USA today attacking DSHEA and article by AIAH.

[Guest guest]

We're seeing a massive pincer movement against our access to dietary supplements

both domestically and internationally and if you don't BELIEVE IT, check out the

OUTRAGEOUS USA Today article below and my letter to the editor

 

This is a WAKE UP CALL--------------

 

MASSIVELY forward my ALERT before's Monday's CODEX MEETING in BONN- or its

OUR FUNERAL-------- see THIS if you think I'm " crying wolf " :

 

 

Re: " Lax Rules Let Supplements Lurk as Health Threats " 10/26/04 http://

www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041027/opcom27.art.htm

 

Lax rules let supplements lurk as health threats

By Suzanne Leigh

 

„Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it,‰ said

George

W. Bush during the 2000 presidential debates with then-presidential hopeful Al

Gore.

Although it was one of what would become many „Bushisms‰ to follow, the future

president had a point: What exactly is a drug?

 

If a product is touted as safe and natural and „used for thousands of years,‰

chances

are it isn't a drug, despite the fact that it might significantly affect the

structure or

functions of the body and might cause serious side effects.

 

Take Citrus aurantium, pitched as an „ephedra-free‰ botanical „ancient Chinese

medicine‰ and targeted at athletes and dieters. According to a research review

published last month in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine, Citrus

aurantium potentially can cause many of the same cardiovascular effects as

ephedra,

which was banned after it was linked to cases of heart attack, stroke, high

blood

pressure and 155 deaths.

 

But because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified Citrus

aurantium

as a „dietary supplement‰ rather than as a drug (as it also did ephedra),

manufacturers did not have to test it for safety and effectiveness before it was

marketed. And no warning label was required.

 

In contrast, products as benign as lip balm, lipstick and other makeup

containing

sunscreen; dandruff shampoo; and antiperspirant are classified as drugs. That's

right:

Lip balm needs to be tested for safety and, depending on its ingredients, may

require

a warning.

 

This anomaly exists because lip balm meets the FDA's drug definition while

supplement makers dodge this classification by carefully wording health claims.

 

According to a 2002 Harris Poll, 59% of respondents said they thought

supplements

must be approved before they can be sold, 68% thought the government required

warning labels, and 55% thought safety claims could not be made without solid

scientific evidence. Wrong, wrong and wrong.

 

In the wake of the ephedra ban, the FDA says it is interested in gathering

safety data

on a number of questionable supplements, including Citrus aurantium. But it took

seven years for the agency to ban ephedra after it first considered limits on

its use. So

there is little cause to suggest that a ban of Citrus aurantium is imminent.

 

The supplement industry has enjoyed a free ride since 1994, when Congress passed

the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. It shifted from manufacturers

to

the FDA the responsibility to prove that products were not safe.

 

Mounting evidence showing the numerous side effects of popular supplements and

their potentially dangerous drug interactions makes it clear that now is the

time for

manufacturers to let consumers take the driver's seat. Here's what could be done

to

help consumers make more informed choices:

 

?Reclassify supplements routinely recommended by physicians. These include folic

acid for pregnant women, calcium for those at risk for osteoporosis, iron for

those

with anemia, and multivitamins for everyone. None should fall under the dietary-

supplement umbrella.

 

?Mandate warnings on all products. Manufacturers are allowed to make health

claims

that are unauthorized by the FDA if those claims are followed by a disclaimer

that

says the product has not been evaluated by the FDA and is „not intended to

diagnose,

treat, cure or prevent any disease.‰ Better to have a mandatory statement on all

supplements that says the product has not been evaluated by the FDA and may not

be safe or effective.

 

?Facilitate the reporting of side effects. An inspector general's report

estimated that

fewer than 1% of all adverse reactions to supplements were reported to the FDA.

Although the agency operates a hot line and Web site for reports of suspected

reactions, adding the FDA's toll-free number to labels would boost the volume of

reports.

 

Manufacturers favor voluntary cautionary labeling rather than tighter FDA

regulation.

But since, for clear health reasons, many cosmetics must carry mandatory

warnings,

so should supplements.

 

With more and more supplements entering the market in the past decade, products

will continue to fall through the cracks. Without action, the deaths linked to

ephedra

might be just the beginning.

 

 

Suzanne Leigh is a medical writer who lives in San Francisco.

 

IAHF RESPONSE- (SEE the LINK BELOW to MAKE YOUR OWN.....

 

To the Editor:

 

Who are you trying to kid? In 1994 the US Congress received more mail than

they've

ever received on ANY issue in the HISTORY of Congress during the Campaign to

pass

the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994- (even more mail than

they

received over the Vietnam War). This legislation was passed in the direct face

of an

FDA rulemaking effort known as the " Dykstra Report " in the aftermath of passage

of

the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act because the FDA was attempting to do

the

equivalent of swatting flies with a baseball bat and vitamin consumers voted

with

their feet. Honest statistics prove that dietary supplements are far safer than

foods in

common form. Whats next? Bans and massive warning labels on PEANUTS just

because some tiny percentage of people have extreme allergic reactions and can

go

into anaphalactic shock from eating them? Get REAL! The FDA has limited

resources,

and they must use them in a way that TRULY protects consumers- by doing FAR more

safety testing on pharmaceutical DRUGS, which in marked CONTRAST to dietary

supplements really ARE dangerous. To put things in perspective, read this

article

DEATH BY MEDICINE http://www.garynull.com/Article.aspx?Article=/documents/

iatrogenic/deathbymedicine/deathbymedicine1.htm and see this table which

illustrates the comparative risk of ingesting a dietary supplement compared with

other risk factors in our environment such as injury from pharmaceutical drugs,

injury

from food in common form, being hit by lightening,being stung by a bee, or

walking

across the street- http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/english/ronlaw_eng.html

This article of yours is obviously one small part of a well orchestrated

campaign that

is about to be unleashed on the American people by pharmaceutical interests who

have a " business with disease " and are intent on attempting to repeal DSHEA. Any

such bills are DOA- Dead on Arrival.

 

John C. Hammell, President

International Advocates for Health Freedom

556 Boundary Bay Rd.

Point Roberts, WA 98281 USA

http://www.iahf.com

800-333-2553 N.America

360-945-0352 World

 

http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18 is the

link to send your OWN letter to the Editor of USA Today, and we must BURY THEM

with email....

For Health Freedom,

John C. Hammell, President

International Advocates for Health Freedom

556 Boundary Bay Road

Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA

http://www.iahf.com

jham

800-333-2553 N.America

360-945-0352 World