Durbin Bill Threatens Supplement Freedom - Take Action

LG Sciences

LG Sciences

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Hey guys, Dick Durbin is at it again. He wants to ban all new supplements from hitting the market by making supplements into drugs. Please act now and write your congressperson to stop this dangerous bill:

https://secure3.convio.net/aahf/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1627

From the Alliance For Natural Health

The FDA can count on mainstream media to mislead the public. Let’s get the truth out and stop this bill. Action Alert!


Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)’s bill, S.1425, is meant to “improve the safety of dietary supplements by [requiring] manufacturers of dietary supplements to register dietary supplements with the Food and Drug Administration and to amend labeling requirements with respect to dietary supplements.” Sounds innocuous, doesn’t it? But as we reported in August, this is nothing but a smokescreen—a naked power grab for the FDA and an attempt to regulate safe dietary supplements as if they were dangerous FDA-approved prescription drugs.


A recent article in Newsday quotes “a top agency official” (probably FDA’s Division of Dietary Supplement Programs director Dan Fabricant, who is quoted extensively in the article) as saying that 70% of supplement companies have violated FDA’s manufacturing rules over the last five years—with the clear implication that such manufacturing violations somehow puts the American public at risk. There is no mention of the nature, context, or seriousness of these alleged violations, and no link to any official reports or documentation.


The article declares that the number of adverse events caused by supplements “outstrips” those triggered by prescriptions drugs. This is totally false. The Newsday article’s author, Delthia Ricks, tells us that approximately “6,300 people nationwide complained about adverse reactions to dietary supplements between 2008 and 2012, according to FDA statistics. But the actual number may be more than eight times higher, some experts say, because most people don’t believe health products can make them sick.” This “eight times higher” claim has no basis in fact, and no documented source. Even if it were true, this number is far less than for prescription drugs.


The 6,300 figure averages to 1,575 per year, which is extremely low considering that 157 million Americans—half the US population—take supplements. This is in comparison to 526,527 adverse events for prescription drugs, 275,421 of which had “serious outcomes,” including death.


Why would we want to let the agency regulate supplements as if they were drugs when the drugs they approve cause over 400 times the adverse events than supplements do? When the Government Accountability Office (GAO) looked at the number of adverse events for supplements at the request of Senator Durbin, it was unable to uncover anything alarming, as we reported back in March.


On the contrary, the GAO report showed that FDA-approved drugs caused 80% of Poison Control fatalities. More than 100,000 calls to Poison Control Centers, 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and nearly 500 deaths each year are attributed to acetaminophen (Tylenol) alone!


The Newsday article goes on to describe, in detail, the FDA’s authority to regulate the vitamin supplement industry, noting the agency’s inspection of supplement company facilities, and its ability to issue product warnings, recalls, and seizures and levy steep fines against companies that run afoul of FDA regulation. Inexplicably, the article then quotes Dan Fabricant as saying, “There is little the FDA can do to exercise more power over supplement safety without an act of Congress,” and concludes that FDA has “limited power” to regulate supplements. In what universe does that statement make sense?


The only way it makes sense is if mainstream media pieces like this Newsday article are viewed as propaganda: a concerted alliance between the media, the FDA, and legislators like Sen. Durbin to weaken the public’s determination to keep dietary supplements freely available. Lest this sound too conspiratorial, we need to remember that drug advertising is what keeps much of print media alive in these days of online competition.


The theme of adverse events is very much echoed in Durbin’s legislation. His bill requires that the FDA, together with the Institute of Medicine (IOM), compile a list of dietary ingredients (supplements) that might lead to adverse events, or are otherwise deemed risky in some way—based on completely arbitrary or nonexistent standards. Given the FDA’s profound bias against supplements, and the skewed, anti-science recommendations of the IOM’s vitamin D report, these are hardly trustworthy sources of guidance!


By the way, speaking of IOM and adverse events, why does the IOM absolutely refuse to study adverse events from vaccinations? In this case it holds that adverse events are meaningless because not studied, but then refuses to study them.


Returning to supplements, the FDA already has complete authority to keep them safe—it’s just a matter of enforcement, as the FDA’s Fabricant himself said when he worked for the Natural Products Association: “The barriers to enforcement are simple: [FDA] money, manpower, and will.” (You’ll note he doesn’t say “more regulation”!) He also made the distinction between the “legal, safe and healthy dietary supplement industry” and “the seedy, fly-by-night, unsafe world of illegal steroids,” and called on FDA, DEA, and other appropriate agencies to work together to enforce the laws that already exist. Most of the violations cited in the Newsday article are examples of bad manufacturing practices, which are already illegal and subject to FDA enforcement action. All the FDA has to do is enforce existing rules.


Another element in Durbin’s legislation is a greater restriction of health claims: he has said his bill is designed to stop “mislabeling products and making health claims that have no scientific basis.” This is more nonsense.


The vast majority of supplement health claims have plenty of scientific basis—just not the random-controlled trials (RCT) that Durbin and the FDA want. And there’s a very good reason for this: most natural products companies cannot afford to spend up to a billion dollars on RCTs, because in most cases that natural product can’t be patented, so the companies could never hope to make back their investment. In addition, many supplements should be taken with co-factors and so should not be studied in isolation like a drug.


Durbin knows all this. The demand for RCTs is just a backdoor way to get rid of most supplements entirely.


In the past, Dan Fabricant did not support greater restrictions of health claims. In response to IOM’s recommendation that dietary supplement health claims should be subject to the same scrutiny as pharmaceuticals, Fabricant said, “Trying to see foods through the same lens as isolated pharmaceuticals is impractical from a policy standpoint.” He also noted that many widely used general claims about how nutrients work, such as “calcium builds strong bones,” can’t be subjected to the same clinical evaluation as pharmaceutical drugs.


In other words, the FDA’s Fabricant said exactly what we’ve been claiming all along—that supplements are safe and the FDA needs no expanded powers—before he changed employers!


Action Alert! Please write to your senators immediately and tell them to stop Sen. Durbin’s frontal attack on your right to use supplements dead in its tracks! We don’t need this new legislation—all we need is for existing laws to be fully enforced. We need our access to nutritional supplements to be protected. Please write your senators today!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mw1
mountainman33

mountainman33

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
DONE!
 
bigflex0

bigflex0

Member
Awards
0
Done as well.
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Lets take a look at what this legislation ACTUALLY requires.

-It requires all manufacturers of supplements to provide a full list of their products and their ingredients to the FDA.
-Requires all manufacturers of supplements to continue to provide updates to that list upon the introduction, reformulation, or removal of a product from market.

What is the problem with this? A lot of companies are currently dodging regulations, this provides another layer of clear enforceable legislation by which to keep track of the thousands of fly by night companies which are operating outside of the law.


--

Within one year of this complete list of current products being made, a list of potentially high risk ingredients, and high risk proprietary blends will be compiled and submitted to the IOM

This list will then be analyzed by the IOM within 1 year, and a list of likely high risk ingredients will be compiled.

This list WILL NOT BE USED to pull supplements from the market.

It WILL BE USED to establish safety warning label requirements AND to require that potentially dangerous ingredients that are included in proprietary blends, be listed by weight.

--

Next, it adds a requirement that companies products are considered adulterated if they do not properly label the aforementioned warnings.

--

And finally, it is going to recategorize products that advertise themselves as food replacements, or complete meals (MRPs) be categorized as food products instead of supplements by providing a definition for the term 'conventional food'. Many companies are already doing this, and I'm honestly skeptical of many that don't.

--

Nowhere in the piece of legislation is there anything about:

-Blocking sale of new supplements
-Removing supplements from market
-Anything resembling massively increased operating costs within the industry

Now, I can see why companies like LG Sciences wouldn't want to have to submit a list of the supplements they're manufacturing to the FDA, but, for the majority of companies, and consumers, this piece of legislation is a positive change and no way a death knell for the industry.
 
Touey

Touey

Well-known member
Awards
0
What is the problem with this?
with this is from most 8 in 10 more govt. become involving their bulbous proboscis about business demesne mostly the worse will be outcome
 
bigflex0

bigflex0

Member
Awards
0
The laws that are in place IMO are sufficient if they were actually enforced. Also requiring companies to submit what I can only imagine will be plentiful paperwork on every item they sell will surely be very costly. Imagine the leg work for a company like Now Foods who has 100's of items. Plain and simple Dick Durbin is very much against the industry and almost every year introduces some bill in an attempt to regulate the industry.
 
02sixxer

02sixxer

Well-known member
Awards
0
My opinion is this will cause more work for the company to launch a new product, which will then cost the consumer more money. Me being a consumer I don't want higher prices. If I owned a supplement company I wouldn't want to put in more work to release a product because I have to raise the price. I don't want to raise the price because companies that are larger with more funds can drive me out of business in the first few years because they would have a larger working capitol. With that capitol they can keep prices low. This then creates a monopoly. Companies like ON, Dymatize, Cellucore, GNC will then control the market. Us as the consumer will then have less choices or pay way to much for simple products. Government Fees are already too high.


That is my thought on the issue. Being a business owner, I had the Government change rules from year to the next which cost me a ton of out of pocket money. Other Businesses like mine closed or sold for bottom dollar because they did not have the capitol or backing I did. For me that was good, but for the consumer it would not be necessarily good. Now they have less choices and are forced to use my services and buy from me. The same could happen here for larger supplement companies.
 
rugger48

rugger48

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
If what de_eb says is true then I don't see why this will cost the consumer more.
 
bigflex0

bigflex0

Member
Awards
0
The thing is the bill does not give exact details on the kind of paper work that would need to be submitted for each product. Think of a company like Now Foods or Nutraceutical(owners and manufacturers of Solaray, Kal, Thompson and like 20 other brands) they have hundreds if not thousands of products that would require paperwork. Paying someone to fill out and submit all these forms will cost money and something tells me that the company is not going to absorb that we are. Any time you introduce more hurdles to product release it will curtail the number of products that are produced. Companies will also be less likely to improve products due to the additional paperwork. Maybe it will be a simple form but when was the last time the gov came up with a simple quick form?

Most of the bill is redundant as many of its regulations are already in place. For instance having something in your product without putting it on the label is already illegal. Enforcement is the issue not the lack of laws.

For arguments sake lets say you had to submit the paperwork on a new pre-workout there is still nothing stopping a company from spiking the product.

"Within one year of this complete list of current products being made, a list of potentially high risk ingredients, and high risk proprietary blends will be compiled and submitted to the IOM

This list will then be analyzed by the IOM within 1 year, and a list of likely high risk ingredients will be compiled.

This list WILL NOT BE USED to pull supplements from the market.

It WILL BE USED to establish safety warning label requirements AND to require that potentially dangerous ingredients that are included in proprietary blends, be listed by weight."

I have a hard time believing that this list will not be used to target certain ingredients for removal. Heck they pulled ephedra and DMAA with little to no evidence that they are harmful when used AS DIRECTED and not abused. Perhaps I am being paranoid but I am suspicious of anything Dick Durbin introduces due to his track record.
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The thing is the bill does not give exact details on the kind of paper work that would need to be submitted for each product. Think of a company like Now Foods or Nutraceutical(owners and manufacturers of Solaray, Kal, Thompson and like 20 other brands) they have hundreds if not thousands of products that would require paperwork. Paying someone to fill out and submit all these forms will cost money and something tells me that the company is not going to absorb that we are. Any time you introduce more hurdles to product release it will curtail the number of products that are produced. Companies will also be less likely to improve products due to the additional paperwork. Maybe it will be a simple form but when was the last time the gov came up with a simple quick form?
Are you trying to tell me that every company manufacturing products doesn't already have a comprehensive list of their products, what's in them, and at what dose? That's completely ridiculous.

Any company that does not already have 100% of the information listed in the legislation on hand and readily accessible should not be in business.
Most of the bill is redundant as many of its regulations are already in place. For instance having something in your product without putting it on the label is already illegal. Enforcement is the issue not the lack of laws.
Nothing about having something in your product and not having it on the label is in this legislation, this legislation is about requiring safety warnings on labels.

For arguments sake lets say you had to submit the paperwork on a new pre-workout there is still nothing stopping a company from spiking the product.
Which is why companies that can not provide an accurate and detailed MMR, with associated batch testing of their raw materials and finished products should be placed under an injunction until they can provide such records.

This isn't kiddie world, we've got companies putting amphetamine analogues in products, hiding illegal stimulants behind contrived ingredient names, and putting out inconsistently dosed and poorly quality controlled stimulant blends that can cause adverse effects even when used as directed.

I would and already do GLADLY pay more for supplements with better quality assurance.

I have a hard time believing that this list will not be used to target certain ingredients for removal. Heck they pulled ephedra and DMAA with little to no evidence that they are harmful when used AS DIRECTED and not abused. Perhaps I am being paranoid but I am suspicious of anything Dick Durbin introduces due to his track record.
There is no impetus within this legislation to remove any product from the market unless an ingredient is deemed potentially harmful to a subset of the population, and the manufacturer refuses to properly provide a safety warning on the label.
 
rugger48

rugger48

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
He's gotta a couple of good points here guys. A case could be said that maybe more government isn't good thing and this just could be a stepping stone for the government to move into stricter regulation, but as of right now a lot what De_eb has been saying seems like its on the up and up.
 
bigflex0

bigflex0

Member
Awards
0
Are you trying to tell me that every company manufacturing products doesn't already have a comprehensive list of their products, what's in them, and at what dose? That's completely ridiculous.

Any company that does not already have 100% of the information listed in the legislation on hand and readily accessible should not be in business.
I never stated that companies do not have this info, of course they have the info but they are still going to have to fill out the required forms for each product it's not like your going to simply email them the pdf of your label, it will be some official government form and more than likely it will be needed to be filled out for each product individually and this takes time thus money. Off the top of my head I do not know of any legislation that has imposed increased requirements on an industry without it resulting in a rise of the cost of doing business.

Nothing about having something in your product and not having it on the label is in this legislation, this legislation is about requiring safety warnings on labels.
That I am ok with. I for one do feel the dose of stims for instance should be stated. I also do not personally like prop blends but I also understand the need to protect a formula a company spent time and money developing.


Which is why companies that can not provide an accurate and detailed MMR, with associated batch testing of their raw materials and finished products should be placed under an injunction until they can provide such records.

This isn't kiddie world, we've got companies putting amphetamine analogues in products, hiding illegal stimulants behind contrived ingredient names, and putting out inconsistently dosed and poorly quality controlled stimulant blends that can cause adverse effects even when used as directed.

I understand this is not kiddie world thanks for pointing that out. I was under the understanding that a lot of the issues were supposed to be addressed with the cGMP manufacturing that went into effect a few years ago. Obviously they were not. Please do not get me wrong I am not for spiked products in any way shape or form. I want to know whats on the label is in there and that is it.

I would and already do GLADLY pay more for supplements with better quality assurance.
j
I too pay for quality and think it is worth it.

There is no impetus within this legislation to remove any product from the market unless an ingredient is deemed potentially harmful to a subset of the population, and the manufacturer refuses to properly provide a safety warning on the label.

Well IMO they are poorly suited to evaluate this. Products that were safe if used properly have been removed due to media hysteria and knee jerk reactions, perhaps this bill will not make that worse than it already is.
You bring up some good points my responses are in bold. Enjoying the debate my good sir.
 
SwolenONE

SwolenONE

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
The laws that are in place IMO are sufficient if they were actually enforced. Also requiring companies to submit what I can only imagine will be plentiful paperwork on every item they sell will surely be very costly. Imagine the leg work for a company like Now Foods who has 100's of items. Plain and simple Dick Durbin is very much against the industry and almost every year introduces some bill in an attempt to regulate the industry.
Absolutely agreed. It's a shame that lack of enforcement of current laws (along with dishonest supplement companies) is placing strain on our entire industry. This is potentially leading to tighter and tighter regulation from politicians backed by big pharma, who obviously sees natural supplements as competition.

Both the LG Crew and Deeb have good points. Potentially, more regulation could be a good thing as it could mean safer supplements/better QC across the board. However, in a time where many consumers don't have a whole lot of extra income, many people are sadly unwilling to pay more for higher quality control. I also fear the paperwork could become more like a Health Canada type of situation, in which they make selling supplements seemingly as hard/expensive as possible.

For all of those who deal with paperwork for foreign markets (I'm guessing folks like myself, Vaughn and a few others are the only ones who can shed insight), it's a scary thought to think of having to do that for our primary domestic market as well (some countries are better than others). Essentially, the paperwork is viewed by many as more of a tax/way of collecting additional revenue then as a method of actually screening the safety of supplements.
 
bigflex0

bigflex0

Member
Awards
0
I have read that the FDA sorely lacks funding to enforce the existing laws on the wide scale. The question that needs to be asked is where the heck is the funding going to come from to cover this new set of regulations? I will wholeheartedly agree that the belt needs to be tightened in this industry or we could see all our options disappear.
 

criticalbench

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
this crap comes out all the time..
 

JD261985

Banned
Awards
0
Who the **** is this durbin guy anyway? Lol what a prick
 
bigflex0

bigflex0

Member
Awards
0
this crap comes out all the time..
Yes he pretty much introduces some sort of new legislation every year concerning the supplement industry, the big difference this go around is that the timing could not be worse with all the BS that has gone down lately. With lot's of negative press at the moment it could gain more traction.
 

Similar threads


Top