UPDATED INFORMATION
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 NOW Foods
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.
Continue reading about NOW Foods Responds to “Dangerous Supplements” Article
By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010; A01
original link: www.washingtonpost.com
San Francisco, a city that banned the plastic bag, now has waded into the muddy territory of cellphone radiation, setting off a call to arms in the $153 billion wireless industry.
Last week, the Board of Supervisors passed a law — the first in the nation — requiring retailers to inform their customers how much radiation the cellphones on their shelves emit, so shoppers can figure out how close the devices come to the upper limits on radiation set by the Federal Communications Commission.
The law, which goes into effect early next year, didn’t mention the word, but it was all about one thing: cancer, and whether cellphones cause it.
cellphone industry answered with its own C-word — cancel. After the vote, the CTIA wireless trade group called off its fall show, scheduled for San Francisco. Elsewhere in the country, the industry has been more successful. Earlier this year, similar laws in Maine and California were beaten back by the makers of the iPhone and Droid and the telecom giants that carry those phones on their networks.
“San Francisco has gotten out front on a number of issues historically,” said John Walls, a CTIA spokesman, “but in this case, we are concerned they are leading the pack down a wrong and misleading road.”
Lacking conclusive evidence one way or the other, studies relating to cellphone safety are being hurled about frenetically as cellphones grow ever more powerful and pervasive: Americans have more than 285 million mobile phones at their ears, and the number in use globally reaches 4.5 billion.
In 2006, Lennart Hardell, a professor of oncology and cancer epidemiology at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, reported that adults he followed who had used cellphones for more than 10 years “give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma,” forms of brain tumors. That study has been used as the basis for public health alerts by way of commercials, billboards and warning labels in nations including Britain, Israel, Finland and France, but it has had little resonance in the United States.
Continue reading about Cellphone Industry Attacks San Francisco’s Ruling On Radiation