30 replies to this topic

[rwac]

http://www.lef.org/f...ers-in-Jail.htm

Congress Seeks to put Dietary Supplement Makers in Jail for Ten Years!
Pharmaceutical companies are once again interfering with your ability to access information about dietary supplements.

The Senate is debating a bill that will enable the FDA to put vitamin supplement makers in jail for ten years if they cite findings from peer-reviewed published scientific studies on the label of their dietary supplements or their Web site.

The pretext for these draconian proposals is a bill titled the Food Safety Accountability Act (S. 3767). The ostensible purpose of the bill is to punish anyone who knowingly contaminates food for sale. Since there are already strong laws to punish anyone who commits this crime, this bill serves little purpose other than enriching pharmaceutical interests.

The sinister scheme behind this bill is to exploit the public's concern about food safety. Drug companies want to convince your Senators that an overreaching law needs to be enacted to grant the FDA powers to define "food contamination" any way it chooses.

Even today, the FDA can proclaim a dietary supplement as "misbranded" even if the best science in the world is used to describe its biological effects in the body. The concern is that the FDA will use the term "misbranded" in the same way it defines "adulterated" in order to jail dietary supplement makers as if they were selling contaminated food.

The new bill being debated in the Senate increases the penalties the FDA can use to threaten supplement makers to ten years in prison. The big issue here is that the FDA will use this as a hammer to threaten and coerce small companies into signing crippling consent decrees that will deny consumers access to truthful non-misleading information about natural approaches to protect against age-related disease.

Please tell your two Senators to OPPOSE the Food Safety Accountability Act (S. 3767). You can do this in a few minutes on our convenient Legislative Action Center on our Web site.

If you'd like to read the legal details about this bill, log on to the Alliance for Natural Health Web site.

Health-conscious consumers have succeeded in preventing Congress from capitulating to the pharmaceutical industry this year. Please continue this string of victories by telling your Senators to OPPOSE this underhanded attempt (S. 3767) to grant the FDA dictatorial new powers.

Due to the short session before Congress adjourns for the election, please alert your two Senators today!

http://www.lef.org/f...ers-in-Jail.htm

*Take Action*

Edited by rwac, 21 September 2010 - 07:41 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Wow....

If this passes, it would cause everyone's marketing (Specially LEF) to be turned upside down.

I don't agree with the bill, so I have taken action.

A

[Pike]

okay, this is too far. FDA has officially crossed the line. i don't think i've ever seen a more blatant example of corrupt bureaucracy.


i'm handwriting them each of my senators a letter on this outrageous powertrip that the FDA has been on for far too long.

is there an online petition against this?

what else can be done about this on an individual level (sorry, not very experienced in these matters)?

[pycnogenol]

I've taken action as well. Nice to see that in 2010 Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw continue to sue the FDA and win.

June 2010: "Good News! We Win Yet Another First Amendment Suit Against the FDA!! Free Speech Lives!!!"

Link to article:

http://www.life-enha...ate.asp?id=2293

Edited by pycnogenol, 21 September 2010 - 10:30 PM.

[rwac]

is there an online petition against this?

what else can be done about this on an individual level (sorry, not very experienced in these matters)?

http://www.capwiz.co...lertid=17366501
The petition is also linked in the original post.

You can call your Senators and tell them that you oppose this bill. Please be polite.

[frederickson]

I strongly suggest we all take action on this. The repercussions on both access to and research funding for dietary supplements will be further threatened by this politically-motivated move.

[outsider]

Dictatorship from pharmaceuticals cartel.

This is driven by money greed. Unfortunately for them they will never be able to separate your food from your health. They want to control health but this is a vain objective. Everyone knows that fruits and vegetables are healthy. Can you believe we are debating this subject ? With all the FDA technology and knowledge they are still not sure what a food is. Or that's what they want you to believe. Too bad 75% of all drugs "they" sell comes from plant source.

Can you believe how stupid they would look if people understood that simple food could cure people ? So they have been selling those expensive drugs all the while I could benefit from this food ? Knowledge control. Or at a higher level it makes sense, it's called society karma. We have to go through that sh*t. Or maybe take action. Focus action. No anger because it will only fuel the fire. It's like basic fighting, the more you bark the more the other bark.

[Anthony_Loera]

Yesterday I received a call from our Chief Science Officer working on publishing a couple papers on some interesting findings of some known natural substances.

He could not believe that this bill was being considered at all.

I believe the repercussions will be greater than expected, and possibly even effect the scientific community as citations to professional work and journals will be drastically limited. Informative newsletters, and information could shrink dramatically while companies find other ways to market healthy supplements without detailed information.

Yes Fredrickson is right, access to research funding for dietary supplements could be hampered.

It is confounding that someone could get 10 years for citing a peer reviewed study (not merely linking to it, but just naming the study ) relevant to a vitamin or supplement, yet manufacturers are still allowed skip-lot testing which in my opinion, is a bigger threat to dietary supplements in the united states.

Read details here:
http://www.anh-usa.o...t-action-alert/


A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 23 September 2010 - 04:37 PM.

[kismet]

Can an unbiased party who speaks legalese and the language of the supplement vendors paraphrase this law (proposal) for us laymen? (MR, Caliban?)

I am not necessarily going to take LEF news item seriously, as they not only have as much of a stake in this race as the FDA and pharma but also *just involved the pharma conspiracy gambit* instead of using their space to discuss the issue in more depth*; no one should without cross-checking. We at least need a balanced review.

Considering that an eyeballed 90%+ of companies/products miss-characterize research and therefore mislead people this has at least some upsides. Though, allowing good citations would be, of course, the better idea...

Their example: 'This is what happened to a group of cherry producers that cited Harvard research about the benefits of cherries on their website.' now if we just knew more details it'd be great.

*outsider, that is what I mean. Argh, no one is hiding the Truth about nutrition (at least not effectively enough), tens of thousands of people research nutrition. And that is just one of your fallacies/misconceptions - keep it out of this or cite your claims.

Edited by kismet, 23 September 2010 - 06:56 PM.

[outsider]

Can an unbiased party who speaks legalese and the language of the supplement vendors paraphrase this law (proposal) for us laymen? (MR, Caliban?)

I am not necessarily going to take LEF news item seriously, as they not only have as much of a stake in this race as the FDA and pharma but also *just involved the pharma conspiracy gambit* instead of using their space to discuss the issue in more depth*; no one should without cross-checking. We at least need a balanced review.

Considering that an eyeballed 90%+ of companies/products miss-characterize research and therefore mislead people this has at least some upsides. Though, allowing good citations would be, of course, the better idea...

Their example: 'This is what happened to a group of cherry producers that cited Harvard research about the benefits of cherries on their website.' now if we just knew more details it'd be great.

*outsider, that is what I mean. Argh, no one is hiding the Truth about nutrition (at least not effectively enough), tens of thousands of people research nutrition. And that is just one of your fallacies/misconceptions - keep it out of this or cite your claims.

Well I speak in general term, I speak about deep rooted "money making machine". If you can't see this then well, too bad. I'm talking about billions of dollars.

If you can't see that in America it's money first, your health second then, you won't be able to understand what's really going on. And this is very obvious, it's not something vague at all. But you have to do a little digging yourself though, sorry about the sources, there are too many. The system is not taking care of you as much as some would like to believe. I'm not saying it's completely bad, I would say it's just OK. It could improve a lot.

You know how people are when it is money at stake. Just look at the politics, the oil, the difficulty implementing the universal health care system etc.

[kismet]

But your tu quoque/"because they can" reasoning will lead us in circles on this topic; there is no reason that 'big alt med' or 'big supplement' should be any better... hence it would be great to see the news from a different POV or a more unbiased source.

Edited by kismet, 25 September 2010 - 05:24 PM.

[bobman]

There's plenty of information on the topic of FDA corruption, do a google search, you'll come up with news references, legal documents, and more. Here's an excerpt from a doc I have sitting on my hd, from a recent case:

"4. FDA’s Regulations Do Not Infringe Upon Substantive Due Process
Rights.
Plaintiffs contend that FDA’s regulations violate certain “fundamental rights”
purportedly protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment: (1) the
“fundamental right to raise their famil[ies] in their own way, which includes what foods
they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families;” (2) the
“fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods
they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families;” and
(3) fundamental “contract rights” to “the use of an agent to accomplish what the
principal herself ought to be free to do,” which includes having “raw milk . . . transported
across State lines by an agent.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 117-118, 135, 143-144.
...

26
b. There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health.
Plaintiffs’ assertion of a “fundamental right to their own bodily and physical
health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for
themselves and their families” is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a
fundamental right to obtain any food they wish. In addition, courts have consistently
refused to extrapolate a generalized right to “bodily and physical health” from the
Supreme Court’s narrow substantive due process precedents regarding abortion,
intimate relations, and the refusal of lifesaving medical treatment. See Glucksberg, 521
U.S. at 721 (warning that the fact “[t]hat many of the rights and liberties protected by the
Due Process Clause sound in personal autonomy does not warrant the sweeping
conclusion that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so
protected”); see also Cowan v. United States, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1242 (N.D. Okla.
1998) (rejecting a claim that the plaintiff had the fundamental “right to take whatever
treatment he wishes due to his terminal condition regardless of whether the FDA
approves the treatment”). Finally, even if such a right did exist, it would not render
FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and
distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes “bodily and physical health.”"

The foundering colonies fought against exactly this vein of oppression, now rediscovered as a retrocausal weed in our own progressive soil.

Edited by deletethisaccount, 29 September 2010 - 06:07 AM.

[brokenportal]

The way this is framed may be very accurate, but I cant help but feel like Kismet is getting at that we need to consider the other side of this story as well. Is there a piece that somebody can post here that defends the bill?

[rwac]

But your tu quoque/"because they can" reasoning will lead us in circles on this topic; there is no reason that 'big alt med' or 'big supplement' should be any better... hence it would be great to see the news from a different POV or a more unbiased source.

The way this is framed may be very accurate, but I cant help but feel like Kismet is getting at that we need to consider the other side of this story as well. Is there a piece that somebody can post here that defends the bill?

You won't see any other POV on this bill. The reason is that the supporters who want this bill passed don't feel the need to convince people about the bill. All they need to do is convince the senators involved.

[Anthony_Loera]

The FDA website with misbranding details for those that love legalese:
http://www.fda.gov/R...d/ucm107530.htm

Playing Devil's advocate now...
Apparently republishing the full article, peer reviewed paper etc, is acceptable, however with certain requirements:
http://www.fda.gov/R...d/ucm107537.htm

The issue then becomes: the cost to 'republish' the study for the public. Small supplment companies will not be able to provide full articles, or papers to the public. The cost would be prohibitive to many, as each 'copy' provided (say from a journal) to customers could cost $14 to $50 depending on the journal, (if the small supplement company wanted to comply with copyright laws, I know one that doesn't... but that is another issue).

Citations are easier to manage for small companies, so the new laws would limit the 'scientific information' only to the largest supplement companies who would arrange payment of full articles for their potential customers, from the publishers. Of course, after a while... where would you rather go, to a supplement company that provides full articles, or one that provides no information about the supplement you are taking... because they have their hands tied? I think the answer is obvious...

A real tough spot for small companies to say the least, as they would face 10 years for putting a citation on their website, while larger companies would essentially 'pay' for full articles and not face any jail time. (Although the larger companies couldn't provide citations on their labels either). Still, this makes way for a very large supplement companies to take hold of the supplement 'information' market, by limiting and crippling small companies from providing limited citation and information to the public.

Yup, I still don't like this bill.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 01 October 2010 - 04:21 PM.

[outsider]

So they try to instaure the same hierarchy than the big pharma. A couple of players. They can't kill the supplement market so they try to control it the same way.

[Anthony_Loera]

This unfortunately ... passed by plugging it into another bill, and now goes to Obama:
http://www.anh-usa.o...od-safety-bill/



A

[Delta Gamma]

Wow, this is ridiculous.
Bump

[nowayout]

To some extent supplement makers have brought this on themselves.

The supplement industry is plagued by unsubstantiated claims for their products, and they ignore or minimize side effects. In fact, there are many more unsubstantiated claims in the industry than not. And yes, this includes organizations like LEF - I get their magazine full of misrepresentations every month (a large number of the studies they use to sell their products are misrepresented as showing a causative link when they just show an association). So yes, the industry is misusing studies. The industry is also plagued by bad quality control.

These are real problems that are not being solved by self-regulation.

Edited by viveutvivas, 22 December 2010 - 04:18 PM.

[JKDC]

I don't agree. If they publish evidence why the supplement could be effective where is the crime? It's another case where nanny government comes in to rescue the uneducated from themselves. It should be protected commercial speech. Tylenol or Ibuprofen kill 10,000x more people per year yet the FDA goes after insignificant issues that aren't hurting anyone. People can read the studies and decide for themselves. There isn't any pressure to make them purchase the supplements. Another ridiculous bill.

Edited by JKDC, 22 December 2010 - 09:45 PM.

[nowayout]

I don't agree. If they publish evidence why the supplement could be effective where is the crime? It's another case where nanny government comes in to rescue the uneducated from themselves. It should be protected commercial speech.

The crime is in unsubstantiated or even outright false claims of benefit to sell a product, in many cases to treat diseases. Unsubstantiated claims count as false advertising. False advertising is not protected commercial speech.

[JLL]

I don't agree. If they publish evidence why the supplement could be effective where is the crime? It's another case where nanny government comes in to rescue the uneducated from themselves. It should be protected commercial speech.

The crime is in unsubstantiated or even outright false claims of benefit to sell a product, in many cases to treat diseases. Unsubstantiated claims count as false advertising. False advertising is not protected commercial speech.

Yes, you see JKDC, viveutvivas here can see right through the lies of LEF and other supplement makers because he's an educated individual who can take care of himself, so he doesn't need the government to step in -- but it's all those other stupid people who do!

[nowayout]

Yes, you see JKDC, viveutvivas here can see right through the lies of LEF and other supplement makers because he's an educated individual who can take care of himself, so he doesn't need the government to step in -- but it's all those other stupid people who do!

I assume you are being sarcastic, but consider this:

I have friends who take possibly harmful quantities of possibly harmful supplements because of this false advertising (by the supplement makers and even by some TV doctors who misinterpret studies).

I have learned that I unfortunately cannot tell them this. They believe what they read to be God's truth and won't listen to reason. And they are representative of the majority. Maybe they do need to be protected from themselves.

[aaron_e]

i got the impression that most of the supplement specific regulations got dropped from the bill and is mostly focused on general food production.

[kismet]

I assume you are being sarcastic, but consider this:

I have friends who take possibly harmful quantities of possibly harmful supplements because of this false advertising (by the supplement makers and even by some TV doctors who misinterpret studies).

I have learned that I unfortunately cannot tell them this. They believe what they read to be God's truth and won't listen to reason. And they are representative of the majority. Maybe they do need to be protected from themselves.

I have to second that understandably unpopular fact. Or just look through the regimen section on imminst.

Some people need to have more difficult access to drugs or even supplements, but of course everyone who is aware of the risks (read: not necessarily those mislead by LEF & co to think supplements are the end all) has the right to risk their health. I am sure that a compromise could be had that would make both liberals and libertarian-minded folks happy.

[smithx]

I just took a quick skim through the text of the bill, which I think is here:
http://www.opencongr.../111-h2751/text

I didn't find anything regarding jail terms for mentioning studies supporting the use of a food for a specific purpose, but maybe I missed it?

[aaron_e]

I just took a quick skim through the text of the bill, which I think is here:
http://www.opencongr.../111-h2751/text

I didn't find anything regarding jail terms for mentioning studies supporting the use of a food for a specific purpose, but maybe I missed it?

yeah the blurb i read on wiki was mostly about inspections and liability for recalls.

[smithx]

I did see something about "new ingredients" but that section only seemed to deal with making sure they were not anabolic steroids.

[JKDC]

It's possible LEF overreacts and they see a possible loophole that can be widened. I am surprised though at how many people here are against supplements when they are visiting the immortality institute. No evidemce of harm but they want the government to step in because they know 1 person who they believe is taking too many supplements. As opposed to the thousands/millions of others taking them without any problems. I hope nobody goes snooping in their business and finds things they disagree with and wants government to stop them.

[outsider]

I don't agree. If they publish evidence why the supplement could be effective where is the crime? It's another case where nanny government comes in to rescue the uneducated from themselves. It should be protected commercial speech.

The crime is in unsubstantiated or even outright false claims of benefit to sell a product, in many cases to treat diseases. Unsubstantiated claims count as false advertising. False advertising is not protected commercial speech.

Yes, you see JKDC, viveutvivas here can see right through the lies of LEF and other supplement makers because he's an educated individual who can take care of himself, so he doesn't need the government to step in -- but it's all those other stupid people who do!

Yeah like the FDA doesn't approve useless molecules at large. haha This is a funny world we live in.

I'm sure you are very smart but you need more than that to get useful information. You need to be open minded.