Congressman Waxman's underhanded addition to bill

[ensho]

http://www.anh-usa.org/congressman-waxman-slips-obscure-anti-supplement-measure-into-wall-st-%E2%80%9Creform%E2%80%9D-bill-passed-by-the-house-please-take-action-to-prevent-same-thing-happening-in-the-senate/print/


Congressman Waxman Slips Obscure Anti-Supplement Measure into Wall St. “Reform” Bill Passed by the House; Please Take Action to Prevent Same Thing Happening in the Senate!

Posted By ANH-USA On April 27, 2010 @ 6:34 pm In Attacks on Integrative Medicine, Food Safety, The Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) | 84 Comments



<1>The American public is becoming fed up with “sneak” provisions tacked onto largely unrelated bills that are likely to pass. A glaring recent example was tacking onto the Healthcare bill a complete change to student loans. Often the “sneak” provision is so buried that hardly anyone is aware of it.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173), recently passed in the House of Representatives, includes language going far beyond finance inserted by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA). This language could be used for an end run around the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the legislation that governs dietary supplement regulation by the FDA.

The Senate is expected to vote on its finance “reform” bill as early as this weekend. We need your help to ensure that it is not amended to include a similar provision going far beyond finance that could be used against supplements. Please take action now. TAKE ACTION <2>

Congressman Waxman is well known as an opponent of the dietary supplement industry. This is somewhat ironic: his district includes Hollywood and presumably many of his closest supporters are health store shoppers and supplement users. Most of these people simply don’t know what Waxman is doing in this area.

This powerful Congressman, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (which includes health as a subcommittee), would appear to want supplements regulated like drugs, a step that would effectively eliminate them. He is determined and has stated: “One enduring truth about Washington is that no issue is ever settled for good.”

ANH-USA has been on alert to see how Waxman would use his committee chairmanship to strike at DSHEA. He is very clever and we knew a covert attack was a possibility.
-snip-
----------------------

I don't do supplements but know many do, so posted the above.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. What's his problem?

If he doesn't want supplements he's free to not take them.

If you don't like pot, stay out of my bag.

[babylonsister]

2. Haven't some supplements caused many problems and risks? What's

wrong with wanting to regulate that? And this org. supports and sells supplements? Hmmm...any self-interest involved here?

[ecstatic]

4. Yes, but I still want to be able to buy them nt

[babylonsister]

7. So if they're regulated, you won't be able to buy them? This sounds

like a move done to protect Americans. If the supplements you like are safe, I don't see that there would be a problem. If they're deemed unsafe, would you want to still take them?

[Oregone]

9. "If they're deemed unsafe, would you want to still take them?"

Marijuana is deemed unsafe by the government. Heh....do I still want to take marijuana? :)

[babylonsister]

11. Ha! OK, you win.

I wouldn't mind having that legalized a bit! :smoke:

[Oregone]

6. Yes, and so has aspirin

Most of the riskier supplements have been taken off the market (many weight loss supplements). So have the gray area supplements (steroidal products that were using loopholes). The government is actively raiding supplement distributors (even those playing by the rules) to intimidate the industry to self-regulate. Thus far, it has had an impact in the last 3 years or so.

Of course this industry needs regulation. It was a mess 5 years ago. But an all out war and attepmt to stifle it will simply interfere with consumer choice and freedom. There are smarter choices to regulate label claims and the products they are selling. The problem is that the original dietary supplement act was too open to begin with (resulting in abuse), and that caused the government to be aggressive and reactionary.

Its also tough to not be cynical and wonder how much big money wants alternatives off the market

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Other than being a procedural trick I don't understand the issue here

I appreciate the government regulating what goes in our bodies.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. The issue is that it was put into a bill without benefit of analysis and debate.

There wasn't a vote on it. Past votes have kept this provision from being enacted as the benefits have outnumbered the liabilities of supplements.

I want to know the contributions from Big Pharma to Waxman.

[Oregone]

12. Its quite a point. I actually had a similar issue with the college loan reform

Though I adamantly agree with it, my original issue was the Democrats didn't take the opportunity to debate and take the issue public, to educate the people on the benefits of socialism in college finance. They passed a good reform, but totally neglected the political benefits of the debate (and perhaps some other additional ideas that may of strengthened it). With the entire country against the banks, there would of been no better time than to take advantage of this sentiment and shift the entire political spectrum left publically.

But we also know public debate can poison a bill, with grandstanding and such (look at the entire health insurance reform bill, for example).

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Wouldn't big pharma want LESS regulations?

[meowomon]

5. EVERYONE is sick of these tactics.

This is exactly why we don't trust congress!!!!!! They are all doing this crap and we must insist that our laws don't have obscure provisions that have nothing to do with the original bill!

[Overseas]

10. Thanks for the alert. I did take action against it. //nt

[HERVEPA]

14. Waxman is a good guy. It's in there to protect folks

[rbixby]

15. If herbal suppliments would be regulated like drugs

And they would go away with this new regulation, what does it say about their real effectiveness?