Skip to comments.
Your Right to Use Vitamins Is in Jeopardy,
Senators Push Regulatory Assault on Vitamins
HUMAN EVENTS ^
| 09.03.03
| Dr. Julian Whitaker
Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus
Your Right to Use Nutritional Supplements Is in Jeopardy
Senators Push Regulatory Assault on Vitamins
by Dr. Julian Whitaker
Posted Sep 3, 2003
|
|
|
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. Heres 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.
Heres 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. Joness 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 isnt about safety. Its 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
Dont 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 FDAs 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 youve 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!
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: atkins; atkinsdiet; benny; democrat; dratkins; dshea; fda; food; foodsupplements; health; healthcare; hillary; hillarycare; hillaryhealthcare; jonathanvwright; minerals; nannystate; rights; s722; supplements; vitamins; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-266 next last
To: Know your rights
Nope. Not even close. Most things are not rights, most of them are liberties. It can be legitimate to limit liberties. Until you stop thinking rights and liberties are the same thing you will always be wrong on this, they are not, and the only way they ever will be is by weakening the definition of the word "right". Which is of course exactly what the left is trying to accomplish by making everything a right. If there's a right to take vitamins then obviously rights aren't that cool, in which case it's just as legitimate to restrict that "right" as it is to restrict a real right like speech.
That's the whole goal of making everything rights, to turn around and eliminate them and every other right we have.
221
posted on
06/11/2004 12:01:09 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: Know your rights
Still wrong. Still treating right and liberty as synonyms.
222
posted on
06/11/2004 12:02:09 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: discostu
223
posted on
06/11/2004 12:04:30 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn)
To: Know your rights
Manufacturer
Seller
Buyer
Actually with most modern transactions there's even more. There's usually a distributor that sold to the seller and a wholesaler that sold to the distributor and frequently at least 1 delivery company and possibly as many as there are transferances (a shipper to get from manufacturer to wholesaler, another to get to the distributor, another to get to the seller, and another to get to the buyer). And then if it's something complicated made of multiple parts by multiple manufacturers and assembled by ANOTHER manufacturer... Ever look inside a Dell and seen how many logos of how many different companies are in there, a standard mass market computer usually represents at least 2 dozen seperate transferances of ownership. The simple process of purchasing something is a lot more complicated than most people think.
But you said the government could go after them because it's fraud. The disclaimer makes it legally not fraud, that means the government CAN'T go after them, regardless of how morally reprehensible you and I think they are.
224
posted on
06/11/2004 12:07:30 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: discostu
The disclaimer makes it legally not fraud, that means the government CAN'T go after them, regardless of how morally reprehensible you and I think they are. In that case... caveat emptor.
225
posted on
06/11/2004 12:15:14 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Dead Corpse
Yeah that attitude works all the way up until people start dieing. Eventually the suppliment industry is going to wind up under control of some level of the government. Probably the illegitimate FDA, unless we manage to actually trim the fed back to where it should be by then. But regulation of the industry WILL happen one way or the other, and they'll only have themselves to blame, too much worthless crap in that industry not enough responsible business practices.
226
posted on
06/11/2004 12:18:32 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: discostu
People die from hyponatremia. Does that mean we should ban water? Using your logic, we would HAVE to.
227
posted on
06/11/2004 12:21:51 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Dead Corpse
There you go again giving me a position I don't have. Where did I say ban? I didn't. You'd do much better to stop putting people in boxes, you're not good at it and constantly assign people positions they haven't taken.
228
posted on
06/11/2004 12:23:17 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: tpaine
"The God-given right to kill tyrants is the only really necessary right. All the rest is detail."I'm glad you liked it - I aim to please. ;^)
229
posted on
06/11/2004 12:24:02 PM PDT
by
headsonpikes
(Spirit of '76 bttt!)
To: discostu
Regulation. Restriction. Ban. It is all CONTROL by any other name. Degree is nothing in this argument. Every new power vested in a government will be pushed to the max. Either by power hungry politicians, or by department heads looking for more budget.
This would clearly give the government first a power to regulate, then to regulate out of existance, the enitre industry. Think it won't happen? Ask a gun manufacturer.
230
posted on
06/11/2004 12:25:35 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Dead Corpse
No it's not. Regulation is simply a matter of applying minimum standards to things. Do you think requiring safety belts in cars is the first step to banning them?
Restriction is just a matter of applying minimum standards to purchasers and use. Do you think that requiring peole using explosives to have have proven their ability to do so safely and licensing them is the first step to banning them?
Sometimes regulation leads to banning but it's very rare. Much more often restriction leads to banning but even then it's a minority of the time. Regulation, restriction and even banning ARE legitimate actions of government WHEN the product in question meets certain needs.
We're not regulating gun manufacturers out of business, we need them to supply the Army.
231
posted on
06/11/2004 12:31:02 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: discostu
Every act that doesn't screw up other people's rights and liberties is a right or at least a libertyUntil you stop thinking rights and liberties are the same thing
Clearly I'm not.
232
posted on
06/11/2004 12:47:09 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: discostu
Every act that doesn't screw up other people's rights and liberties (or cause a clear and present danger of screwing up other people's rights and liberties) is a right or at least a libertyStill treating right and liberty as synonyms.
Clearly I'm not.
233
posted on
06/11/2004 12:49:09 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: discostu
Manufacturer
Seller
Buyer Actually with most modern transactions there's even more. There's usually a distributor that sold to the seller and a wholesaler that sold to the distributor and frequently at least 1 delivery company and possibly as many as there are transferances (a shipper to get from manufacturer to wholesaler, another to get to the distributor, another to get to the seller, and another to get to the buyer).
Which of these parties other than the buyer is harmed by the fraud we're discussing?
you said the government could go after them because it's fraud.
No, I said "government is within its legitimate authority to punish fraud."
234
posted on
06/11/2004 12:52:07 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: tpaine
I had it yesterday:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1150834/posts?page=49#49
it just means it's not in the thankfully small list of stuff the fed should be messing with as listed in the Constitution.
Learn to read before you insult people. Now really BUZZ OFF, I want nothing to do with insulting people who can't even read a post.
235
posted on
06/11/2004 12:52:19 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: Know your rights
and it is morally illegitimate for any government to restrict such acts by sane adults. You treat them the same in the end, clearly you are.
236
posted on
06/11/2004 12:53:29 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: discostu
discostu wrote:
-- the difference between liberties and rights. Liberties can be regulated.
So can our rights. We very carefully delegate that power to our governments in our constitutions.
Owning a home is a liberty,
Yep you have an inalienable right to buy/build a house, under our rule of law.
if you can't build a home that doesn't pass inspection or violates local zoning regulations.
Reasonable regulations on buying & building houses are Constitutional. No one here is arguing that point.
Rights are immutable, liberties sometimes need direction so they don't screw up other people's rights and liberties.
You are belaboring a non-issue. Our rights/liberties are one and the same.
237
posted on
06/11/2004 12:54:56 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being" -- Solzhenitsyn)
To: discostu
You treat them the same in the endI treat Macintosh and Jonathan apples the same, but that doesn't mean I think they are identical.
238
posted on
06/11/2004 12:55:24 PM PDT
by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: Know your rights
Could be anybody after the manufacturer. If the seller believed them and the buyer stops going to that store because the vitamins he bought were junk the seller is harmed. If the seller stops buying from the distributor because the vitamins the distributor is giving him to sell are junk then he's harmed. If the distributor stops buying from the wholesaler because the stuff is junk then he's harmed. This loss of products moving around harms all of the shipping companies involved. All because the manufacturer lied on the box of his product.
So since we both agree this is fraud, even if it the disclaimer gives them immunity from prosecution, would it not be a legitimate function of government to ban suppliments that have no data supporting their claims about what the product does? Is that not punishing fraud?
239
posted on
06/11/2004 12:57:22 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
To: Know your rights
But they're still apples. Liberties and rights aren't different breeds of apple. They are apples and oranges. One it can be legitimate for a government to restrict, the other it is never legitimate.
240
posted on
06/11/2004 12:59:03 PM PDT
by
discostu
(Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-266 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson