*** ALERT: Ephedra BANNED in US ***
01-01-2004 10:48 PM
Here is a good take on what is happening by Rick Collins over at EF:
There are no bills pending today that would ban all supplements. Does that mean there's nothing to worry about? Well, there may be very good reason to worry if you care about supplements. Let's talk about why.
The dietary supplement industry is nearly a $19 billion business annually, and it's growing. If Big Pharmacy could get control of it, the supplement business could generate revenues much, much higher than that. Think of the prices we pay for prescription drugs. Think of all the bling-bling.
And Big Pharmacy may likely get its way, eventually. Believe it or not, the U.S. laws are out of step with many other nation's vitamin laws. Globally, supplements are generally much more restricted than here in America (in some places tablets are limited in potency to only the RDA). There is a strong movement (called the "Codex Alimentarius", and supported by the FDA) to "harmonize" all supplement laws around the world. Needless to say, it won't be to loosen up the laws abroad, but to crack down on U.S. supplement freedoms. That's the Big Picture, and some of the pending bills are just small steps in that direction.
Look, the pharmaceutical industry has legions of well-paid lobbyists working Capitol Hill to accomplish the goal. Of course, they're not so foolish as to propose an outright ban on supplements. The public wouldn't stand for it, as evidenced by the tremendous popular support for the 1994 law (DSHEA) that protected supplements from FDA overreaching. No, the attack on supplements must be gradual. The wall of protections must be dismantled one brick at a time.
So you have, for example, something like the bill (S. 722) proposed by Dick Durbin -- a long-time opponent of dietary supplements. It would require reporting of adverse reactions and safety complaints (a reasonable proposal to protect the public). But it would also give the FDA the authority to remove an entire class of supplements from the market if there's even a single serious adverse reaction complaint filed -- even if the complaint is filed by a consumer who has used the product against the instructions of the manufacturer. Then the manufacturer will have to prove the safety of the supplement -- a costly process that would break some companies. Look at the costs associated with proving safety of a drug before it comes to market. That's why we pay the prices we do for Rx drugs. American consumers generally don't want to pay those kinds of prices for vitamins. And I don't blame them.
Anyway, who's kidding whom on the vitamin safety issue? If that's the problem, let's get over-the-counter non-steroidal anti-inflammatants (NSAID's) off the market immediately! Ibuprofin, acetaminophen and the like cause thousands of deaths annually. Arguably, that's a real public health crisis, don't ya think? (Hey, if saving lives were the true priority, wouldn't we have banned tobacco decades ago?)
Durbin's bill would also newly define “anabolic steroid” to make certain products fit the definition based on advertising claims alone, regardless of whether they actually build muscle. This would end the prohormone market as we know it. Two other bills, H.R. 207 and S. 1780, really go after prohormones as well. The attack on prohormones is largely spearheaded by the sports anti-doping lobby, and is less related to safety than to the potential advantage that using them might provide to athletes. After all, the number of deaths attributed to prohormones is ... zero. A bit off from the number attributed to NSAID's, huh?
01-31-2004 01:15 PM
The ban really sux and some how I think no matter how much we write, e-mail ect....they will still do what they want.
I went ahead and stocked up before all this went down, so I'll be good for a while.
01-31-2004 01:44 PM
Running with the Big Boys
I am really starting to think the same thing.. which is bad because I really thought the government was supposed a Representive Body, a government of the people by the people. Here lately as things are going on, it is seeming more of government for the special interests and most of them seem to be running counter to the will of the people at times...
01-31-2004 07:02 PM
Craig posted a couple of interesting theories over at AU that sounded like some of the behind the scenes reasoning for the ephedra ban. Basically, it came down to ephedra is being used in the process to make meth, and the DEA was behind the scenes pressuring to get it off the streets.
I'll try to dig up Craig's posts
01-31-2004 08:37 PM
Craig's first post on the DEA angle to the ephedra ban. Original thread at AU is http://www.anabolicuniverse.com/foru...7770#post37770
Originally posted by craig there is another reason that is equally, if not more the driving factor behind the gov't wanting to ban ephedra/ephedrine: the fact that ephedrine is the prefered starting material in methamphetamine synthesis. the hydroxy (OH) group is easily reduced using a pretty basic and easy to do reaction--producing methamphetamine.
similarly, the recently banned phenylpropanolamine (PPA--a stimulant, appetite suppressent and anti-histamine) is converted to amphetamine by reducing its hydroxy (OH) group with the same reaction. then the amphetamine can be converted to meth by adding a methyl group if so desired, also using a fairly basic and easy to do reaction.
the dea put pressure on the FDA to ban both of these compounds. there was significant resistance from the pharmaceutical companies when phenylpropanolamine (PPA) was banned--(it was the only FDA approved non-prescription appetite supressant at that time) the companies said that the gov't was inflating the risk (the reason for the ban was that it apparently caused stroke in a few cases, which may or may not have been linked to PPA). there was also a lot of resistance to the ephedra ban by the supplment industries--which actually delayed the ban on ephedra. they were able to keep it on the market for several years after the gov't first started trying to ban it. the fact that it is a traditional chinese medicine probably makes the ban harder to put in place and enforce.
i saw both of these bans coming years ago, when i learned that they could be easily converted to controlled substances. the other compound that is used in meth manufacturing is pseudoephedrine (pseudofed), which is so commonly used in cold & allergy medications that it cannot easily be banned. i would assume that if they find a drug that has similar theraputic properties that could replace pseudofed, that they would try to ban pseudoephedrine as well. currently, you cannot buy more than a couple of packages of it at a time as they try to control the sale of large amounts to prevent it from ending-up in clandestine meth labs.
the fact that ephedrine and PPA are chemical precoursers of illicit stimulants is the primary reason why they are being (or have been) banned, although it is unlikely that this will be mentioned as the reason--instead they try to prove that the compounds are 'unsafe' in some way, giving them the excuse to ban them. many drugs sold on the market in the US are much more dangerous than these compounds--but the gov't doesn't have reason to ban them simply for safety--the key point is their use in clandestine drug manufacture.
See http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/ppa/qa.htm for phenylpropanolamine (PPA) ban info.
I am posting pertainent sections of the chemical control act below:
(full text can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/chemical_control.html)
<start of exerpt>
The CDTA also had an initial impact on the number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories in the United States. In the first three years after the law was passed, the number of clandestine laboratories seized by the DEA declined by 61 percent. In addition, injuries attributed to illicitly manufactured controlled substances that were reported to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) declined by almost 60 percent during the same time period.
The provisions of the CDTA regarding bulk ephedrine and pseudoephedrine caused methamphetamine traffickers to look for other sources of the precursors. The traffickers noted that the CDTA contained an exemption for over-the-counter (OTC) products that contained regulated chemicals. They took advantage of this loophole by turning to single entity OTC ephedrine tablets and capsules whose single active ingredient was ephedrine as a source of precursor material for the illicit production of methamphetamine.
Federal legislation was passed in 1993 in response to the methamphetamine traffickers' switch to OTC ephedrine products. The legislation was the Domestic Chemical Diversion and Control Act of 1993 (DCDCA) that became effective on April 16, 1994. The DCDCA eliminated the CDTA terminology of "precursors" and "essential" for chemicals regulated under that act and replaced them with the terms "List I" and "List II" chemicals. The DCDCA also removed the exemption for OTC single entity ephedrine tablets thus closing the loophole left by the CDTA. In addition, it gave the DEA the authority to remove the exemption for any other drugs containing listed chemicals if it was shown that they were being diverted for the illicit production of controlled substances. The DCDCA required that all manufacturers, distributors, importers, and exporters of List I chemicals be registered with the DEA and that bulk manufacturers of List I and List II chemicals report on the total quantity of listed chemicals produced during the year. Record keeping and reporting requirements for transactions in single-entity ephedrine products were also imposed by the DCDCA.
Methamphetamine traffickers quickly reacted to the provisions of the DCDCA by switching to single-entity pseudoephedrine products and combination products of ephedrine. The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (MCA) was passed to counter the traffickers' response to the DCDCA. The MCA expanded regulatory controls on all lawfully marketed drug products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, and it increased penalties for the trafficking and manufacturing of methamphetamine and listed chemicals. The MCA also made it unlawful for any person to distribute a "laboratory supply" to a person who uses, or attempts to use, that "laboratory supply" to manufacture a controlled drug or listed chemicals with reckless disregard for the illegal uses to which such "laboratory supply" will be put. The Special Surveillance List was published by the Attorney General and consisted of all listed chemicals, all mixtures, and all OTC products and dietary supplements that contain listed chemicals, 28 other chemicals frequently used in the clandestine production of controlled drugs, or listed chemicals and 4 pieces of laboratory equipment commonly found at clandestine drug laboratories. Individuals who violate the "laboratory supply" provision of the MCA are subject to a maximum civil fine of $25,000. Businesses that violate the provision are subject to a maximum civil fine of $250,000.
Ready access to chemical supplies is critical to drug traffickers. Traffickers continuously look for loopholes in legislation and new methods of clandestine production routes in an effort to continue their illegal activity. The DEA has embraced chemical control as an important tool in reducing the availability of clandestinely produced drugs and is committed to depriving drug traffickers of the chemicals needed to manufacture illicit drugs. Currently, List I and List II of the CSA contain 35 chemicals.
01-31-2004 08:39 PM
Craig's second post on the DEA angle to the ephedra ban. Original thread at AU is http://www.anabolicuniverse.com/foru...7770#post37770
02-02-2004 02:19 PM
Great information, Todd. I heard about that connection before, yet wonder if that is a real reason. If it were, I would have expected it to have received more publicity. Frankly, I think the drug companies and their lobbying arms are still the major factor, with this being a convenient justification for their actions.
02-02-2004 03:50 PM
what is the final deadline date, does anyone know that yet? when will companies no longer be able to sell it????
02-06-2004 11:14 AM
The True Warrior is one who conquers oneself
I was watching CNN or something last night and i saw it scroll on the bottom saying FDA wants it off the shelves by April.
So long as people are smart about using PH's and don't kill themselves by being stupid, I don't think we have anything to worry about.
I think it said 150 something deaths attributed to ephedra...
i mean i feel bad for the people, but dont take ephedra when your 250 pounds overweight then go sit on your couch..and say..wow this is giving me jitters and heart palpatations..of course it is fat ass
or dont take 15 ephedra pills then go to a rave all night without water...wtf?
anyone know of someone dying from it in "normal" circumstances?
02-06-2004 12:04 PM
Do you guy's think that after April or when the Ban takes full effect will there be anyway to still get it...Black market,overseas ect......
05-07-2004 12:56 AM
Nutracueticals, parent company to Solaray to launch lawsuit against FDA for arbitrarily and capriciously banning ephedra.
Hopefully Solaray will have thier **** together. I have faith in these guys.
05-08-2004 02:49 PM
Good for them. I have used and liked Solaray products.
07-18-2005 05:36 AM
07-18-2005 05:40 AM
Found Stacker 2 Original Ephedra
I know it is banned but I found them at http://www.igotbannedforspam.com
Hope this will help the people who have been using the ECA stack and had success with it.
07-18-2005 06:44 AM
goodbye, and thanks for all the sales pitches....
07-18-2005 06:48 AM
Stacker 2 Original Ephedra not welcomed here?
Made that post for people looking for it. If you are offended by the post, then don't go to that site.
Originally Posted by BodyWizard
07-18-2005 07:59 AM
not offended by the post, but by the spammer (that's you).
you're brand-new here, you have 5 posts - 4 are spam, one is defending the spam.
we're not crazy about spam OR SPAMMERS here, so I figure you're moments away from being banned...therefore, goodbye.
now: if you WANT to offend me, pretend you're NOT spamming
07-18-2005 08:08 AM
dead sexy wino
Similar Forum Threads
By pittguy578 in forum Supplements
Last Post: 11-18-2010, 11:10 PM
By Doogsy123 in forum Supplements
Last Post: 11-28-2009, 11:39 PM
By Bionic in forum General Chat
Last Post: 11-18-2008, 02:24 AM
By Edge in forum General Chat
Last Post: 01-01-2005, 07:06 PM
By windwords7 in forum Supplements
Last Post: 04-05-2003, 02:21 PM