Do Nothing And Lose Easy Access To Supplements And Vitamins!
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:07 pmAt the moment, a great deal of attention is being focused on how national legislature is going to work out public healthcare reform. What not many people know is that there is also a new law in the works about supplements. It is known as Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, and is an initiative of former Presidential candidate John McCain and some of his allies.
McCain’s new Dietary Supplements Safety Act aims to make the current Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act even stricter. As of the moment, some protection is given to supplement products. As the current legislation came into effect in 1994, products that were let into the market before then are “safe,” as are those which are or are made from food products that people already eat. However, with the new bill, it becomes much easier for the FDA to ban supplements, or to pull them from shelves at small complaints that the products just might be adulterated or misbranded, even though standards of unadulterated and properly branded products are rather vague. Of course, companies have to jump through complex legal and bureaucratic hoops in order to get their products sold again.
It just so happens that, given these stringent requirements give the larger pharmaceutical companies a bigger advantage, since they have more resources and manpower to devote to bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, it must be said that large pharmaceutical companies can and often do exert a great deal of influence on the United States’ national and international health policy. As such, the FDA cannot be counted as a purely unbiased entity with only the public interest at heart.
Some readers of this article might decide to support or work against the bill on the strength of McCain’s name alone. Such is the impact of partisanship in American politics. Republicans might decide to support their former Presidential candidate. More left-leaning leaders might point to the historically strong connections between the Republican Party and big business, and suggest that business is, once again, exerting undue influence on politics.
However, whatever your party affiliation happens to be, there are strong reasons for going against this bill. With far fewer competitors to worry about, the American supplements market may move further in the direction of a monopoly. This gives the “survivors” carte blanche to charge higher prices, all while being under less pressure to put their best efforts into product development.
If you want to do something to address the bill, contact your legislators and let them know that you do not want it passed. It is not enough to assume that somebody else will do it, because on a larger scale, that kind of thinking ensures that politicians underestimate the number of people who hold a certain opinion. If you like, you can turn your attentions wider, and write to newspapers or other publications. A single letter can have a bigger impact if it is published in a popular forum. If you can call talk radio shows or public access television, try to get this issue discussed in those forums, as well. This way, more people can learn about this bill and its implications. Who knows? Some of them might be persuaded to put their efforts to block it, too.
McCain’s new Dietary Supplements Safety Act aims to make the current Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act even stricter. As of the moment, some protection is given to supplement products. As the current legislation came into effect in 1994, products that were let into the market before then are “safe,” as are those which are or are made from food products that people already eat. However, with the new bill, it becomes much easier for the FDA to ban supplements, or to pull them from shelves at small complaints that the products just might be adulterated or misbranded, even though standards of unadulterated and properly branded products are rather vague. Of course, companies have to jump through complex legal and bureaucratic hoops in order to get their products sold again.
It just so happens that, given these stringent requirements give the larger pharmaceutical companies a bigger advantage, since they have more resources and manpower to devote to bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, it must be said that large pharmaceutical companies can and often do exert a great deal of influence on the United States’ national and international health policy. As such, the FDA cannot be counted as a purely unbiased entity with only the public interest at heart.
Some readers of this article might decide to support or work against the bill on the strength of McCain’s name alone. Such is the impact of partisanship in American politics. Republicans might decide to support their former Presidential candidate. More left-leaning leaders might point to the historically strong connections between the Republican Party and big business, and suggest that business is, once again, exerting undue influence on politics.
However, whatever your party affiliation happens to be, there are strong reasons for going against this bill. With far fewer competitors to worry about, the American supplements market may move further in the direction of a monopoly. This gives the “survivors” carte blanche to charge higher prices, all while being under less pressure to put their best efforts into product development.
If you want to do something to address the bill, contact your legislators and let them know that you do not want it passed. It is not enough to assume that somebody else will do it, because on a larger scale, that kind of thinking ensures that politicians underestimate the number of people who hold a certain opinion. If you like, you can turn your attentions wider, and write to newspapers or other publications. A single letter can have a bigger impact if it is published in a popular forum. If you can call talk radio shows or public access television, try to get this issue discussed in those forums, as well. This way, more people can learn about this bill and its implications. Who knows? Some of them might be persuaded to put their efforts to block it, too.
