By James J. Gormley

Here at Citizens for Health (CFH) we’ve been working diligently to keep you updated on all of the latest developments in policy and legislation affecting your health freedoms. One example is S. 510, The Food Safety Modernization Act, which is a flawed effort to improve the government’s system for ensuring the safety of our food supply.

CFH strongly supports food safety, however S. 510 would ultimately make our food less safe, not more. In addition, the bill would do so at the expense of health food retailers, manufacturers, and consumers of natural foods.

While S. 510 has undergone some revisions along the way it still falls far short of what we consider acceptable. And, given that our information suggests it could come up for a vote shortly after Labor Day, there isn’t sufficient time to ensure that the bill is overhauled before a vote comes up.

That is why we need you to send a message to your Senators today using the form at the bottom of this linked page.

Among our concerns:

1) What the bill says: If the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food (and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner) will cause serious health consequences, then the source would have to give HHS agents access to all of its records.
Our concerns: Simply believing there’s a potential hazard isn’t enough - there should be proof before HHS intrudes upon the livelihood of our health food manufacturers. Taking it a step further: What constitutes “reasonable,” and by whom is it determined? There needs to be evidence, and it needs to be clear and definitive.

2) What the bill says: It mandates use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) as a means of identifying sources of contamination.
Our concern: HACCP is a risk-based algorithmic approach to food safety that allows many shortcuts and involves a monumental amount of expensive paperwork and record-keeping with NO improvements in on-site, physical inspections.

3) What the bill says: If the Secretary determines…that there is a reasonable probability that an article of food is adulterated or misbranded…the Secretary shall provide the responsible party an opportunity to cease distribution and recall such an article.
Our concern: Similar to #1 above, what level of evidence will constitute “reasonable” probability? In addition, the words “adulterated” and “misbranded” have been applied by the FDA so liberally over the years that they’ve become watered down as descriptors of contamination.

And, lastly, the biggest problem of all with S. 510:
4) What the bill says: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party.”
Our concern: No other countries ensure that all of their internal regulations are consistent with WTO or any other treaty or international agreement – so why should the United States sacrifice its sovereignty? As if that wasn’t reason enough, we all share the concern about what might happen to the affordability of – and especially our access to – the products and services we choose to maintain our health and wellness if the United States was required to harmonize with the WTO, SPS, the Uruguay Rounds, and Codex!

In an interview here’s what health-freedom attorney Jonathan Emord said about what’s wrong with S. 510:

“The major problem with the bill is that it fails to recognize, let alone protect against, abuses that are common in the inspection process. Moreover, it creates a financial incentive for FDA to perform repeat inspections of facilities as a revenue-raising measure or as a means to penalize financially a company disfavored by the agency. The notion that expanding FDA inspection authority will somehow arrest instances of adulteration is absurd. FDA inspects after complaints are made, not before, and FDA inspections are rarely the means by which the market acts to protect consumers from harm. Most often the company itself acts to reduce the risk of product liability, and the media seizes upon the information and broadcasts it widely. At a time when the nation can ill afford imposition of yet another tax on companies that make essential products, this Congress in its ‘infinite wisdom’ is doing precisely that. S. 510 is a bad idea that will not work to stop adulteration but will enable the FDA to abuse its power and may well drive some good firms out of existence.”

The bottom line: If the above problems and deficiencies are not fixed or eliminated immediately from S. 510, then it must not pass. It gives the HHS/FDA almost limitless authority since it would allow the fox to guard the henhouse. What constitutes reasonable belief and reasonable probability will be moving targets, moved up or down by the FDA at will. By further pushing the risky HAACP algorithmic approach to food safety down industry’s throat, consumers will be less safe since there will a greater reliance on mathematical and statistical hazards models and less reliance on physical, on-site inspections. Furthermore, the sovereignty of U.S. law and regulation will be further undermined and compromised by referencing international standards and bodies in internal U.S. statutes.

Send your letter now, and urge your Senators to Save Safe Food – Stop S. 510! To make sure that language is included banning BPA, please click here.

Courtesy of American Chronicle via The Gormley Files

On August 23rd, Verizon’s lobbyist Tom Tauke gave a speech at a trade forum sponsored by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) where he, according to Free Press, defended his company’s recent net neutrality pact with Google.

According to FreePress.net, “Tauke claimed that the two companies´ proposal ‘fulfills the president’s campaign promise of non-discrimination and transparency on the Internet,’ but the pact,” said Free Press, would exclude all wireless internet connections, and would even bar the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from “having any authority to make and enforce net neutrality rules, instead requiring it to defer to a third-party industry group.”

“Verizon is simply dead wrong in claiming their farce of a framework would fulfill President Obama’s net neutrality promises,” said Free Press research director S. Derek Turner in a statement. “Verizon can’t hide the fact that, if enacted, this pact would mark the end of the open Internet era.”

“The Google-Verizon deal contains no protections for wireless access, which accounts for nearly one-third of all Internet connections, giving Verizon and other ISPs [internet service providers] the green light to block or degrade content on their wireless networks,” added Turner. “In addition, it would allow internet service providers to discriminate online by offering private Internet services alongside those on the ‘public’ Internet. As a candidate, Obama himself opposed the two-tiered Internet this proposal would create.”

“The simple fact is Verizon and Google cooked this scheme to carve up the Internet among themselves and other industry giants because they fear competition on the free and open internet,” Turner said in conclusion. “It’s up to [FCC] Chairman Genachowski and the FCC, not Verizon or Google, to fulfill President Obama’s promises to preserve net neutrality.”

Other groups criticized the new talks, as well. Instead of more industry discussions, the FCC should move to pass formal net neutrality rules, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director at the Media Access Project, in the August 24th edition of CIO in an article by Grant Gross. “FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has pushed for formal net neutrality rules after an appeals court in April struck down the agency’s attempt to enforce informal principles after Comcast (CMCSA) slowed customers’ access to a peer-to-peer service,” Gross wrote.

All somewhat puzzling given this statement by Google’s Eric Schmidt way back in 2006:

“The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There’s a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called ‘net neutrality’ – and it’s a debate that’s so important Google is asking you to get involved. We’re asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom. In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the internet.[...]

“Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.”

It would be hard to disagree with what Google said in 2006, although consumer advocates are rightly concerned that in August 2010 Google and Verizon have just drafted a “new policy framework” on net neutrality that would support an “almost free” internet in which wired broadban would be free whereas wireless – the real future of the internet – would not be free.

According to Anthony Carranza in the Examiner.com, “Among those who strongly criticized this proposal was Senator Al Franken when he summed up that the maneuvers from these major corporations such as Google and Verizon are going to trample the first amendment of the constitution since it would oppress freedom of expression online.”

Video from Sen. Franken’s talk can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjYpz5TQSlE&feature=player_embedded

It is time for Americans who want net neutrality to speak up and tell the FCC what it needs, which is to support President Obama’s vision of a truly free, not an almost free, internet.

On or before September 20, 2010, consumers can file comments on the FCC web site in reference to “WC Docket No. 09-197.” According to the FCC, comments may be filed using the Commission´s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

And remember, those who wish to support a free internet should consider denying the request of internet wireless (i-wireless) to be exempt from (or to “forbear from”) the net neutrality freedoms that the rest of the internet would have.

 Those who wish an almost free internet, well you know what to do –  just visit those corporate sites to find out.

The September 2010 Consumer Reports article entitled “Dangerous Supplements” highlights 12 dietary supplements the authors claim are potentially dangerous. This article has led to numerous news stories that have aired on national TV programs. However, supplement maker NOW Foods believes these stories contain inaccurate and misleading information. This may well discourage consumers from availing themselves of the benefits that nutritional supplements convey, and needlessly raise the specter of danger.

Consumer Reports and the related media stories refer to the supplement industry as operating with little FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] oversight. The reality is that the supplement industry is regulated by the FDA, with manufacturers being audited by the FDA to ensure they meet cGMP requirements (Good Manufacturing Practices). The FDA also regulates labels: all claims must be truthful and not misleading, all ingredients must be listed on the labels, and companies must have documentation to prove claims that must be maintained. Any new supplement ingredient introduced must go through a vetting process with the FDA before it can be legally marketed, similar to the FDA drug approval process in terms of demonstrating safety.

Numerous FDA commissioners have stated that they do have ample authority to regulate the supplements industry – they just don’t have the resources. This is why the industry has long, and very loudly, supported legislation to give FDA more resources to crack down on the fringe companies that do not follow the laws regulating the industry. Also, the FDA has the legal authority to remove from the marketplace any dietary ingredient that they determine to be dangerous.

Supplements have a proven track record of safety, in fact a much better track record than pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines and even common foods. For example, the most recent annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers published in the Journal of Clinical Toxicology reported zero accidental deaths from dietary supplements. Consumers should be more concerned about acetaminophen adverse events, which cause a large number of deaths (estimates vary widely, but usually range between 3,500 and 10,000), liver failures and ER visits annually.

Additionally, most of the herbs listed in the article are not widely available, and certainly not sold by the vast majority of the industry. To broadly characterize dietary supplements as dangerous on the basis of a handful of products that they claim may be potentially unsafe, is sensationalism that discredits the proven safety record of this product category and fails to recognize that millions of Americans choose to take supplements every day because they derive significant benefits from them.

In a related article, Michael McGuffin, the head of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) had this to say.

WASHINGTON—The Congressional Dietary Supplement Caucus (DSC) held a briefing on June 23 to inform our representatives about the important role of supplements in the shifting from reactive health care to a more preventive and wellness system. Held in conjunction with the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and the Natural Products Association (NPA), the luncheon briefing featured a presentation from David Grotto, RD, LDN, founder and president of Nutrition Housecall, and advisory board chair for the Produce for Kids® and PBS Kids™ health initiatives, who stressed dietary supplements are an important part of a well-rounded nutrition program, particularly for those who don’t get all their nutrients from food alone.

“We know that a healthy diet and lifestyle, along with appropriate dietary supplements, can really make a difference in helping to mitigate health problems, such as heart disease, cancer and stroke” Grotto said, adding many people have “lost touch” with the purpose of food and are not meeting the Dietary Guidelines. “We don’t always necessarily eat the best every day of the week, so it does make sense to include some responsible dietary supplements along with that.”

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), DSC co-chair, also spoke to attendees about the role of supplements in health and wellness, noting education on healthier lifestyles and diet can ultimately lead to reduced health care costs. “Supplements used properly help prevent disease and promote good health as part of an overall healthy lifestyle,” he said, noting “scientific evidence strongly suggests that the use of daily dietary supplements would be an effective way to address nutritional gaps” in deficient populations.