Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Supplements will be considered illegal drugs...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:14 PM
Original message
Supplements will be considered illegal drugs...
I just recieved this E-mail and am having trouble independently verifying this. If it's true, this is scary.

Apparently there is some legislation being pushed through that will A) Force a person to rat on a family member or friend for using drugs, B) Make otc Supplements like ginseng and St. John's Wort illegal.

House Bill HR-1528 is a bill if passed will create Americans to, in
affect, spy on each other. This bill titled "Defending America's Most
Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of
2005" (H.R. 1528). House Judiciary Committee Chairman James
Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced this Bill on April 6, Plus the fact
that it has already passed out of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Even though this bill was written regarding Drugs that many teens and
young adults are taking and smoking, there are a couple of other
Bills that are pending for passage soon. They are Senate Bill 722 and
House Bill 3377. These bills relate to Vitamins and Minerals as well
as Herbs. These bills if passed, would classify Supplements as DRUGS.
The system is known as CODEX and is being pushed by the AMA, WTO, and
some drug corporations for passage. Now if Bills HR-3377 and S-722
are passed, and the House Bill 1528 passes also, that would mean that
any American who sees or knows of one who takes supplements would go
to jail if they do not report them.

Bill 1528 in part relates to cases listed below:
*You see someone you know pass a joint to a college student age 20 or
* Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college
* You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a
small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.
* If your substance abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to
find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.
* You can also be forced to go under cover in order to trap your
friends or relations into giving the police enough evidence to
prosecute them -- do it or go to jail yourself.

Substitute supplements for the above cases if the above bills are

In each of these cases, one would face jail time if they did not call
the police within 24 hours. It matters not, if the offender is your
friend or relative. It also doesn't matter if you need 48 hours to
think about it. You will be required to report the person to the
government within 24 hours or go to jail. You also will required to
assist the government in every way, including wearing a wire if
needed. Refusing to cooperate with the government would cost you at
least two years in prison or even more time in jail. In addition to
turning in a family member, the legislation could also put many
Americans into dangerous situations by forcing them to go undercover
to gain evidence against strangers. If you "witness" certain drug
offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have
to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and
provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and
prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime
punishable by a mandatory prison sentence.

So if supplements are classified as drugs as the above Bills are for,
then those who are taking supplements now, and if a family member is
aware of it and if your next-door neighbor is aware, they would be
required to turn you in.

Where was the press or news media when these bills were introduced? I
thought the press main job was to protect our freedoms and liberty.
Guess they no longer matter since nothing has appeared in print or
over TV. The Internet is now our only hope for a free press that is
not controlled by Washington at least for the time being.

Be my guest and check all this out by getting a copy of the Bills
and/or researching the Internet and come to your own opinions.



Condensed Version CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Latin for "Food Rules")

March 23, 2005

Let me ask you if you know anyone who has actually
read all 15,000+ pages of the working documents of the
Codex Alimentarius Commission? Well, I have. As such,
allow me to attempt to put an end to any confusion you
may have about Codex Alimentarius by sharing what I
have learned and what I believe to be a reasonable and
appropriate level of concern.

Following is a summary of what Dr. Laibow found in
reading all 15,000+ pages.

The World Trade Association (WTO) is very close to
taking away our right to buy, sell or use almost all
nutritional supplements. In addition, the ability of
physicians to legally practice environmental or
natural medicine and the rights of patients to chose
these treatments are about to be criminalized here in
the United States.

Currently in the U.S. nutrients are classified as
foods Education Act (DSHEA)] and any substance not
explicitly forbidden is permitted as a nutrient. Under CODEX,

any substance not explicitly permitted by CODEX policy is
banned as a nutrient. The CODEX preamble specifies
that supplements and nutrients "may not be used to
prevent, treat or cure any disorder."

Natural health options will become illegal if either
of the following occurs:
1) the United States is "harmonized" with the WTO this
spring while compliance with CODEX is still
2) total compliance becomes mandatory, as it will be
after the next CODEX Commission meeting in Rome July
4-9, 2005.

Once CODEX is implemented, either through
"harmonization" or mandatory compliance, we will be
forced to follow the European CODEX model in which it
will be illegal to manufacture, buy, sell, recommend,
or use any but 28 ultra-low dose nutrients whether you
are a consumer or a licensed health professional. Only synthetic
versions of that short list will be allowed and natural supplements,
herbs, enzymes and other non-pharmaceutical treatments will
be banned. The only legal health option left will be the
pharmaceutical one.

CODEX regulations have been "harmonized" (i.e.,
approved) in the EU, Canada and Australia. The United
States is next unless we act decisively and act now.

On August 1, 2005, 75 percent of the natural
substances currently available in health food stores
and pharmacies in Europe will become illegal as a
direct result of CODEX.

There's more, but I don't want to crash the server.

Anyone know anything about this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. here's the bill
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 08:20 PM by mzteris
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Hard to believe they will kill an industry the size of supplements
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I edited
for a better link.........

I'm still not seeing anything about supplements in the language of the bill. Granted, I gave it a quick perusal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Pharma much bigger than supplements and they would just love to
kill anything that cuts into their business..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Orrin Hatch is big supporter of Supplement Industry, many
companies based in Utah. He has successfully fought regulation thus far and is the reason supplements are not covered by FDA. I would be shocked if he let anything happen, big pharma or no big pharma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Well. thank goodness for small miracles...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Uh, supplments aren't covered by the FDA because they're FOOD
and GRAS ("Generally Regarded As Safe") and they're weeds that grow in your back yard (dandelion and milk thistle) which would be damned near impossible to regulate. They've been exempt from FDA supervision since there was an FDA.

Now, I'm well aware that Orrin Hatch helped avoid some further restriction and regulation by the FDA not too long ago, but I just didn't want to give him credit for what was basically the case from the get-go, possibly before he was born (i.e., since the 1930s, I believe).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Uh, Hatch is the reason supplements are so unregulated today /

For years, the FDA has had authority to regulate dietary supplements, but the balance of power shifted dramatically in 1994. Pressed by a massive grass-roots campaign orchestrated by the industry, Congress voted to allow most supplements on the market without tests for safety or efficacy and to require the FDA to prove that supplements are unsafe before halting sales.

"Orrin Hatch takes two media hits. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), whose 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has greatly weakened the FDA's ability to protect consumers, has been rebuked for suggesting that the FDA has not done enough to protect the public from ephedra's dangers. Calling Hatch's remarks "a dazzling display of hypocrisy," Time senior science writer Leon Jaroff said, "The time has come for drastic revision of DSHEA, the re-empowerment of the FDA and the rejection of cynical proposals by legislators like Orrin Hatch." Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times noted:

From 1998 to 2001, while Hatch's son Scott worked for a lobbying firm with close ties to his father, supplement industry clients paid the company more than $1.96 million, more than $1 million of it from clients involved with ephedra.

In 2002, Scott Hatch opened his own lobbying firm in partnership with two of his father's close associates. So far, the firm has received at least $30,000 in retainers from the National Nutritional Foods Association and a major manufacturer of ephedra (Twinlab) , both of whom were clients of the previous firm.

During the past decade, Orrin Hatch has received nearly $137,000 in campaign contributions from the supplements industry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. I got this email...related.
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 08:32 PM by BrklynLiberal

> IAHF Webmaster: Codex Emergency, Breaking News, Anti CAFTA, All Countries,
> What to Do:
> IAHF List:
> John Hammell will be on the air tonight, July 4th at 7 PM Pacific, 10 PM
> Eastern Time on Web based World Wide First Amendment Radio
> / As guest of Darren Weeks. You will need Winamp
> installed to listen on the web, and can also listen via satellite at
> Galaxy 13 Channel 16, Sub-Audio 7.70
> The nightmare scenario which IAHF first warned the world about in 1996
> came true today at the 28th General Session of the Codex Alimentarius when
> the global trade guideline for vitamins and minerals was RATIFIED
> nary a whimper of protest from US Codex Manager Dr.Ed Scarbrough, our
> traitorous delegate.) (See Press Release below my comments by Diane Miller
> who is in Rome.)
> What Codex ratified was a FRAMEWORK with the blanks on allowable potencies
> to be filled in next November at the Codex Committee on Nutrition and
> Foods for Special Dietary Use Meeting in Bonn.
> How they intend to fill in those blanks, however, is highly predictable
> given that the World Health Organization's "Nutrient Risk Assessment
> Project" is being "led" by an FDA employee: Christine Lewis Taylor, a
> dietician who firmly believes that taking any nutrient above RDA levels
> merely "enriches the urine."

> The Pharma Dominated vitamin trade associations have conned their vitamin
> company and health food store members into thinking that "SOUND SCIENCE"
> would be used to fill in the blanks on allowable potencies, and that a
> "victory" was won when a move to scrap RDAs as the basis for filling in
> the blanks was replaced by a move to base them on "scientific" risk
> assessment instead.

> (See CRN Press Release )
>But just how "scientific" is it in FACT when they're only looking at
> presumed "RISKS" while ignoring BENEFITS? The Pharma Dominated trade
> associations have conned their members into believing that the END POINT
> of the Codex risk assessment would be the "SUL"S or "Safe Upper Levels"
> generated by the US National Academy of Sciences. These numbers aren't
> much different from the potencies that vitamin companies are currently
> allowed to sell in the USA so vitamin companies have easily bought into
> this LIE.

The awful REALITY, however is that the SULs are only the STARTING point
> for this most unscientific risk assessment, because the fine print calls
> for them to be further watered down til by subtracting junk science
> derived "nutrient risk factors" and junk science derived numbers from some
> mythical "average diet" which doesn't in fact exist, you end up with a the
> numbers generated by the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment show
> in this table, which as you can see in some cases are even LOWER than the
> RDAs:

> The UK based Alliance for Natural Health sees all of this, and in an
> effort to head it off commissioned the Dutch based HAN Foundation to do a
> PROPERLY SCIENTIFIC risk assessment which takes into account the BENEFIT
> of dietary supplements, which the so called World Health Organization is
> outrageously IGNORING completely:
> Judging from what just happened in Rome, however, no vitamin consumer in
> America can count on Codex paying the least bit of attention to the HAN
> Foundation's findings however when Codex meets next in November. We have
> to assume the worst- that they'll fill in the blanks on allowable
> potencies exactly the way the FDA would want them to, which is of course
> just the way the German government would like as seen in the table above.


The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) Treaty will require the
> U.S., a member of the World Trade Organization, to revise our food laws
> and regulations based on Codex decisions. CAFTA would force harmonization
> of our dietary supplements and regulations to international standards,
> overriding the DSHEA Act of 1994.
> The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the even-broader
> Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) are both modelled after the
> North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These agreements are typical
> bureaucratic monstrosities of "managed" trade that masquerade as free
> trade and would expand NAFTA to include first Central America and then the
> rest of the Americas in an economic "union." True free trade would take a
> few pages of written text to enact ("eliminate these barriers to trade and
> these tariffs," etc.); all three of these agreements encompass thousands
> of pages of bureaucratic textual garbage sprinkled liberally with rules,
> regulations, and special-interest benefits.

> Buried in the language of CAFTA is Section 6 that would require of all its
> members that they form a Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) committee for
> the purpose of insuring ongoing harmonization under the terms of the SPS
> Agreement in the World Trade Organization (WTO). You can find that text
> at the following website:

> .
> If you then look at Article 3 of the WTO's SPS Agreement, you will read
> the following words: "To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on
> as wide a basis as possible, Members shall base their food safety measures
> on international standards, guidelines or recommendations."
> added) And as you all know by now, Codex sets the international standards
> for food safety including vitamins & minerals.
> So, CAFTA, which is set for a vote in the House of Representatives any
> time after they reconvene July 11th, 2005, is another critical link by
> which health-freedom haters hope to bypass the Dietary Supplement Health
> and Education Act of 1994 and obligate the United States and Canada by
> treaty to harmonize to the harshly restrictive Codex vitamin-and-mineral
> standards. They cannot be allowed to succeed, and we at the NHF completely
> oppose these two treaties that would put a knife in the back of our health
> freedoms.

> *********************

> ~CAFTA has already passed the Senate in a 54 to 45 vote on July 1st, 2005.
> ~Legislators have just recessed for one week, reconvening July 11, 2005.
> ~IMPORTANT- For House consideration, when they return, the Senate Bill
> 1307 (click here
> :: to view
> bill), ratifying CAFTA, can be voted on without going to committee. It is
> on the House calendar and may be brought up at any time.

> *********************
> Contact any member of the House of Representatives via
> /
> Dear Congressman______________________
> In 1994 vitamin consumers generated the largest volume of mail to Congress
> on any issue in the HISTORY of Congress when we passed the Dietary
> Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.
> Today, CAFTA threatens to undo all of our hard work, and to set the USA up
> for harmonization to an excessively restrictive global trade guideline for
> vitamins and minerals just finalized on July 4th 2005 at the 28 General
> Session of the UN's Codex Alimentarius Commission.
> The seeds of our health freedom destruction are sewn inside Section 6 of
> CAFTA where members are forced to form a Sanitary-Phytosanitary Measures
> (SPS) Committee for the purpose of insuring ONGOING HARMONIZATION of our
> laws under the terms of the SPS Agreement in the WTO Trade Agreement. (See
> If you examine Article 3 of the WTO's SPS Agreement you will read the
> following words: "To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as
> wide a basis as possible, members SHALL base their food safety measures on
> international standards, guidelines or recommendations."
> (Codex sets the international standard for food safety, and they intend to
> fill in the blanks on allowed potencies at levels even LOWER than RDAs-
> see
> Vitamin consumers drove many congressmen out of office who failed to vote
> for DSHEA in '94.
> Any member of Congress who fails to heed our concerns about CAFTA and
> votes for this unconstitutional trade agreement anyway, despite how it
> sets us up for harmonization to Codex, and despite its continuing the
> failed policies of NAFTA which gave us our present $617 Billion trade
> deficit risks being driven from office. IAHF will be posting a list of any
> member of Congress who ignores our concerns. We urge you to watch Kevin
> Miller's excellent documentary on this issue at
> Signed____________________
> Address____________________________
> Subject: Press Release - National Health Freedom Coalition: Codex Full
> Commission adopts Codex Guidelines
> Press Release - National Health Freedom Coalition: Codex Full
> Commission adopts Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food
> Supplements in final form July 4, 2005, Rome Italy.
> by Diane Miller JD
> Minutes ago the full Commission of Codex Alimentarius adopted in final
> form, the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.
> This adoption is the Step 8 adoption, the final stage of adoption for
> the international Codex guidelines. The Codex Vitamin and Mineral
> Food Supplements guidelines are now official and no longer in draft
> form.
> The Commission, attended by over 85 of the 171 Codex countries,
> adopted the guidelines by consensus method. There was brief
> discussion before adoption taking in comments from a small number of
> countries and two NGOs.
> Australia requested adding the word "only" in Section 1.3 bertwee the
> words "apply" and "in". The sentence would then read "These
> guidelines apply only in those jurisdictions where products defined in
> 2.1 are regulated as foods."
> Australia's comments were followed by request from Venzuela and Spain
> to clarify the spanish translation.
> Venezuela was followed by China. China stated that every government
> in making decisions about vitamins and minerals should take into
> account the dietary limitations of their own countries, that
> governments can select vitamins and minerals acocording to the customs
> and habits of their country. China also pointed out that there should
> be definitions of the sources of vitamins.
> Columbia spoke up and commented that Vitamins and Minerals are
> intended for deficiencies and are recommended for health reasons and
> said that there has to be no exaggerated use of minerals.
> Egypt commented and offered a clarification saying that vitamin and
> minerals can be considered if daily needs are not being met.
> After the countries were heard, the Chairman recognized NGOs
> (Non-Governmental Organizations). National Health Federation (NHF) a
> world wide consumer organization with NGO status at Codex was
> recognized to speak. Attonery Scott Tipps of NHF stood and requested
> the guidelines not be adopted but rather be sent back to commitee for
> 3 important reasons. 1) According to Codex rules a "purpose"
> statement must be part of all guidelines adopted and the Vitamin and
> Mineral guidelines did not contain a purpose. Secondly,the guidelines
> did not define vitamin and mineral and therefore it is unclear as to
> what is being regulated. And lastly, he pointed out that the Chinese
> comments were substantive and according to Codex rules on page 27 of
> the procedural manual, a substantive amendment request should be
> addressed at the committee level. His comments were heard.
> The NGO IADSA was then recognized. IADSA stressed the fact that the
> draft guidelines should be adopted because they had been worked on in
> committee for near 10 years and that valuable consensus had been
> reached in the Bonn Germany committee meeting and the guidelines
> should now be passed.
> After all comments, the Chair, consulted with counsel to assess
> whether the addition of the word "only" would change the meaning of
> the sentence. After learning that it would not he consulted with
> Australia and Australia repeated their request for amendment. The
> Chair recommended adoption of the amendment and there was no dissent.
> Then the Chair recommended the guidelines be adopted at Stage 8 in
> their final form and that China submit their substantive amendment
> requests to the committee at their next meeting. There was no further
> comment or dissent from any country and the guidelines were adopted.
> --------
> For Health Freedom,
> John C. Hammell, President
> International Advocates for Health Freedom
> 556 Boundary Bay Road
> Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA
> 800-333-2553 N.America
> 360-945-0352 World
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. Another...explanation
Dear Folks,

Apparently the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, contains language that would align US law regarding nutritional supplements to "international standards." In other words, it would clear the path for gutting the laws that allow us access to life-supporting supplementation for health and fighting chronic illness, making the restrictive international Codex standards the law.

It turns out that CAFTA is also very damaging to the US economy, guaranteeing the exportation of jobs. Jobs With Justice, an organization organizing to stop the passage of CAFTA, has an excellent point-and-click website to make it easy to send your Representative a message to vote down CAFTA. This week it is crucial to be contacting your representative, as the House will be voting on CAFTA when they return to Washington next week. It would be even better if you could contact your Representative at their local offices in your state, where they will be this week, but at the very least you can send them a message using the Jobs with Justice website:

In the standard form letter you could also add the following:

"In addition to the problems that CAFTA would cause with respect to US jobs, the agreement also forces the U.S. to compromise its dietary supplement laws to the lowest common denominator, the regulations of the UN Codex Committee. This would gut the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), thus banning or over-regulating many safe nutritional supplements that have been used by our citizens for many years."

Please do this right away. Our access to nutritional supplements is going to be severely limited if CAFTA passes the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. Over my dead body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
thecrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Uh... well... yeah... that's the general idea n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I'll tell you what is happening.... a new science has emerged, it is
based on the role that specific extremely important sugars play in both health and disease. The company that has patented this sugar blend is kicking pharmaceutical ass and removing the need for many many incredibly expensive medications. So the war begins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
faithnotgreed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. hey 4my - can you explain this to me
i am very much into alternative medicine and have read some great information along the way about how our body processes food and other materials esp through our liver

also i take numerous supplements (again incl liver support)

can you give me an idea of what "sugar blend" you are talking about
i went to the link and there are many links once you get there so in the mean time i thought i would ask what this is about and has it helped you

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Yes.... I will post a new thread entitled, what the medical community
doesn't know, and the pharmcos don't want you to know.... coming in a few....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Wow...
Hacks/alarmists at it again.

These are two separate issues. HR 1528 is a Sensenbrenner bill, which I don't think has a real chance of getting anywhere, but these days you never know. Yes, it would tear apart families, destroy the whole basis of recovery programs, and impose mandatory sentencing on people who don't report "suspicions."

Check out the bill here:

(You can read the actual text by clicking on "bill text" just below the gray box -- if you're really, really bored, that is, and want to deal with the legalese...)

If you want to take action against this insanity, go here:

The bit about the nutritional supplements and CODEX has nothing to do with HR 1528 and has been the subject of hysterical emailings before. Check out the facts here:

See how they operate? They take one truth and mix it all up with their favorite lies -- and then try to get you to swallow the whole mess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. They do not define "dietary supplements". They say vitamins and
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 08:47 PM by BrklynLiberal
minerals are not affected. That article does not allay my fears.
Knowing that Vitamin C and Calcium are not affected does not make me feel better.
What about CoQ10? Glocosamine? Ginger? Milk Thistle and the many other herbs and "supplements" that are available now. Can you assure me that they are not affected by this bill?
I would appreciate a much more specific list of items that would not be affected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Milk thistle... taken with Alpha Lipoic acid and perhaps dandelion as
a diuretic, has saved several persons from advanced cirrhosis, mushroom poisoning, etc. (In other words, it restored proper liver structure/function).

They had better keep their frigging hands off of materials (some of which "milk thistle" a nursing mother can take). No make that should take as it enables her liver to better deal with toxins and other niceties.

Keep your hands out of the dietary supplement industry unless you want some very very angry people floating around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. "All your supplements are belong to us." - BushCo and PharmaCo
Joint Imperial Campaign to Impose Soma Upon the Fearful Masses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. SB722 is old
from 2003; and so is HR-3377 from 1999 (Kucinich sponsored, btw)

here's a link to the 2005 bill about this....

Dietary Supplement Regulatory Implementation Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. SB722 did not help with VIOXX and the other drugs that just got taken off
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 08:58 PM by BrklynLiberal
the market did it?
When big Pharma wants to get a drug on the market, it just ignores this rule anyway. The FDA is just filled with their own people!
If big Pharma wants dietary supplements off the market, they will fight to get it done, and if Bushco is still in charge, they will comply.

Bottom line to me.. I am not so sure I have complete confidence in that particular SNOPES report.

Two bills put before Congress in 2003 looked to regulate dietary nostrums by imposing quality and safety standards on them, and giving the FDA the ability to take them off the market before a great number of folks have been harmed by them. In March 2003, Senator Richard Durbin introduced bill S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003" in the U.S. Senate. The purpose of this legislation was to "protect consumers from dangerous dietary supplements such as ephedra and other stimulants by requiring manufacturers to submit proof that their product is safe prior to bringing it to market." The bill would require manufacturers of the most dangerous types of dietary supplements (stimulants) to submit proof of their products' safety prior to bringing them to market. The bill also expands the FDA's authority to require from any dietary supplement maker proof of its product's safety if that agency has received information suggesting the product is causing death or other serious adverse health effects. It would also require manufacturers to report serious adverse health events (e.g.; heart attack, seizure, stroke, death), to the FDA no later than 15 calendar days after they learn of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. Codex A is D.O.A.
It's under massive legal attack in Europe, and there is no way it will survive any kind of court challenge in the USA.

Sensenbrenner's bill, on the other hand, is real trouble.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
15. Once again..
.... I just don't see these restrictive laws ever passing.

The backlash would be ENORMOUS. Americans might not give a damn about the Patriot Act, because they believe it doesn't really apply to them. But take away their supplements and there will be hell to pay.

I suppose I could be missing the boat, but I honestly think that this is a third rail issue, and nobody is going to touch it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. Snoops is your friend. This is 100% pure bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan 19th 2018, 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC