[News] Protect Your Access to Natural Supplements!

[PhylisFeinerJohnson]

Target: Your Senators and Representatives
Sponsored by: Alliance for Natural Health USA

The Dietary Supplement Labeling Act pretends to be consumer-oriented, but instead will give the FDA redundant power that it could easily misuse, restricting your access to nutritional supplements and raising the cost of buying them.

In short, nutritional supplements will be regulated like prescription drugs…

Under this bill, the FDA and the Institute of Medicine must compile a list of dietary ingredients that could lead to adverse events or are otherwise deemed risky in some way. Creating a list of “bad” ingredients or “bad” doses completely based on arbitrary or non-existent standards is a slippery slope; for example, in Europe, the maximum dosage of vitamins was restricted to less than what is found in fruits and vegetables.

Moreover, almost all of this act’s provisions are already covered by existing laws, so there’s no need for any new legislation. Please oppose the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act.

Take action now! http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Agl2e/zlwT/Sfcf

[Nakamova]

I'm not entirely sure this law is a bad thing. It's provisions sound pretty reasonable to me.

[epileric]

I agree, I don't see this as a bad thing either.

In Canada they wanted to re-classify herbs & supplements. I thought it was a great thing as it would give them more validity. Oddly, the supplement people didn't think so which made me seriously question them.

[Rae1889]

I can kind of see both sides to this. On one side, it seems that the FDA could in fact abuse this law by restricting everything (because lets face it, every single one of those supplements can have a harmful effect in some way or another if accidently misused due to lack of knowledge or abused, or interact with something else) So essentially they can regulate evrything and cause the prices to rise, simply making them more money, when they could easily add better warnings, or keep everything behind the pharmacy counter and the person dispensing can hand you a pamplet with all the warnings and instructions.

But on the other hand, I also think it would give them more validity.

[epileric]

I think the prices would rise because the more harmful stuff (like colloidial silver) would be banned.

[Bernard]

The government isn't always a good gatekeeper or act in the public interest IMO. Consider the difference in how the FDA treats aspartame and stevia.

[epileric]

Consider the difference in how the FDA treats aspartame and stevia.

How does the US government treat stevia? I know in Canada it's available in any health food & some grocery stores. Is it not available in the US as well?

[Bernard]

The FDA bans marketing of stevia as a sweetener. It can only be sold as a food supplement/product. The sugar lobby has great influence apparently and that's one of the problems with government regulators.

[epileric]

I would have thought that the FDA to be influenced by health and science rather than by any lobby.

[Rae1889]

Thats weird, I find stevia in my sugar and sugar substitute aisle here in winnipeg

[PhylisFeinerJohnson]

I have a nasty little story to tell you about aspertame...


Did you know the FDA refused to approve this best-selling sweetener for 16 years...?

* Until one powerful politician called in a favor which finally got it legalized...?

* And now it's been linked to brain cancer, memory loss, impaired vision, hearing loss, joint pain, asthma, coma, seizures...?

See below, save your life and learn the real facts...

[www.realhealthnews.com 9/04 pg. 7]
[www.alternative-healthzine.com/html/0109_2.html]

[Body Copy:]

Ever wonder what our former Secretary of Defense did before he got into politics?

Well years ago, he was the fearless leader of a company called GD Searle Corp. that developed a "miracle sweetener" called aspartame. (Yes, the very same stuff contained in that little blue packet.)

For years, this company tried in vain to get aspartame approved. But no one wanted to go near the stuff! The FDA refused to approve it for 16 years. In fact, according to a report I recently uncovered, the FDA's own toxicologist told Congress that:

[Crosshead:]

"Without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and violated the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer." -- FDA Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross [www.realhealthnews.com 9/04 pg. 7]

[Body Copy:]

But wait, it gets worse...

In the early '80s, "Rummy the Magnificent" moved into the political arena. And one of the first moves he made was to appoint a new FDA commissioner. And guess what he did? In 1981, the new appointee approved aspartame for the good old boys back at GD Searle...despite the clinically proven dangers.

Before long, aspartame was everywhere, from soda to salad dressing! Now let's look at what it's "contributed" to America's health...

[Crosshead:]

92 reasons why aspartame makes sugar look like a "good guy"...

For starters, medical authorities estimate that aspartame has brought more complaints to the FDA than any other additive. In fact, it's responsible for 75 percent of such complaints to that agency. And, after receiving some 10,000 consumer complaints, the FDA compiled a list of 92 symptoms linked to aspartame -- including death.

Specifically, over the years, various reports have implicated aspartame in headaches, memory loss, seizures, vision loss, coma, and cancer. It also appears to worsen or mimic the symptoms of such conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer's, chronic fatigue, and depression... [www.realhealthnews.com 9/04 pg. 7]

Why so many? Because aspartame attacks your body at the cellular level so it can negate all kinds of medications Americans take, including antidepressants, Coumadin, cardiac drugs, hormones, insulin, vaccines, and many others. [www.DouglassReport.com 12/06 pg. 3]

It is a deadly neurotoxic drug masquerading as a harmless additive.

And to add insult to injury...

[Crosshead:]

Aspartame makes you hungrier and fatter!

One medical investigator, Dr. H. J. Roberts, even concludes that aspartame has caused our obesity epidemic. He gives evidence that this "guilt-free" sweetener secretly makes you crave carbohydrates which, of course, make you gain weight. [www.realhealthnews.com 9/04 pg. 7]

How? Possibly it may trigger or over stimulate the stomach's production of ghrelin, also known as the "hunger hormone." If this hypothesis turns out to be correct, it will help to explain why all those "diet" sodas have never been much of a help in weight reduction. (In fact, just the opposite!) [www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050402/bob9.asp 69k]

[Crosshead:]

So why is the media mum?

Simple. Because professional organizations and their publications have all been bought off.

By who? The food giants. They all use this inexpensive imposter in huge quantities for their colas, desserts, candies, and other junk foods. And they're the ones who have financed a raft of studies "proving" the safety of aspartame. [www.realhealthnews.com 12/06 pg. 3]

Get the general idea?

[epileric]

I'm very suspicious of Adrian Gross as his qualifications are only as a veterinary pathologist.

Dr. Adrian Gross was a veterinary pathologist and a senior science advisor with the EPA pesticides office. Both at EPA and at his previous position with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration he frequently spoke out against drug and pesticide manufacturers when he felt their products were unsafe, and their health research shoddy.

http://home.comcast.net/~jurason/main/Endangered.htm

Dr. Douglas's articles have also been listed on Quackwatch

I consider these publications untrustworthy because they promote misinformation, espouse unscientific theories, contain unsubstantiated advice, are insufficiently skeptical, and/or fail to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of advice.

http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer...riodicals.html

As much as I see the politics are different in the US I find a lot of the conspiracies associated with aspartame hard to believe. Both Snopes and Truth or Fiction have numerous debunked rumours including that it causes cancer, MS and numerous other diseases.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate.asp

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...NutraSweet.htm

[Nakamova]

I would have thought that the FDA to be influenced by health and science rather than by any lobby.

Are you being sarcastic?

I'm sure some decisions of the FDA are motivated by health and science, but there are many areas where corporate lobbying has steered the policy.

[epileric]

The Dietary Supplement Labeling Act pretends to be consumer-oriented, but instead will give the FDA redundant power that it could easily misuse, restricting your access to nutritional supplements and raising the cost of buying them.

In short, nutritional supplements will be regulated like prescription drugs…

Under this bill, the FDA and the Institute of Medicine must compile a list of dietary ingredients that could lead to adverse events or are otherwise deemed risky in some way. Creating a list of “bad” ingredients or “bad” doses completely based on arbitrary or non-existent standards is a slippery slope; for example, in Europe, the maximum dosage of vitamins was restricted to less than what is found in fruits and vegetables.

Moreover, almost all of this act’s provisions are already covered by existing laws, so there’s no need for any new legislation. Please oppose the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act.

Take action now! http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Agl2e/zlwT/Sfcf

There is a loophole though that allows the supplement industry to imply things that may not be true & that loophole should be closed.

all they have to do is tie that with “structure/function” health claims and they are off to the races. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) created a massive loophole for the supplement and (at the risk of being redundant) snake oil industry by allowing for unsupported structure and function claims. These are claims that a product can support, boost, enhance, or improve some structure or function of the body. They cannot make direct disease claims, however.

The problem is that often supplements do no more "boosting" than just fruits of veggies might and that is misleading.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...nce/#more-3442

[Seekout]

I'm new to this website and fairly new to epilepsy. But I spend pretty much ALL my free time researching everything I can on epilepsy and treatments, etc. What I seem to be finding is that it all comes down to what you eat and whether or not your body is taking in the nutrients and vitamins it needs, witout harmful chemicals and toxins. In today's world/society, the best way to do that, I'm finding, is to eat as wholesome and fresh as you possibly can, and that includes no 'man made' or 'man generated' anything. Just about everything we can get our hands on that is easy, convenient or comfortable is going to be mass produced by corporations and it's going to have chemicals that are toxic. Period. The FDA is just another corporation that is greedy and does not have our best interests at heart. They are just like the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies, they all want to make money and that's their primary goal.
I have to take anti-epileptic drug's too to prevent my seizures. And I take them faithfully. But if I had an opportunity and was able to afford locally grown, non pestiside fresh fruits and vegetables and grass fed meats and could take completely natural vitatmin and nutrient supplements without another greedy corporation regulating every bite I take, I would do it in a heartbeat. And I know, I would be healthier beyond anything I've been before. But that's just my opinion I guess.
Spending time reading books and websites on getting healthy and how corporations ruin everything has left a bad taste in my mouth - guess that's pretty obvious!! Sorry for that
I'm just glad the FDA isn't regulating this website!! Ha!

[Nakamova]

I think the FDA is very flawed, but I also think it is much better than having no regulatory agency at all. While at times it may behave in a biased fashion, it is not "just another corporation that is greedy and does not have our best interests at heart." And it is not "just like the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies." The FDA isn't a for-profit entity and it doesn't make money. The pharmaceutical companies are just as likely to complain about the FDA as to pat its back.