T Nation

Scary Info Regarding FDA & Supps

I just came across this article while checking out VPXsports.com
http://www.vpxsports.com/Codex.html

It talks about how our President and Congress are about to make supplements illegal without a 'script. Scary stuff…

Another win for Bushy… Aren’t we glad he’s President? Again!!!

I really would appreciate it if some of the people at Biotest could weigh on this issue in some way. Considering the growing publicity of this claim, I am not inclined to throw the concept out of my mind as impossible. If something can be done as far as lobbyists are letters written, could someone with possibly some inside information let us know if this is just yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Funny, in the old Soviet Union you could not go to church, have much choice in your occupation, vote or get rich, but by george you could smoke, drink and buy any drug you wanted from the pharmacy.
This is why I have never supported the smoking ban. Once you start banning one thing almost anything else is fair game. They fall like dominoes. It started with smoking, then to ephedrine, next to pro-hormones, now everything. I am sure books are next.
I should read up on the ban before I make any harsh judgments, but I have no doubt the gov. is trying to further encroach on our rights. Like we aren’t in a war and have better things to worry about.
Who are the commies now?

First, lets not bash Bush right off the bat. Take a look at the Senate bill details at Thomas.loc.gov and you will see that the bill was put forth by a democrat, and cosponsered by four other democrats.

So past the politics part, the bill has been in commitee for almost two years. I don’t even find it on the business upcoming. This bill in particular defines a method for reporting on Supps to the FDA if there are issues with them, or if they make people sick. Read the bill. Search for it.

No, I don’t want supps to be banned or changed, either. But these bills don’t look like they do that. Do your own research and let me know what you think about it.

Oh yeah, H. R.1146 is a bill to “end the US membership in the United Nations”. Not a bad idea these days, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.

So do the reasearch and make your own decision.

folly

PS - I decided not to get involved in the Charlie Foxtrot that was the draft thread last night. I’m still new here. :slight_smile:

I agree with Prof. X. I want to hear from someone at Biotest on this. There have been at least four threads on this very subject and i would like to know what in the blue fuck is going on.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I really would appreciate it if some of the people at Biotest could weigh on this issue in some way. Considering the growing publicity of this claim, I am not inclined to throw the concept out of my mind as impossible. If something can be done as far as lobbyists are letters written, could someone with possibly some inside information let us know if this is just yelling fire in a crowded theater?[/quote]

I couldn’t imagine having to stock up on ZMA, Grow!, Surge, etc… that would be ridiculous (I am assuming that this is going to affect every supplement known to man kind).

But since we have no regulation in the supplement industry, couldn’t we label the supplements to contain less then they actually do? I mean, we already do it the other way around.

I find your ideas intriguing, and I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I find it hard to believe that I’m going to have to obtain a scrip in order for my kids to be able to take their Flinstone’s .

There’s several threads about CODEX on T-Nation, as well as every other BB website I go to.

Although anything is possible, I’ve got to believe that this is nothing more than a bad urban myth.

If it is true - I think that Biotest would have a highly vested interest in making available to their members a form letter that could be emailed to respective congressmen our opposition to such a B.S. law.

Here’s a previous thread that discussed this same topic:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=515940

Hey guys

Shugart did an interview with an attorney named Rick Collins in April of 2003 regarding this very subject. I don’t know how much of the information has changed since then but its worth checking out. The name of the the article was The End of Dietary Supplements. Type “supplement ban” into the search engine. It should be the first article.

Folks, if this doesn’t perfectly illustrate the problem, I don’t know what does. Dammit, why won’t the government step in and DO SOMETHING?!?!?!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050224/ts_nm/health_salt_dc

I just finished reading the whole article and it specifically mentions prohormones. We all know what happened there. The link to the USFA website is still active and the information appears to be up to date.

Another thread?

How many of these things do we need? I think this makes four. And now this will be the fourth thread with this link posted in it:

The moral of the story is don’t believe everything you read in an email, or on a website. Try to get good information from reliable sources.

And there is at least one website collecting donations to fight this, plus a whole bunch of other websites linked to that website. I am fairly certain all the money is going into somebody’s Hawaii vacation fund.

Unfortunately these scam artists are going to make a killing off of the ignorant people who jump to conclusions and assume it is all true, and go off the deep end blaming people just like tai1spin did. Then again VPX sports, whoever the hell they are, were taken in also.

What is really funny is that the bills died in committee, without coming to a vote, before this email even started showing up.

Myths get spread fast on the internet.

Now as far as what is going on overseas, or in Canada, I don’t have the slightest idea

Just a couple of sentences from the article that the Mage referenced:

Vitamins and minerals are not under the gun. Dietary supplements are. And no outside regulatory body is behind this move: the proposed legislation is the work of American lawmakers looking to safeguard the public from the unscrupulous and the hazardous.

I guess Flinstone Vitamins are safe, but HOT-ROX, Spike, and pretty much the entire Biotest inventory is in the cross hairs. The governmment wants to ‘protect us’ by letting the FDA have more control over dietary supplements.

Isn’t the FDA nothing more than a lobby for the pharmaceutical industry? And isn’t it a pharmeceutical company that is the ultimate beneficiary in the Imminent Domain case in fromt of the Supreme Court?

So they’re taking your land, they’re taking your choice, and they’re taking your money. And I thought ‘big tobacco’ was supposed to be the evil industry.

From elsewhere:

"For those with an interest in the Codex threat, here is a private
coorespondence from Larry Newman at Kirkman, a major vitamin marketer.

Codex will not affect
the dietary supplement industry in the United States at this time. If the
industry were really being threatened, the NNFA, the CRN (council for
Responsible Nutrition), and the major supplement companies would be living
on Congress’ doorstep. This is not the case. DSHEA will prevail here
in the US>

Now thats not to say that we don’t have to be very aware of potential
changes in FDA and Congressional thinking, which would lead them to Codex
type principles, but that is not an immediate concern. It will be
business as usual for dietary supplements here in the US>

Companies exporting to European countries will be affected in what types of products can be shipped abroad, but that will not affect sales in US markets."

Oh and if such legislations are…proposed here, do you think it will the the right (I’m libertarian) or the left who want to regulate what you can say, think, etc.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Funny, in the old Soviet Union you could not go to church, have much choice in your occupation, vote or get rich, but by george you could smoke, drink and buy any drug you wanted from the pharmacy.
This is why I have never supported the smoking ban. Once you start banning one thing almost anything else is fair game. They fall like dominoes. It started with smoking, then to ephedrine, next to pro-hormones, now everything. I am sure books are next.
I should read up on the ban before I make any harsh judgments, but I have no doubt the gov. is trying to further encroach on our rights. Like we aren’t in a war and have better things to worry about.
Who are the commies now?[/quote]

Are you against banning of cigarettes all together or against smoke free policies. Because if you’re against smoke free policies, don’t you think non-smokers have a right not to be subjected to second hand smoke.

[quote]KevinKovach wrote:
Are you against banning of cigarettes all together or against smoke free policies. Because if you’re against smoke free policies, don’t you think non-smokers have a right not to be subjected to second hand smoke.[/quote]

Absolutely not! Private property owners (businessmen, restaurateurs, bar owners, etc.) should indeed have the right to PROVIDE a smoke-free environment. If there is a market for it, it will be patronized.

This is kind of like asking “Don’t I have the ‘right’ not to be stuck in traffic behind a smelly bus?” No, but you could get ON the bus if you CHOOSE to.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution do you find the right to freedom from discomfort and annoyance. Sorry, it just ain’t there.

[quote]KevinKovach wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Funny, in the old Soviet Union you could not go to church, have much choice in your occupation, vote or get rich, but by george you could smoke, drink and buy any drug you wanted from the pharmacy.
This is why I have never supported the smoking ban. Once you start banning one thing almost anything else is fair game. They fall like dominoes. It started with smoking, then to ephedrine, next to pro-hormones, now everything. I am sure books are next.
I should read up on the ban before I make any harsh judgments, but I have no doubt the gov. is trying to further encroach on our rights. Like we aren’t in a war and have better things to worry about.
Who are the commies now?

Are you against banning of cigarettes all together or against smoke free policies. Because if you’re against smoke free policies, don’t you think non-smokers have a right not to be subjected to second hand smoke.[/quote]

for the most part, second hand smoke is a farce. The few exceptions are those who live in a smokey environment, day in and day out, who then will receive MARGINAL (very small) increases in cancer risks. An acceptable economic solution is a small tax on cigarette packs (probably about one cent per pack) which would then compensate “victims” of second hand smoke. The government should have no right to ban tobacco, as smoking is something that is a desired option among a huge portion of the population, and the risks to other people are largely fabricated.

No smoking in a public building is fine, but to ban them all-together or anywhere outside is not.