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!

[tpaine]

BIG bumpkin

[discostu]

Negative. Somethings are just their, not important enough to be a right or a priviledge, somethings barely rate being a dictionary entry. That artificial limitation in your thinking is why you get all worked up about rights that never existed supposedly being removed.

And we are free, get over it.

This isn't a vitamin ban, so you're already off the deepend, and we've got a fistful of liberties. For instance you're still free to hang out on internet message board and spout your over limited BS.

[tpaine]

freeeee wrote:
If others can dictate the smallest details of my life, perhaps you can explain our country's claim to liberty?

The difference is in thinking that just because the fed isn't allowed to regulate it that means no one is. Back in the old days the 10th Ammendment was respected and states and cities could ban stuff the fed couldn't.

Not true, dicostu. -- NO level of our governments have ever been delegated the power to flat out 'ban'. -- In fact the 14th was passed to stop just such infringements of our rights to life, liberty, or property back in 1868. Government can 'reasonably regulate' the public sale & use of property like vitamins, under the "rule of law"; - Constitutional law.

What's wrong with a city deciding it's a vitamin free zone,

You talk about "silly"? What's 'reasonable' about banning health concoctions?

we've still got dry counties in this country and the reason we do is that we've never taken the silly step of declaring there to be a right to drink alcohol.

Dry counties regulate the public sale or consumption of booze. You have the right to drink all you can get, in private.

The mass production of rights disempowers state and local governments, thus killing states rights.

States have no rights, only powers, and those powers are limited, as per Art. VI, & the 10th/14th Amendments, just for starters.

Not entirely true. In general localized bans focus on sale and production but you can ban consumption, though if there's one thing we've learned from the WOD is that bans on consumption don't work too well.

NO, -- there is no constitutional basis for prohibitions on 'consumption'. Even the 18th amendment didn't try that silly ploy.
You ever read our constitution, discostu?

The reason I could see for banning vitamins (again at lower than the fed, it's not their bag) is that you don't know what's in them. While there are legitimate operators in the nutritional supliment industry it is also the last refuge of snake oil salesmen. Selling a product that you claim does X with no actual proof that it does X is potentially fraudulent, of course they all get around that will little warning labels that explain how nothing else you read on the label has ever been substantiated. This is of course why there's frequent cries to regulate the industry.

Yep, fraud is a crime that should be regulated. Unconstitutional prohibitions on life, liberty or property are also a crime against freedom. Why do you support such bans?

Other than the fact that it wouldn't work there's nothing stopping the dry counties from banning consumption.

Read much? -- I just outlined why such bans are unconstitutional.

States used to have rights, not anymore though, Ammendment 10 is generally known as the states rights ammendment, that gives them the right to do whatever isn't in the fed's bag and whatever the fed hasn't told them not to.

Ever read Art VI, & the 10/14th Amendments? States were told "not to".

And given the fact that there are dry counties banning the sale of stuff that's legal on the federal level (like vitamins) follows those basic rights of the Constitution.

It's 'legal' for States/Counties to regulate the public sale of booze or vitamins. But it's not Constitutional for them to ban personal possession or consumption. -- Get it yet?

Do you really think someone driving through a dry County in their booze stocked RV is breaking the law?

[discostu]

I didn't say ban, I said regulat, there's a difference.

Since not all these nutritional substances actually do anything for you there's a good reason to ban a bunch of them anyway, selling placebos as medicine is fraud.

But the dry counties COULD ban consumption of alcohol. Much like how all the states currently ban consumption of alcohol for people under 21. Bans ARE possible.

rights/ powers, you're just word quibling now. Life is far too short to word quible.

Read it plenty of times thanks, apparently a lot more often than you. Better back off the insults pal I'm getting sick of them.

I'm not supporting ANY bans, learn to read. Quote ONE single spot where I'm supoort a ban. I'm arguing against adding rights that never have existed, that's NOT supporting a ban.

Read the 10th and 14th many many times. There's no telling any one not to in either of them, you're adding stuff that's not there. Muych like how your adding support for a ban to my argument.

Read it and you were wrong. End the insults NOW.

Yeah I get it, you're giving mre positions I don't have, putting things in the consitution that aren't there, and generally being an insulting ass. Get it.

They'd only be breaking the law if the county in question bans possession. I don't know of any that do, so the answer would be no.

Now if you're next reply is an insult laden piece of junk that give me positions I never had don't evben bother to right it, I won't be reading it. Be polite, or buzz off.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

People seem to have liberties and rights mixed up.

[discostu]

Because the word "rights" has gotten completely disempowered through over use. Happens a lot, disaster, tragedy, and perfect storm are all completely useless now due to vast overuse. Having that happen to rights would be real tragedy.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Agreed.

[tpaine]

It's 'legal' for States/Counties to regulate the public sale of booze or vitamins. But it's not Constitutional for them to ban personal possession or consumption. -- Get it yet?
Do you really think someone driving through a dry County in their booze stocked RV is breaking the law?

I didn't say ban, I said regulat, there's a difference. Since not all these nutritional substances actually do anything for you there's a good reason to ban a bunch of them anyway, selling placebos as medicine is fraud.

And, - as I said above, - fraud is a crime. So are unconstitutional prohibitions on possessing private property.

But the dry counties COULD ban consumption of alcohol.

Of course , -- they can violate our rule of law, -- but not constitutionally.

Much like how all the states currently ban consumption of alcohol for people under 21. Bans ARE possible.

Yep, minors have not attained their full rights. They are justly regulated, constitutionally.

rights/ powers, you're just word quibling now. Life is far too short to word quible. Read it plenty of times thanks, apparently a lot more often than you. Better back off the insults pal I'm getting sick of them.

You're imagining things. -- I've made no insults.

I'm not supporting ANY bans, learn to read. Quote ONE single spot where I'm supoort a ban. I'm arguing against adding rights that never have existed, that's NOT supporting a ban. Read the 10th and 14th many many times. There's no telling any one not to in either of them, you're adding stuff that's not there. Muych like how your adding support for a ban to my argument.
Read it and you were wrong. End the insults NOW.
Yeah I get it, you're giving mre positions I don't have, putting things in the consitution that aren't there, and generally being an insulting ass. Get it.

"End the insults NOW"? -- Then you call me an "ass" in the next sentence? How weird.

They'd only be breaking the law if the county in question bans possession. I don't know of any that do, so the answer would be no.

Good. we agree.

Now if you're next reply is an insult laden piece of junk that give me positions I never had don't evben bother to right it, I won't be reading it. Be polite, or buzz off.

Why would I be impolite, when you just admitted I was right all along?
Thanks.

[dcwusmc]

To answer your inane question, bobbie, YES. It involves the right to be left alone by government and by nosey-parkers like you. Since government gets its legitimate authority from WE, THE PEOPLE, and since we cannot give government any authority which we do not have ourselves, we CANNOT LEGITIMATELY enact (or have enacted on our behalf) "laws" which restrict non-coercive personal behaviors. Any such "laws" on the books are wholly illegitimate, the bastard children of people like you. Deal with it, mr. busybody. Our nation was NOT intended to have "rulers" and "ruled." It was intended to have necessary rules for getting along with others and a mechanism for ironing out disputes, ensuring fair rules of trade between the Several States and between us and foreign nations. That's it and that's all. ALL this other barbra striesand is no more than trying to gain more and more CONTROL over the lives of others and it is ANATHEMA to a free society. The "establishment elite" wants to become the new rulers, the new royalty. And useful idiots like you are only too happy to help them. By polishing their jackboots with your tongues.

[dcwusmc]

The right to ingest vitamins (or any OTHER substance of your choice) is found in the most basic of ALL rights, the right to control your own body. The "right" to abortion cannot exist, as it involves murdering the life you, as a woman, had a major part in creating. You dance, you gotta pay the piper. However, to take the wind out of your sails on THAT issue, get your state legislature to get rid of ALL ANTI-abortion laws and just say that after 6 weeks' gestation, aborting a baby is murder and comes under the common statutes for THAT crime.

And rights in general consist of ANYTHING you want them to be, PROVIDED you do not attempt to compel someone else to supply the makings for them. You have an absolute right to do ANY non-coercive thing you can dream up. You do NOT have the "right" to demand that someone else pay for your choices and your activities. That's all.

[Coleus]

ATTN: New York State Residents

Support FAIM's
Campaign for Patients' Rights
CPR
Reform the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC)

S.5221

[Know your rights]

People seem to have liberties and rights mixed up.

What, in your view, is the difference?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

You have no right to a house. You are at liberty to get a house.

[Know your rights]

That doesn't illustrate any difference. Would it not be equally correct to say, "You have the right to get a house"?

[robertpaulsen]

"Yes. those would both be considered "Rights" as defined in the Constitution."

There are all kinds of "rights", you know. There's "natural rights", "fundamental rights", "unalienable rights" .... To which are you referring, is my question to you which you refuse to answer.

If you think that the "right to vitamins" is an unalienable right, then that is an individual, God-given right which cannot be taken away or infringed. So, is it?

Or is it a fundamental right (like free speech), in which case society may regulate or restrict the use of that right (slander, profanity, "fire" in a theater, etc.)?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

A right is something that is due to a person by law, tradition, or nature.

You do not have the right to get a house. A house is not due to you. You have the liberty to get one. But not the right.

See?

[robertpaulsen]

Liberty means that the individual is immune from an arbitrary exercise of authority preventing that individual from purchasing a house.

[discostu]

Two sentences and you're already being a condescending insulting twit. I don't need your kind of person in my life, goodbye, don't reply, I'm not reading it.

[discostu]

No rights do NOT consist of anything you want them to be. At best those are LIBERTIES, big difference between the two. This concept of "everything I want to do is a right" is the heart of modern leftist BS, it's an infection that's destroying both the country and the concept of what a right is.

[headsonpikes]

You two cringing wimps are correct.

The God-given right to kill tyrants is the only really necessary right. All the rest is detail.