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?
Anyway, if you want to read the various bills themselves as well as more commentary on the issues, check out the News Forum at
www.usfa.biz.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
