Judge Strikes Down Ephedra Ban Judge Strikes Down Ephedra Ban

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by [email protected], Apr 14, 2005.

  1. April 14, 2005

    Judge Strikes Down Ephedra Ban

    By Jeff Stier, Esq.



    Given today's federal judge's ruling striking down the FDA's ban of the
    dangerous natural weight-loss supplement, ephedra, we would like to
    remind you what we said about the matter when the FDA first made the
    decision. This commentary is only more relevant today...


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    FDA vs. Congress on Ephedra Ban


    Jeff Stier, Esq.


    published on January 9, 2004


    The Food and Drug Administration's announcement of its intention to ban
    weight loss or "athletic performance enhancing" products containing
    ephedra is good news. However, it took over 100 deaths, including that
    of a major league baseball player, over 10,000 recorded complaints, and
    countless scientific studies for the FDA to ban this dangerous
    supplement. Because of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education
    Act (DSHEA), which limited FDA's authority to regulate dietary
    supplements, the FDA still can't be sure that it has met the regulatory
    burden to enact the ban; manufacturers are likely to sue.


    Ephedra should have been banned a long time ago. If it had been
    considered a pharmaceutical product and thus subject to the same
    scientific standards, ephedra would not have made it to market in the
    first place. However, as a supplement regulated under the DSHEA,
    ephedra was marketed without any proof of efficacy - or studies
    showing that the supplement is safe. In fact, under DSHEA, the
    government, not the manufacturer, shoulders the burden of proving a
    product is dangerous (rather than the manufacturer proving it is safe,
    as is the case with pharmaceuticals). There is in place a double
    standard for dealing (harshly) with pharmaceuticals and food additives
    vs. dealing (leniently) with supplements, and this is intolerable. The
    DSHEA is handcuffing the FDA's efforts to protect public health - and
    the only ones benefiting from the law are manufacturers who cannot
    present scientific data about the safety (let alone efficacy) of their
    "natural" products.


    Why the disparity in treatment between synthetic pharmaceuticals and
    "natural" supplements? Dietary supplements (products you might expect
    to find in a "health food" store, not a pharmacy) are assumed to be
    safe unless chemically altered or adulterated in some form. The
    misconception lies in the notion that anything present in nature must
    be healthy and anything synthetic must be dangerous. But as the country
    has found with ephedra, this is not necessarily the case.


    Even when the FDA attempts to act within its powers, little may be
    done. In 1997 when the FDA first attempted to regulate ephedra by
    requiring warning labels and dosage restrictions, the move to protect
    public health was blocked. Why? Because the FDA had not met the
    excessive burden of proving that there was "significant or unreasonable
    risk of injury" associated with the use of ephedra. Is it possible that
    the death of the Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Belcher in 2003 and
    the pain and misfortune of many other ephedra users could have been
    avoided? That is a question DSHEA's congressional authors will surely
    struggle with.


    The regulations the FDA is attempting to enact will only affect the
    sale of ephedra, not the regulatory system itself or the problems that
    allowed ephedra to remain on the market for so long. If the ban on
    ephedra is enacted, it may serve as a good precedent for proceedings
    against other supplements, but it will not grant the FDA the broader
    power necessary to protect the public health from dangerous
    supplements.


    As the nation becomes increasingly health-conscious but also vulnerable
    to "quick fixes," Americans are turning more and more to so-called
    "natural" remedies, including some dangerous supplements. Sixty percent
    of Americans take some sort of dietary supplement every year, and
    consumers need realistic and accurate information about the supplements
    they take. It is time that Congress rewrote the law to allow the FDA to
    better do its job and protect consumers from dangerous supplements.


    Jeff Stier, Esq. is an associate director and Kimberly Bowman a
    research intern at the American Council and Health.




    This information was found online at:
    http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.536/news_detail.asp
     
    Tags:


  2. Pete

    Pete Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > April 14, 2005
    >
    > Judge Strikes Down Ephedra Ban
    >
    > By Jeff Stier, Esq.
    >
    >
    >
    > Given today's federal judge's ruling striking down the FDA's ban of
    > the dangerous natural weight-loss supplement, ephedra, we would like
    > to remind you what we said about the matter when the FDA first made
    > the decision. This commentary is only more relevant today...


    *snip*

    Your ignorance is stunning.
     
  3. We don't care dipshit!
     
  4. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] writes:
    > April 14, 2005
    >
    > Judge Strikes Down Ephedra Ban
    >
    > By Jeff Stier, Esq.
    >
    >
    >
    > Given today's federal judge's ruling striking down the FDA's ban of the
    > dangerous natural weight-loss supplement, ephedra, we would like to
    > remind you what we said about the matter when the FDA first made the
    > decision. This commentary is only more relevant today...


    What's relevant here is your astonishing "government as nanny"
    attitude. No wonder we're a nation of freakin' neurotics.

    >
    > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    >
    >
    > FDA vs. Congress on Ephedra Ban
    >
    >
    > Jeff Stier, Esq.
    >
    >
    > published on January 9, 2004
    >

    [snip]
    >
    > Why the disparity in treatment between synthetic pharmaceuticals and
    > "natural" supplements? Dietary supplements (products you might expect
    > to find in a "health food" store, not a pharmacy) are assumed to be
    > safe unless chemically altered or adulterated in some form.


    What an amazing concept: Something that occurs *naturally* must be
    proven to be harmful before the government can restrict access to
    it. Wow! Mind you: Mr. Stier is not suggesting that false claims or
    harmful advice be prohibited. Oh no. No, Mr. Stier is suggesting
    the government be granted domain over everything, deciding, on its
    whim, to what you should have access and what you should not. Never
    mind that the FDA, in particular, has lately (?) maintained an
    "unhealthy" relationship with major pharmaceutical companies. And
    *whom*, exactly, is most threatened by effective natural remedies?

    > The
    > misconception lies in the notion that anything present in nature must
    > be healthy and anything synthetic must be dangerous. But as the country
    > has found with ephedra, this is not necessarily the case.

    [snip]
    >


    Of course it's not. Too much or the wrong kind of nearly anything
    can be unhealthy. Witness the recent news item about drinking too
    much water. Oh no! Athletes have died from water overdose! It's
    high time the FDA banned WATER!

    --
    Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
    WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
    spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
    [email protected] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
     
Loading...
Loading...