It would stop the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the health benefits of nutritional supplements.

We need to get this passed.

H.R. 2117, I don't know how to go about supporting this, I guess write your congressman. This is a bill sponsored by Ron Paul of Texas.

Actually go here (http://www.house.gov/writerep/) to write your rep.

:tucool:

It would stop the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the health benefits of nutritional supplements.

We need to get this passed.

H.R. 2117, I don't know how to go about supporting this, I guess write your congressman. This is a bill sponsored by Ron Paul of Texas.

Actually go here (http://www.house.gov/writerep/) to write your rep.

:tucool:

How has the FDA been "censoring truthful claims about the health benefits of nutritional supplements"? From what I can tell, the only thing they require is that supplements put a disclaimer on their product that states that the claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. Is there something I am missing?

How has the FDA been "censoring truthful claims about the health benefits of nutritional supplements"? From what I can tell, the only thing they require is that supplements put a disclaimer on their product that states that the claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. Is there something I am missing?



FDA Censorship

The FDA censors health information. It does so to protect drugs and its drug approval process from competition.

The cost of FDA censorship is staggering. Consider the following examples:



Between 1992 and 1996, FDA prohibited companies that sell folic acid from telling women of childbearing age that .4 mg of folic acid daily before pregnancy could reduce the incidence of neural tube defects (including spina bifida and encephaly) by 40%. FDA’s censorship contributed to a preventable 10,000 neural tube defect births.
Between 1994 to 2000, FDA prohibited companies that sell omega-3 fatty acids from telling Americans that those fatty acids found in fish oil could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by as much as 50%. FDA’s censorship contributed to a preventable 1.8 million sudden death heart attacks.
Between 2000 and the present, FDA prohibits companies that sell saw palmetto extract (the fruit of the dwarf American palm tree) from telling Americans that saw palmetto reduces enlarged prostates and relieves related symptoms. Approximately 50% of all men age 50 and older suffer from enlarged prostates and are denied access to this information.
Between 2000 and the present, FDA prohibits companies that sell glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate from telling Americans that those dietary ingredients treat osteoarthritis and relieve osteoarthritic pain and stiffness. Approximately 20 million Americans suffer needlessly from osteoarthritis.
FDA censors every claim that a dietary ingredient treats disease, regardless of the proof in support of the claim. FDA only allows drug companies to make claims of treatment. It protects a monopoly for those companies at the expense of the health and freedom of the American people. The FDA’s unconstitutional system of speech censorship and monopoly protection has got to come to an end.

From http://stopfdacensorship.org/

yeah, i don't see how this is possible .. ??

yeah, i don't see how this is possible .. ??

You don't see how what's possible? The fact that the gov't actively suppresses true claims about the benefits of supplement benefits? Believe me, as many have posted on here before, FDA regulators are strongly tied into profit motive from major pharmaceutical firms and most top FDA regulators move into high paying consultant and lobbiest roles after their government stint is complete. The only way they can ensure their financial gains is by supporting the major drug companies' strangle-hold on the flow of information to the American public.

It is imperative that the people who believe the human body is capable of natural health and wellness support this bill. We need to have free competition in the health field, which can only happen if companies are free to make claims about their product's benefits.


I used to have a lot of faith in the FDA, but the more I read, the more unsure I have become. Twelve of the last twenty FDA Commissioners (along with many employees) have gone to work for Big Pharma or the major food processors after leaving office. Although this is by no means a smoking gun, we may have a slight case of the fox guarding the henhouse in this country, or at least some bias towards getting questionable chemicals approved. Chemicals that surface with problems years after approval. If you do nothing else, just be very skeptical of drugs and chemicals, eat as clean as possible (if not organic, then whole foods) and drink lots of clean water (not tap water) and green and white teas to keep your system flushed. If you can eat lots of the healing foods, that is, foods high in antioxidants, fiber, omega 3’s, all the better. Eating this way and eliminating the processed packaged junk completely is a far better (and less expensive) way to go.

Not only do they suppress healthy alternatives they tout dangerous and toxic drugs. We really need to make it known that the gov't should not be the ones who decide which compounds can be used to treat which conditions. Right now it is based on $$$, not health. The system is just flawed. Good thing we can fix it. That's the beauty of America.

How do you support it?

Ron Paul is running for President. Research him. He is my hero!

How do you support it?

Ron Paul ... He is my hero!

go here (http://www.house.gov/writerep/) to write your rep.



I like Ron Paul myself, because he does shit like this bill, unfortunately due to the fact that he does not kowtow to corporations he does not stand a chance at pres. I think they've already blackballed him from the debates.

I don't want this to turn political however so we should shut up about the presidential race.

This thread is simply about protecting our rights as supplement users.

(don't lock please)

Again, you haven't explained what form the censorhip takes. I read through the stopcensorship website you linked, but all it said was that the FDA censors things -- they didn't explain how the censorship occurred. Honestly, I've seen all kinds of outrageous claims made on all kinds of supplement labels, and so it is hard for me to recognize any censorship (if it is happening at all).

So, my question to you is: Does the FDA actually censor beyond simply requiring the standard disclaimers that the manufacturer's claims have not been evaluated by the FDA? If not, then I don't see how this qualifies as censorship.

Again, you haven't explained what form the censorhip takes. I read through the stopcensorship website you linked, but all it said was that the FDA censors things -- they didn't explain how the censorship occurred. Honestly, I've seen all kinds of outrageous claims made on all kinds of supplement labels, and so it is hard for me to recognize any censorship (if it is happening at all).

So, my question to you is: Does the FDA actually censor beyond simply requiring the standard disclaimers that the manufacturer's claims have not been evaluated by the FDA? If not, then I don't see how this qualifies as censorship.

It is very specific actually. No company except drug companies can claim that any product can treat a specific disease condition. If a supplement company makes such a claim, they will receive a warning letter from the FDA and will either remove such claim or their product will be pulled. They can claim health benefits, like losing weight, gaining muscle, mental clarity, etc... but cannot make specific claims that the product can treat a specific disease condition.

For example, FDA prohibits the scientifically supported claim that fish oils
(omega-3 fatty acids) reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack.

FDA prohibits the
scientifically supported claim that calcium reduces the risk of bone fractures.

FDA prohibits the
scientifically supported claim that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate treats
osteoarthritis.

FDA prohibits the scientifically supported claim that saw
palmetto treats benign enlarged
prostates.

^^^A few of the obvious examples from the guy who drafted the bill for Ron Paul. http://www.vrp.com/pdf/Emord-Editorial.pdf

I really don't get the skepticism about this issue. We need to shore up our rights. Even if the FDA was not censoring health claims, would it hurt to help ensure free speech with this bill?

For example, FDA prohibits the scientifically supported claim that fish oils
(omega-3 fatty acids) reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack.

FDA prohibits the
scientifically supported claim that calcium reduces the risk of bone fractures.

FDA prohibits the
scientifically supported claim that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate treats
osteoarthritis.

FDA prohibits the scientifically supported claim that saw
palmetto treats benign enlarged
prostates.

^^^A few of the obvious examples from the guy who drafted the bill for Ron Paul. http://www.vrp.com/pdf/Emord-Editorial.pdf

I really don't get the skepticism about this issue. We need to shore up our rights. Even if the FDA was not censoring health claims, would it hurt to help ensure free speech with this bill?

I still don't get why this is even an issue. This doesn't interfere with your rights at all -- You are still free to purchase whatever supplements you see fit. The only thing this prohibits is what the supplement companies can put on their labels. But, let’s say that the FDA steps out of it, and supplement companies can put whatever they want on the labels. Do you really think that is going to result in consumers making more informed decisions? Or, is it likely that the supplement companies are going to ascribe characteristics and benefits to their supplements that are weakly supported by the literature at best, or that are completely false or harmful at worst?

Also, let’s say that we insist that the supplement companies only include factual claims on their labels. How do we monitor and enforce that? Sounds like we need another regulatory body….kinda like the FDA? Further, what standard do we use to deem something a “factual” claim? I actually kind of like the fact that the FDA puts that stuff on the label – It induces a bit of healthy skepticism on the part of consumers.

Reality check: You can’t rely on pithy claims made on a supplement label when making your own supplement choices. Trading the FDA’s deception by omission for the supplement companies deception by commission doesn’t seem like such a swell trade. You have to do the research yourself and forget about what you read on the label. Go to pubmed, read the research, and make decisions for yourself. As long as the supplements are available (and the gov’t doesn’t try to ban them), I couldn’t care less what they put on the labels.

Trading the FDA’s deception by omission for the supplement companies deception by commission doesn’t seem like such a swell trade.


This is an old argument, rejected by our Constitution's framers and by the Supreme Court. We should reject it too. It lacks credence because it could only follow logically if fraud were legalized; this bill will not legalize fraud. Rather, it ends censorship while keeping fraud illegal.
You're saying that this bill will allow supplement companies to make false claims. That is not true. The bill leaves in place FDA's prohibition on false and misleading labeling and FTC's prohibition on deceptive advertising.

This is an old argument, rejected by our Constitution's framers and by the Supreme Court. We should reject it too. It lacks credence because it could only follow logically if fraud were legalized; this bill will not legalize fraud. Rather, it ends censorship while keeping fraud illegal.
You're saying that this bill will allow supplement companies to make false claims. That is not true. The bill leaves in place FDA's prohibition on false and misleading labeling and FTC's prohibition on deceptive advertising.



The only thing i see changing on supplement labels is

"these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA "
on every bottle of every supplement

and

"Does aid in the prevention of heart disease"
as opposed to
"may aid in the prevention of heart disease"

am i wrong here ?

I'm looking at the back of my bottle of fish oil right now. here is what it says.

"MAY REDUCE THE RISK OF CORONARY HEART DISEASE. consumption of omega 3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. FDA evaluated the data and determined that although there is scientific evidence supporting the claim, the evidence is not conclusive. omega 3 fatty acids also help maintain the triglyceride levels already in the normal range."

then at the bottom it says

This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease



So what exactly are they censoring ??? This thing says exactly what they want it to!!!

what are we voting to support again??

So what exactly are they censoring ??? This thing says exactly what they want it to!!!

what are we voting to support again??

Actually, it does not say exactly what the producer wants it to. It says whatever the government says it can say. That's a big difference in my mind. While at the same time, drug companies can make very specific claims about their drugs. It is not a level playing field and is detrimental to our ability to make informed health decisions.

Why should the drug companies get to leverage their status as multi-billion dollar players in the health industry with whatever copy they can muster from Madison Ave while the smaller, and in my opinion more honest and healthy, supplement industry gets to use a gov't approved and mandated copy line and must use and additional government warning on their products?

We are voting to allow people and companies to state the specific health benefits of their products, which they are not allowed to do now.
Well, we're not actually voting since this is a congressional bill, all we can do is urge our representative to do so.