T Nation

ALERT! Bad Supplement Bill

http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/consumer_alert_130906.htm

Bill threatens to make supps on par with prescription drugs. Yikes. Sign petition!

Too late.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/543/

It’ll never happen in its entirety. They’ll ban things here and there but never say no to all dietary supplements. It’s a billion dollar industry and they won’t just take a stab at an already poor economy like that.

And some rich chick who swears that kelp tabs saved her from cancer will step up, sue the government and that will be that.

[quote]AllTraps wrote:
It’ll never happen in its entirety. They’ll ban things here and there but never say no to all dietary supplements. It’s a billion dollar industry and they won’t just take a stab at an already poor economy like that.

And some rich chick who swears that kelp tabs saved her from cancer will step up, sue the government and that will be that.[/quote]

If they keep banning things here and there and nobody does anything to stop it, pretty soon all we’ll be left with is protein powder and I bet that’s if we’re lucky. They keep coming out with bills like this and sooner or later one of the bigger ones is going to pass making it a b*tch to get any kind of supplement without a prescription. It’s already happening in Europe with that Codex bill that passed. I read stories of people shelling out upwards of 200 dollars for a bottle of Vitamin E.

I figure it’s kind of life global warming. Nobody cares enough to do anything right now and when the sh*t hits the fan everybody will be in a uproar wondering why the hell things have gotten as bad as they have.

But that’s just my 2 cents. I hope you’re right AllTraps and that it never does happen.

What I find funny is that people out there feel the need to control whether or not I can make decisions regarding my own health.

What the hell is up with that?

Sure, go for truth in advertising and standards of purity or content and so on, but don’t tell me what it is that I do or don’t need to live my life the way I see fit.

From time to time find a WELL WRITTEN complaint letter (an illiterate bitchfest will have the wrong effect) and send a copy of it to your congress critter.

[quote]AllTraps wrote:
It’ll never happen in its entirety. They’ll ban things here and there but never say no to all dietary supplements. It’s a billion dollar industry and they won’t just take a stab at an already poor economy like that.

And some rich chick who swears that kelp tabs saved her from cancer will step up, sue the government and that will be that.[/quote]

I admire your optimism. I also pray that you are right. Seriously.

Looks like it’s time to stock up…

Anyone have an update on this? Did it pass the house? The link was from days ago.

The first attempt at creatine, protein powder and multi-vitamins and you can bet your ass the multi-million dollar companies that rely on those products will start shelling real cash to stop it from happening. Lawyers are probably standing by as we speak.

Ephedra was gone before the FDA even stopped it. It was insurance and reinsurance companies in the States that started charging outrageous prices to cover companies making this stuff from liability issues that made it not worth selling ephedra anymore. I used to work in insurance; that’s how I know this. Eventually all those little health issues (real or not) just became too frequent and lobbied that the FDA had to stand up and squash it. Big deal.

Pro-hormones. Come the freak on! Here ya go, it’s not steriods but it’ll do the same damn thing just a little less effective and the same side-effects. Those were not bound to last at all. Be happy we got away with them for the time we did and that the 5-10lbs they got us stuck around before we started doing serious liver damage.

What else has really been taken from us??? Not a damn thing.

So really we’ve lost stuff that wasn’t all that worth taking anyway (I totally hear you on the freedom to choose what I put in my body; I’m all for that!).

We’ve still got great fat burners. And we’ve still got great anabolic substances (which are much healthier and free of the majority of negative side effects).

The FDA in their nazi-ism did us a favor. Well, more like they did the dumb shit 17 year old popping wanna be steriods left, right and centre, a massive favor. And don’t forget the girls with super big self image issues that were popping too much ephedra to get even more anorexic.

Trust me, we’re even more regulated in Canada. We’ve never been allowed anything. M1T? Please. We never even got DHEA up is this beatch!

But in all Health Canada’s and the FDA’s “wisdom” there is a good side - the 20% of the population harming themselves but taking more than they should have been cut off entirely. And the only ones who suffered were the other 20% of people (us) that knew how to use and take it appropriately. The other 60% of the population weren’t going near it anyway. So it’s sorta even.

These governing bodies have two functions:

  1. protect idiots
  2. service and drive sales of the big-pharm companies (who are selling way worse stuff than illegal drug dealers).

And as long as EAS and M-Tech(you know who I mean) have less money than GlaxoSmithKline - we’re all going to be holding our pills praying they stick around.
Better things to worry about.

Had you guys actually read the legislation, you would not have needed to hit the “panic button.” The bill does not ban supplements. Rather, it requires supplement companies to report when a person has a serious adverse effect to a supplement. In other words, supplement companies will be required to report when someone dies from taking a supplement.

What’s wrong with that?

From my point of view I see it as a progression. Sure, maybe this time it’s just ______, then next time it’ll be just ______, and I’m sure the rest of my argument is obvious.

Is it the task of the government to legislate individual safety and morality? I believe it is not. The government should be there to make certain that the knowledge available for a product is correct, such as food labeling laws. They should also ensure that no absolutely dangerous products are able to be obtained by those without the ability to utilize them correctly. However, they should not limit the use of substances that are easily used in a safe context but just happen to have a potential for abuse.

A stupid example, but I could hypothetically drink enough water to kill myself. Of course no one is going to ban water, but it follows the same logic that a safe substance can be abused in such a was as to elicit harmful effects.

Ultimately, I think this comes down to economics, just like any other issue. We aren’t banning supplements because they are wrong, we are banning them because pharmaceutical companies need something else to make money from. If they are made controlled substances, then they are subject to the same laws as other controlled substances and only able to be sold within the same markets. They will follow the same purity controls, and will be drugs, as far as the general public is concerned. Thus, only drug companies will manufacture them, and they will be another money maker.

The government runs off of money, I’m somewhat surprised whenever a person doubt this fact. When someone or something sees a way to make more money and they have the cash to influence someone, it will happen. The only way to fight this is not to hope, but to write to your congressmen and tell them what you think. Call them, go to their offices, let them know what you want as a citizen. If you sit idly by and allow these things to happen, then do not say a single word when it occurs. Do not complain, because while you did not actively vote for the measure, you did nothing to prevent it. Complacency is the same as support.

Come on, this is going too far. If we want to stop this kind of behavior we have to stand up and tell our representatives what we feel. What’s the point of democracy if we do not force them to hear us?

[quote]Carbon-12 wrote:
Is it the task of the government to legislate individual safety and morality? I believe it is not. The government should be there to make certain that the knowledge available for a product is correct, such as food labeling laws. They should also ensure that no absolutely dangerous products are able to be obtained by those without the ability to utilize them correctly. However, they should not limit the use of substances that are easily used in a safe context but just happen to have a potential for abuse.[/quote]

That’s what the law DOES. It helps consumers learn whether a product has killed or caused seriously harm to others.

Listen, if knuckleheads like the Muscle Milk people didn’t put poisons in their protein, we wouldn’t be having this problem. But the supplement industry is full of knaves.

Since ethical supplement companies have been reluctant to expose the frauds, something else needs to be done. There has been a failure of self-regulation. So now the government will come in and regulate.

If LEF and other companies want to avoid further regulation, they can start revealing the MASSIVE labeling fraud occurring in the industry. Because they won’t, someone else will have to step in and be the consumer watchdog.

If it keeps crap off the shelves I’m all for it.

Sure…go to your congressman and whine to him/her all you want.

What difference is that going to make? 1/2 of them don’t even show up to vote on bills like this. 1/4 of them (as documented in Michael Moore’s movie) don’t completely read the bills but rather follow what other’s in their party are voting. So that leaves the last 1/4 who created and are paid/pressured by lobbyists to push forth a bill.

Good luck! If you park yourself outside of his office and harrass the congressman daily, he may show up to vote. He may even skim the bill.

You get a better effor out of buying lots of supplements on a regular basis so when Big Brother goes for the slapshot, these companies have the money to protect their incomes.

CaliforniaLaw is correct. Current reporting of adverse effects is voluntary. This makes sure that information on adverse effects is available to interested parties.

Great, catching up on this thread is depressing.

If all the bill does is require those reports, I am completely in favor of it. Realistically, it’s time for accountability.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Had you guys actually read the legislation, you would not have needed to hit the “panic button.” The bill does not ban supplements. Rather, it requires supplement companies to report when a person has a serious adverse effect to a supplement. In other words, supplement companies will be required to report when someone dies from taking a supplement.

What’s wrong with that?

[/quote]

What is wrong with that is that it’s like anything else in the screwed up logic of “protecting the consumer”. Yes there are good points like cleanliness standards, standard of labelling etc. but look at what is already banned. Hell, look at our taxes. Does anyone for a second think that if our confiscatory tax rate existed in it’s current form 100 years ago, there would not be a revolt?

People like you accept one thing without complaint. Then another, then another. By the time you realize it, everything that we had enjoyed (or had the freedom of choice to enjoy) is illegal. And all in the name of consumer saftey. That’s what’s wrong with that.

[quote]derek wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Had you guys actually read the legislation, you would not have needed to hit the “panic button.” The bill does not ban supplements. Rather, it requires supplement companies to report when a person has a serious adverse effect to a supplement. In other words, supplement companies will be required to report when someone dies from taking a supplement.

What’s wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is that it’s like anything else in the screwed up logic of “protecting the consumer”. Yes there are good points like cleanliness standards, standard of labelling etc. but look at what is already banned. Hell, look at our taxes. Does anyone for a second think that if our confiscatory tax rate existed in it’s current form 100 years ago, there would not be a revolt?

People like you accept one thing without complaint. Then another, then another. By the time you realize it, everything that we had enjoyed (or had the freedom of choice to enjoy) is illegal. And all in the name of consumer saftey. That’s what’s wrong with that.
[/quote]

Best. Over. Exaggeration. Ever.

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:

Best. Over. Exaggeration. Ever.[/quote]

LMAO. I was going to give a serious reply, but I prefer your approach!