as "inalienable" rights?

[discostu]

There such things as inalienable rights, using vitamins ain't on that list.

[Coleus]

Not ALL rights are listed in the Constitution that is why they put in the vague 9th amendment (unnamed rights not listed) which became the bellwether for the Roe vs.. Wade decision with the "right to privacy".

And those rights NOT enumerated in the Bill of Rights are then left up to the STATES and NOT for Hillary and the US Congress, 10th amendment states' rights.

There are 70 million of us who have done just very well taking supplements without Hillary and the Congress watching over us. I think we can survive without them.

[discostu]

I don't have a problem with the suppliment industry, I don't have a problem with trying to stop this bill. What I have a problem with is people adding "rights" willie-nillie. As we both pointed out, that's how we got this "right to privacy" concept that somehow includes abortion. It's bad logic and a bad argument that leads to future troubles.

[Wolfie]

So what is "on the list"?

Pragmatically speaking, of course, it doesn't matter. The Feds will do whatever they want, whenever they want.

[Dead Corpse]

Buying, owning, and wearing white boxers isn't on the list either. What is your point?

[freeeee]

What I have a problem with is people adding "rights" willie-nillie.

They were never added, they always existed as non-enumerated.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Know your rights]

So what is "on the list"?

I'm eager to find out what my inalienable rights are, and why they don't include taking vitamins. (I hope they include eating food.)

[robertpaulsen]

"you do have the right to use vitamins."

Wow! Cool.

Hey, Wolfie, is that an unalienable right like the unalienable right to do drugs and the unalienable right to own a machine gun?

[NorthGA]

Our local favorite vitamin store is also concerned about this bill. While S722 appears to still be in process, I understand that another similar bill has passed and is in committee with the house.

Dr. Whitaker (and others) have an interest in selling vitamins. I have an interest in having them available to take. The vitamin industry pales in comparison to the pharmaceutical companies for the amount of money they want to control.

One man's ephedra may be viewed either positively or negatively by others. I think he should have the freedom to make the choice himself - w/o government control except for the purity of whatever supplement it claims to be.

[freeeee]

The Origins of the Ninth Amendment

"The origins of the ninth amendment can be traced to the debate surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. The Antifederalists, who opposed ratification, concentrated much of their attack on the absence of a bill of rights. Although many Antifederalists were probably more concerned with defeating the Constitution than with obtaining a bill of rights, they repeatedly pressed this charge because it struck a responsive cord with the people. The Federalists who supported ratification, such as Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, gave two answers to this complaint."

"First, they said that a bill of rights was unnecessary. Because the federal government was one of enumerated and limited powers, it would have no power to violate the rights of the people. "Why, for instance," asked Hamilton, "should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Second, they argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous. Enumerating any rights might suggest to later interpreters of the Constitution that the rights not specified had been surrendered. An enumeration of rights could thereby lead to an unwarranted expansion of federal power and a corresponding erosion of individual rights."

The Rights Retained by The People [and the presumption of liberty]

[discostu]

Life liberty persuit of happiness speech assembly religion bear arms freedom from unwarranted search and seizure... come on guys these are no brainers, you have read the Declaration of Independance and the Bill or Rights.

[discostu]

My point is that making up sillie rights is how we've gotten stuck with right to abortion and right to homosexual marriage. If you want to stop a stupid bill (which I'm all for) don't do it with a falcious argument that makes up some previously never before seen "right" which could have some pretty annoying consequences down the road.

[Dead Corpse]

Actually dumba$$, the machine gun part is in fact listed. Ever hear of the Second Amendment? What is a machine gun if not in the classification of a militia armament?

I know the whole "shall not be infringed" thing confuses you...

[discostu]

Well great, then by that logic there are penumbra concepts and Roe v Wade was right. Of course since we all know there aren't any penumbra concepts and Roe v Wade was garbage then obviously you're interpreting the 9th and 10th too broadly.

[Dead Corpse]

So keeping extra Constitutional powers out of the hands of the Feds is now "silly".

Thanks for playing...

[freeeee]

Life liberty persuit of happiness speech assembly religion bear arms freedom from unwarranted search and seizure...

Those are some of the enumerated rights.

Non-enumerated rights are explicity recognized and afforded protection under the Constitution via the 9th Amendment.

[Dead Corpse]

Roe V Wade was WRONG as it created judicial Law. Something forbidden as it is not listed as a Federal Power. Abortion is a States issue. As are most murder cases. And Marriage. And Drugs. And ....

[discostu]

No, making up idiotic rights that don't really exists is silly. I've said multiple times stopping this law would be a good thing, just do it the right way instead of the leftist way of making crap up.

Thanks for twisting my words into something they're not, it shows you're wrong.

[discostu]

But non-enumerated rights do NOT include any stupid damn thing some bozo decides to make up off the top of his head. You do not now, never have before, and God willing never will, nave a right to take vitamins. No such right exists in a society that actually knows what the word "right" means. The next step after deciding there's some right to take vitamins is making up a duty of the government to provide vitamins, that way lies leftist stupidity. Stop the madness and block the law with things that actually exist, like the fact that this law is entirely outside the limitations to the federal government listed in he Constitution. Stop bad laws with smart things not with moronic made up rights.

[robertpaulsen]

My points always elude you, don't they? I'll try again. Is it an unalienable right?

[Wolfie]

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" sounds like the mother of all penumbras to me. Of course, it might be countered by that mother of all Governmental powers, "To Promote the General Welfare".

[Dead Corpse]

Trying to say that somewhere in a government storehouse is a list of all of our Rights is what is silly.

Government has specific powers. Granted to them by us. This isn't one of them.

[Dead Corpse]

No. Your "points" always come across like big government communist bullsh*t to me.

[discostu]

Yeah and if we push through the idea that there's a right to take vitamins that the government dare not interfere with that would also be creating judicial law. I agree vitamins are not something the fed should be considering, but just because the fed shouldn't be messing with something doesn't mean you have a right to it, it just means it's not in the thankfully small list of stuff the fed should be messing with as listed in the Constitution.

[freeeee]

obviously you're interpreting the 9th and 10th too broadly

While the 10th Amendment is self explanatory (all powers not delegated are prohibited), the 9th Amendment needs logical parameters spelled out to determine its scope. And the fickle and changing whims of SCOTUS are not a legitimate method of doing so.

I prefer use the stated purpose of our government as a logical guide to the scope of the 9th:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

As abortion violates the rights of another (life), it is not consistent with the legitimate purpose of our government and does not warrant 9th Amendment protection.

Taking vitamins violates no one's rights. Therefore it falls under the 9th Amendment. Even if it didn't, the 10th Amendment forbids federal involvement (not that the fed cares).