Orin Hatch (R-UT), Nutrasweet, and the "Nutritional Supplement" conspiracy

[Ian David]

Let me start by saying that NOT all nutritional supplements are bad. NOT all nutritional supplements are worthless.

With that out of the way...

The free reign nutritional supplements have is a Republican plot that many on both the right (and especially) the left have fallen for.

They have used a Roveian trick on us: Republican style de-regulation has been spun into "medical freedom" and "medical choice."

The chief architects of this fiasco called "The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) were Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

THIS IS THE SAME Orin Hatch that people (especially the left) cite when they claim Nutrasweet is dangerous!
Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) for using his influence to kill a bill introduced by Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) to fund a non partial study on the effects of aspartame by NIH
http://www.aspartame.com/indicted/

Also:
However one year later under the new Reagan administration, Searle resubmitted their app with "new" evidence and it was accepted by the FDA and held from congressional scrutiny by Orin Hatch and other Reagan Republicans - who also fostered it's expanded use into children's vitamins and soft drinks less than two years later.

Between 79 and 82 four FDA officials who took part in the aspartame approval process left for jobs in the industrial nutrasweet community - Senators Hatch, Heflin and Byrd reportedly received numerous campaign contributions thereafter from Searle
---

Personally, I'm skeptical of the whole "Nutrasweet is bad for you" campaign.

But the point I am trying to make is this: Why do the same people who believe Orin Hatch lied to us about Nutrasweet believe he acted honorably in de-regulating nutritional supplements?

---

Also:
From The National Council Against Health Fraud:

Orrin Hatch takes two media hits. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), whose 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has greatly weakened the FDA's ability to protect consumers, has been rebuked for suggesting that the FDA has not done enough to protect the public from ephedra's dangers. Calling Hatch's remarks "a dazzling display of hypocrisy," Time senior science writer Leon Jaroff said, "The time has come for drastic revision of DSHEA, the re-empowerment of the FDA and the rejection of cynical proposals by legislators like Orrin Hatch." Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times noted:

* From 1998 to 2001, while Hatch's son Scott worked for a lobbying firm with close ties to his father, supplement industry clients paid the company more than $1.96 million, more than $1 million of it from clients involved with ephedra.
* In 2002, Scott Hatch opened his own lobbying firm in partnership with two of his father's close associates. So far, the firm has received at least $30,000 in retainers from the National Nutritional Foods Association and a major manufacturer of ephedra (Twinlab) , both of whom were clients of the previous firm.
* During the past decade, Orrin Hatch has received nearly $137,000 in campaign contributions from the supplements industry.
http://www.ncahf.org/digest03/03-10.html


For more good information:

Why the FDA Does Not Approve Supplements
David A Kessler, M.D, J.D.
This article is a slightly condensed version of a talk given at the Good Housekeeping Institute Consumer Safety Symposium on Dietary Supplements and Herbal Remedies, held in New York City on March 3, 1998. Dr. Kessler was FDA Commissioner from 1990 through 1997 and currently is dean of Yale University School of Medicine.
http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/kessler.html



How the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act of 1994
Weakened the FDA
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Most people think that dietary supplements and herbs are closely regulated to ensure that they are safe, effective, and truthfully advertised. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although some aspects of marketing are regulated, the United States Congress has concluded that "informed" consumers need little government protection. This conclusion was embodied in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 -- commonly referred to as "DSHEA" -- which severely limits the FDA's ability to regulate these products.
Background History

In the early 1990s, Congress began considering two bills to greatly strengthen the ability of federal agencies to combat health frauds. One would have increased the FDA's enforcement powers as well as the penalties for violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act <1>. The other would have amended the Federal Trade Commission Act to make it illegal to advertise nutritional or therapeutic claims that would not be permissible on supplement labels <2>. During the same period, the FDA was considering tighter regulations for these labels.

Alarmed by these developments, the health-food industry and its allies urged Congress to "preserve the consumer's freedom to choose dietary supplements." To whip up their troops, industry leaders warned retailers that they would be put out of business. Consumers were told that unless they took action, the FDA would take away their right to buy vitamins. These claims, although bogus, generated an avalanche of communications to Congress <3>.

The end result was passage of DSHEA, which defined "dietary supplements" as a separate regulatory category and liberalized what information could be distributed by their sellers. DSHEA also created an NIH Office of Dietary Supplements and directed the President to appoint a Commission on Dietary Supplement Labels to recommend ways to implement the act <4>. The Commission's final recommendations were released on November 24, 1997 <5,6>.

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines "drug" as any article (except devices) "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or function of the body." These words permit the FDA to stop the marketing of products with unsubstantiated "drug" claims on their labels.

To evade the law's intent, the supplement industry is organized to ensure that the public learns of "medicinal" uses that are not stated on product labels. This is done mainly by promoting the ingredients of the products through books, magazines, newsletters, booklets, lectures, radio and television broadcasts, oral claims made by retailers, and the Internet.

DSHEA worsened this situation by increasing the amount of misinformation that can be directly transmitted to prospective customers. It also expanded the types of products that could be marketed as "supplements." The most logical definition of "dietary supplement" would be something that supplies one or more essential nutrients missing from the diet. DSHEA went far beyond this to include vitamins; minerals; herbs or other botanicals; amino acids; other dietary substances to supplement the diet by increasing dietary intake; and any concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any such ingredients. Although many such products (particularly herbs) are marketed for their alleged preventive or therapeutic effects, the 1994 law has made it difficult or impossible for the FDA to regulate them as drugs. Since its passage, even hormones, such as DHEA and melatonin, are being hawked as supplements.

The rest at:
http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/dshea.html


Also:
United States Senate Special Committee on Aging
Hearing on Swindlers, Hucksters and Snake Oil Salesmen:
The Hype and Hope of Marketing Anti-Aging Products to Seniors
September 10, 2001
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Hearing/gorski2.html

Also:
U. S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
December 1, 1995
DIETARY SUPPLEMENT
HEALTH AND EDUCATION ACT OF 1994
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dietsupp.html