Category : FDA

Home/Archive by Category" FDA"

The Bonvie Blog: Read Your Labels Day 2018

‘Read Your Labels Day’ – Now More Important Than Ever!

By LINDA BONVIE and BILL BONVIE

What makes this April 11, Citizens for Health’s sixth annual Read Your Labels Day, perhaps the most important one yet?

Two developments, actually. One is a USDA decision to override the National Organics Standards Board’s (NOSB) vote (taken well over a year ago) to stop allowing the seaweed-based thickening agent carrageenan to be used in organic processed foods.

Carrageenan, as it happens, is one of the 13 most harmful food additives we targeted in our book Badditives!  

It’s an ingredient that has a terrible effect on many people’s digestive systems, with even small amounts of the “food grade” variety having been found to cause inflammation in the colon (and samples of that food-grade variety have all been found to be contaminated with a “degraded” type that’s considered a possible carcinogen).

This isn’t just theoretical, however. The Cornucopia Institute, a consumer-safety watchdog organization, has collected a sizeable number of descriptions of the gut-wrenching symptoms people have suffered until eliminating carrageenan from their diet. The Institute likens it to “putting poison ivy in skin lotion.”

But despite such research and reports, the recommendation of the NOSB, and the fact that harmless alternatives, such as guar gum, are readily available, the USDA saw fit to cave in to industry groups that claimed carrageenan was better in terms of “taste and texture,” would make organic products more competitive, and as one lobbyist put it, would allow consumers “to continue to enjoy the foods they know and love.”

This decision, which is the sort of thing we’ve come to expect of the “deregulating” Trump administration, makes reading labels for the presence of this “thickener that’s a sickener” (as we called it in Badditives!) an absolute must — even if you purchase exclusively organic processed foods.

The Icon that Tells You Everything You Need to Know

But this egregious edict on carrageenan isn’t the only reason why we need to be more vigilant than ever about what’s in the food products we buy.

There’s also the fact that the FDA, now under the command of the Trump administration’s Dr. Scott Gottlieb, has just announced plans to launch its own “consumer friendly” campaign to tell Americans what is and isn’t good for them when it comes to food – complete with a simplistic icon that will supposedly tell us at a glance what foods are “healthy” (a device even less meaningful than the existing “nutrition facts” label).

Consider for a moment the implications of such a scheme.

Who will be deciding what’s healthy and what isn’t? Will all it takes to land a big “H” for your processed food product be that it’s low in sodium (and likely high in MSG)? Will low-fat fake creamers make the grade, but organic coconut milk fail?

And could this end up being a big money-raiser for the agency, similar to its Prescription Drug User Fee Act — the payment by drug makers of a substantial sum to submit a new drug application (and which has funded the agency to the tune of $7.67 billion since it went into effect in 1992)?

Whatever this healthy icon idea morphs into, it’s a safe bet that such new guidelines will have the guiding hand of industry behind them – especially given Gottlieb’s statement that the FDA wants to “maintain the basic nature and nutritional integrity of products while allowing industry flexibility for innovation.

If we read between the lines of that statement, what he really seems to be saying is that the agency has no real plans for reforming the “basic nature” of processed-food industry practices and the products that result from them (whose “nutritional integrity” still leaves an awful lot to be desired).

All of this, according to the commissioner, will be on a scale comparable to the agency’s initiative, announced last summer, to make cigarettes less addictive by lowering levels of nicotine. “Improving the nutrition and diet of Americans would be another transformative effort toward reducing the burden of many chronic diseases, ranging from diabetes to cancer to heart disease,” he proclaimed, whose benefits would “almost certainly dwarf any single medical innovation or intervention.”

Indeed it might – if the FDA were really intent on finding genuine ways to promote a healthy diet. But this is an agency that admittedly isn’t even sure what the words “healthy” and “natural” mean, as part of its new effort includes asking for input from the public on those definitions.

And if any more proof of that were needed, it can be found in Gottlieb’s stated aim to “make labeling nutrients more consumer friendly” and “explore updating standards of identity, which are essentially requirements for what can or can’t be in certain products in order for them to be labeled accordingly.”

How would this work, exactly? Well, the two examples he offers are allowing “alternative names” to be used for potassium chloride “to make clear it’s salt” and changing that standard of identity, say, for cheeses that now “aren’t allowed to use salt alternatives that would lower the sodium content and still call themselves cheese.”

Could another possible plan be to allow a labeling request that the FDA rejected a couple of years ago – a proposal made by the Corn Refiners Association to dispense with the name high fructose corn syrup and call it “corn sugar” instead?High Fructose Corn Syrup Labels

So while promoting greater consumer awareness of what makes for a healthy diet is certainly something that would benefit us all, what the FDA is now proposing sounds more like rearranging the rhetorical deck chairs on the Titanic. If the agency were really serious about initiating reforms, it would be talking about imposing stricter standards on the industries it regulates rather than distracting us with cute little icons.

All of which is why we can’t afford to let our guard down when it comes to reading (and reading up on) those lists of ingredients on processed foods.

And it’s why “we’re from the government and we’re here to help” has never been a less credible claim than it is right now.


Linda and Bill Bonvie are former writers of the CFH Food Identity Theft blog and co-authors of Badditives! The 13 Most Harmful Food Additives in Your Diet – and How to Avoid Them

 

 

 

The Bonvie Blog: Alzheimer’s

Is a New Drug Strategy Really What We Need to Prevent Alzheimer’s?

 By LINDA BONVIE and BILL BONVIE

So what’s up with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? An agency that has been derelict in its duties of protecting the public for quite some time now appears to have gone completely off the rails (as have other regulatory entities) since the Trump administration began systematically removing any of the remaining constraints on industry’s most reckless impulses.

A prime example is the way the FDA has given Big Pharma carte blanche to proceed with the marketing of untested preventives for Alzheimer’s following the abject failure of a couple hundred meds to treat it (Merck being the latest to acknowledge that by halting a trial of its latest drug, joining other unsuccessful attempts by the likes of Pfizer and Eli Lilly).

The agency, under its new commissioner, Dr. Mark Gottleib (the same guy who’s been cracking down on the use of kratom, the one promising natural alternative for getting people off opioids, as we reported a couple months ago), has just proposed opening a new road into some rather thorny territory where none have gone before.

What the agency is now offering drug makers is the prospect of fast-track approval for an Alzheimer’s-averting drug sans the type of “widespread evidence-based agreement in the research community” that has been previously required.

In other words, our supposed governmental watchdogs are now inviting companies to experiment with drugs on untold numbers of people who not only don’t yet have Alzheimer’s, but may never even develop it. And all based on the idea that certain biological markers might provide an early indication of a person’s likelihood of getting the disease.

Of course, the fact that such meds will inevitably produce all sorts of side effects (some of which might even mimic the symptoms of dementia) in otherwise healthy people doesn’t even appear to be a consideration.

But while all the pharmaceutical industry’s researchers and resources might not yet have come up with patentable remedies for Alzheimer’s, or even identified its root cause (for example, the fact that some people whose brains contain the key suspect, beta-amyloid plaques, have no apparent signs of dementia), there are things we do know about its prevention that don’t involve prescribing risky drug regimens with as-yet undetermined consequences.

Perhaps nowhere has that been more evident than in the results of a study done at UCLA that were published two years ago in the journal Aging, and involved a series of lifestyle modifications known as the metabolic enhancement for neurodegeneration, or MEND. It involved just 10 patients ranging in age from 49 to 69 – but the cognitive improvements they showed over periods ranging from five months to two years were remarkable.

The UCLA program used in this study was a personalized one that included a focus on healthier eating, improved exercise and sleep patterns, and dietary supplements, as well as fasting and stress reduction techniques.

And an astounding nine out of the ten participants were found to have reversed memory loss and sustained those improvements using such therapies, according to the paper’s author, neurology Professor Dale Bredesen, Director of the Easton Center at UCLA.

Now skeptics, of course, might try to dismiss this study as being too small to matter much. But the very fact it was so small made individual outcomes much easier to gauge than had it been one involving hundreds or thousands of subjects. For example:

  • The symptoms and neuropsychological testing of a 69-year-old patient with well-documented Alzheimer’s disease ‘improved markedly” after 22 months on the program.
  • A woman in her late 50s who had shown symptoms of progressive cognitive decline, like returning home from shopping without the items she had purchased, forgetting familiar faces and not knowing which side of the road to drive on, not only showed “marked improvement,” but sustained it for three-and-a-half years.
  • A 49-year-old patient whose memory had begun to decline, not only forgetting things like faces and scheduled events but losing the ability to speak two foreign languages, got it back and had a “normal neuropsychological examination” nine months after starting the MEND protocol.
  • A 50-year-old woman who had developed memory problems that made it difficult for her to drive, find words and follow recipes, after only three months on the program, was able to babysit her grandchildren, follow written and verbal instructions without any problems, and read and discuss her reading with her husband – which she had not been able to do prior to treatment.

So what’s the magic formula that brought such changes about?

It varied with each individual, but included such components as eliminating simple carbohydrates, gluten and processed food, and replacing them with vegetables, fruit and non-farmed fish; supplementing daily with vitamin D3, CoQ10 and fish oil, and melatonin at night; reducing stress through yoga and 20-minute, twice-daily meditation, 30 minutes of exercise four to six times a week, and getting 7-8 hours of sleep per night.

Oh – and one other thing. While the combining of these various elements seemed to be a key to those improvements, it’s not necessary to do them all to get results. And the only other effect, according to Prof. Bredesen, is “improved health and an optimal body mass index, a stark contrast to the side effects of many drugs.”

In other words, Alzheimer’s – or the dementia that many people experience with age – may be both preventable and treatable without the help of Big Pharma, and whatever new and untested drugs with which it may yet be planning to experiment on us. And without the FDA trying to run interference with such efforts on behalf of the Trump administration’s friends in industry.

Linda and Bill Bonvie are the authors of Badditives! The 13 Most Harmful Food Additives in Your Diet –and How to Avoid Them.

 

 

 

 

CFH VP James Gormley Shares a New Year Message

Happy New Year to all of our supporters, friends, allies and readers.

Now that the wrapping paper is gone and noisemakers are stowed, we wanted to send this very brief note looking back at (and forward to) a few issues relating to natural products, health and the environment.

First, there is general uncertainty as to whether the anti-over-regulatory winds in Washington will blow elsewhere in the U.S., especially in states such as New York and California, which have what some would call a hyper-regulatory, or nanny-state, posture in regards to many products, including dietary supplements.

In some cases, strong regulations can serve consumers well—such as with food safety and the environment. In other cases, such as with Prop 65 in California, excess caution paints virtually all products and materials with the “potentially carcinogenic” brush, benefiting no one.gormley

As we enter the New Year, the U.S. Justice Department issued a directive that appears to effectively nullify states’ efforts to legalize marijuana. While we at CFH don’t take a universal position on this plant, as such, we do recognize the botanical’s vital importance for medicinal use. As for other applications, we believe it is up to the states to listen to their citizens, and that it is not up to the U.S. government as it stands on what it perceives to be a moral high ground and attempts to impose its view on all 50 states and all Americans, for that matter.

“In California, we decided it was best to regulate, not criminalize, cannabis,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “Unlike others, we embrace, not fear, change.” This is an attitude that we can support, in this case and in general.

Second, regarding dietary supplements—on the plus side we have seen growing interest among natural product makers to use clean labels, labels with recognizable, more natural and often sustainable ingredients. Related to this trend is transparency, including such matters as country-of-origin labeling (COOL), which CFH actively supports.

Keeping products honest in all ways fortunately took on greater steam in 2017, and we have seen more clamp-downs on a handful of companies that spike their supplements with drug ingredients.

There has been robust discussion about kratom (an herb in the coffee family, Mitragyna speciosa) and its relative merits, which is good. However, scapegoating one botanical after another from the market under the guise of safety, as we saw with ephedra (Ephedra sinica) some years back, is never a good idea.

The movement to support local farmers, manufacturers, bakers, brewers – and, yes, even candlestick makers – is a welcome wave, although not new, as such. It is, in some ways, merely bringing us back to the days before cargo planes and high-speed trains started to blur the lines between what’s available when and where—in what seasons and in what climates.

Third, speaking of climate and our environment—in recent days we have seen that the U.S. is very close to allowing oil drilling in most U.S. continental-shelf waters, including protected areas of the Arctic and the Atlantic, which is of great potential concern to the integrity of our water and land, and the creatures who rely on them, including all of us.

As we look forward to the rest of 2018, we should encourage the companies whose products we like to maintain their commitment to values we care about and to continue to spread the word about how dietary supplements and natural medicine can help us achieve optimal health and make our lives better.

We sincerely thank you for being involved and for staying informed about the issues that impact our health freedoms.

Your participation is a critical part of our efforts to ensure that the flame of our collective dedication to natural health is never extinguished.

 

Yours in health,

James Gormley

Vice President, CFH

 

 

The Bonvie Blog: Kratom

The good news is that there may well be a relatively simple way for many individuals now caught up in the ongoing nationwide opioid crisis to pull themselves out of it. And that’s no small thing, considering that that this man-made catastrophe has killed an estimated 20,000 Americans from overdoses in 2016 alone. The bad news is that the federal government is trying its best to make such apparent salvation illegal.

Stop 21st Century Cures Act

Although this is coveted as a wonderful bill that is needed in the US so that drugs and medical devices can be fast tracked, if you read the nearly 1000 pages it is clear this is dangerous bill that is has the best interests of the Pharmaceutical industry at heart, NOT its consumers.

Dental Mercury Linked to Risk for Brain Damage

The following is reprinted with the permission of McClatchyDC

Dental group defends mercury fillings amid mounting evidence of risks

For decades, the American Dental Association has resolutely defended the safety of mercury fillings in the teeth of more than 100 million Americans, even muzzling dentists who dared to warn patients that such fillings might make them sick.

Senate Hearing Bodes Ill for GMO Labeling

“Monsanto’s Dream Bill” – also known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, HR 1599, and the “DARK Act” – standing for the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act would ban states from passing legislation to label food and products containing GMOs (genetically modified organisms), undoing years of hard-won progress at the states level made by food labeling advocates like Citizens for Health and Food and Water Watch.

Sign the petition from Food and Water Watch Now!

Now there is a renewed sense of urgency stemming from testimony at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing held yesterday. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and food manufacturers were out in force to protect their interests by confusing the debate with repeated assertions about the safety of GMOs. It didn’t help that Ag Committee Chair, Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), demonstrated they have drunk the industry Kool-Aid when they wasted spectators’ time making the same claims about GMOs’ safety.

The issue is not one of safety, even though there is compelling evidence that we should be concerned about the prevalence of GMOs. As Consumers Union director of food policy initiatives, Jean Halloran has noted, “Safety is not the point. Almost all the labels required on food—such as ingredients and fat content—are informational. So is GMO labeling. The debate over GMO labeling is about consumers’ right to know what they are eating.”

A joint letter from a bi-partisan group of state lawmakers urging Congress to oppose HR 1599 also points out that a District Court in April affirmed that states have a constitutional right to pass GMO labeling laws. Whether everyone agrees they are safe – or not.

Senator Stabenow called for “a bipartisan bill that can pass the Senate by the end of this year.”

Don’t let the biotech industry and food manufacturers hide behind questionable claims about the safety of GMOs as they trample over the US Constitution and your right to know.

Preserve your right to know – sign the petition today!

Officials Kill Proposal to Curb Mercury Fillings

Proposed Warnings Have Been Kept Secret for More Than Three Years

or the first time tFood and Drug Administration has proposed curbing dentists’ use of mercury in treating Americans’ decayed teeth. This would be a major step forward in protecting Americans from one of the planet’s nastiest toxins.

 It would be – if senior U.S. health officials hadn’t put the kibosh on the proposal after a cost-benefit analysis by officials at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The proposal, which was approved by FDA officials in late 2011 and kept under wraps ever since, would have advised dentists not use mercury fillings when treating cavities in pregnant women, nursing moms, children under 6 and people with mercury allergies, kidney diseases or neurological problems. It even went so far as to urge dentists that when considering using mercury fillings, the best course of action is simply not to – ever.

For your convenience, we have attached the FDA’s recommendations here – please share far and wide: FDA 2012 Safety Communication Mercury

To read more of the article exposing the cover-up, click here: Health Officials Kill Proposal to Curb Mercury Dental Fillings

 

Take Action to Ensure Your Right to Access Compounded Medications

Note: Following information is from College Pharmacy, a fully licensed compounding pharmacy.

Why Is The FDAs MOU A Threat To Your Access To Compounding Pharmacies and Compounded Medications? 

The FDA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a guidance document that was created by the FDA to explain the regulatory framework that it plans to use in enforcing the Drug Quality and Security Act that was passed in November 2013.

In the current draft form, the MOU would regulate the interstate filling of compounded prescriptions by 503(a) compounding pharmacies. As the majority of compounding pharmacies in the U.S. are 503(a) compounding facilities, the impact would be one felt throughout the nation by patient and practitioner alike.

Take Action:

Comment on FDA MOU Docket

IMPORTANT Deadline: July 20, 2015 at 11:59pm

Unprecedented Expansion of FDA Oversight

The intent of the original MOU was to prevent compounding pharmacies from becoming manufacturers and limited office use prescriptions. The FDA has since taken that intent and expanded it into unprecedented areas of oversight and regulation to include interstate commerce.

The current draft MOU would restrict compounding pharmacies to no more than 5% of interstate sales per month unless their respective state agrees to enter into a MOU agreement with the FDA. If the state agrees to bear the burden for any adverse events or quality issues, then those pharmacies may increase their interstate sales to 30%.

This is supposed to translate into patient safety. So, 5% interstate sales per month is safe. 30% interstate sales per month is only safe if a state bears the burden of adverse events. 35% of interstate sales is not safe and shall not be allowed. The proposed regulation of interstate commerce has no scientific or evidence basis. These are arbitrary numbers with no tie to patient safety.

The MOU would leave state boards of pharmacy with an unfunded mandate to investigate and report pharmacies in violation of the FDA’s interpretation of federal law. It would place significant economic burdens on a state without providing appropriate funds for required reporting activities. There is no benefit to the state to enter into the MOU.

The MOU would reduce patient access to medically necessary treatments, restrict interstate commerce, and punish successful pharmacies that already adhere to all existing state and federal regulations.

We take exception to the FDA’s expansion of oversight, not because we are a compounding pharmacy that ships throughout the U.S., but because as citizens we believe in the right of choice and access and that the following points should be part of the discussion now before the MOU is adopted:

  1. The Right to Choose: Every patient and practitioner should have the right to choose the compounding pharmacy of their choice.Compounding pharmacies are not interchangeable. Patients should have the right to easily access compounded medications from a compounding pharmacy in another state. They currently do. And the DRAFT MOU does not lend itself to an increase in patient safety by regulating interstate commerce.
  2. As mentioned above, compounding pharmacies are not interchangeable. The MOU would severely restrict patient access to and choice of compounding pharmacies offering the services that they require. While most compounding pharmacies can produce capsules and topical preparations, specialty dosage forms and sterile compounds often come from pharmacies throughout the U.S. that are expertly trained to meet the compounding needs of specific patient groups. For instance: Are you a current patient or practitioner that uses our sublingual tablets or fused pellet implants? If you are outside of Colorado, your access will be severely limited.
  3. Doors will close. If a compounding pharmacy is currently shipping out more than 30% of monthly sales through interstate channels, it does not mean they are participating in illegal manufacturing practices. It means that patient and practitioner alike have chosen to do business with them because of expertise, because of specialty compounding services, because of exclusive formulations…because it is a free-market and they have the right to do so. It is the law abiding, experienced, comprehensive compounding pharmacies that will feel the brunt of the MOU if it is adopted in the current form. Why? Supply and demand. While there is a demand nationwide that keeps our doors open, that same demand does not exist in a single state.

Take Action:

Comment on FDA MOU Docket

IMPORTANT Deadline: July 20, 2015 at 11:59pm

We put patient safety above all else. The MOU fails to increase patient safety and would severely regulate compounding pharmacies to the point of scaling back services and closing doors.

There should be no limit to the interstate shipping of prescriptions as long as 503(a) compounding pharmacies follow both state and federal regulations.

It is not just about keeping our doors open. It is about keeping an industry alive. It is about ensuring that patients and practitioners have access to the integral services that compounding pharmacies provide.

Read the entire message from CollegePharmacy.com

Yet Another Sneak Attack on Supplements from Blumenthal and Durbin

Courtesy of our allies at Alliance for Natural Health

This time it’s been slipped into a defense bill. Major Action Alert – Send Your Letter Now!

We suspected it would only be a matter of time before Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) launched his next broadside against supplements. Once again, Durbin and his allies, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), are pouncing on must-pass legislation and attaching last-minute amendments that would threaten Americans’ access to supplements.

The bill this time is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an appropriations bill to fund the military for FY 2016. The House passed its version of the bill in May. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced what is called “an amendment in the nature of a substitute” to create a Senate version of the House-passed bill. The Blumenthal/Durbin amendments were introduced on top of the McCain legislation.

Because it is a defense bill, the Blumenthal/Durbin amendments pertain to the supplement use of the US armed forces.

There are three amendments.

The first amendment would require military electronic health records to include data regarding supplement adverse events experienced by servicemen and women. This type of information is already gathered by the FDA, which is much better situated to handle it than the Department of Defense. This additional data collection is redundant and cumbersome. In 2011, Sen. Durbin and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) asked the Government Accounting Office to review supplement adverse event reports (AERs). In 2013 the GAO completed its report—which overwhelmingly demonstrated that supplements are safe! Why in the world is Durbin following the same tactic that embarrassed him so completely two years ago?

According to the resulting GAO report, there were a total of 6,307 AERs reported to the FDA between 2008 and 2011—an average of 1,575 a year. At the time, we pointed out that this was quite a low number, considering the fact that about half of Americans—157 million people—take supplements. This means that one-hundredth of one percent of all supplement users ever experience any problems at all.

If Sens. Waxman and Durbin had cared to search out where the real danger lies for the American consumer, they wouldn’t have had to look very hard. In 2008 alone, there were a whopping 526,527 AERs for FDA-approved drugs, with 275,421 considered serious. Of course, the astonishingly poor safety record of pharmaceutical drugs is irrelevant if you have a vendetta against supplements, as Sen. Durbin and his allies seem to have.

The second amendment would require the Department of Defense to establish minimum requirements for members of the armed forces to report on their supplement use. Service people would be ordered to report what vitamins and supplements they take—which means they could easily be ordered to stop taking them! It is simply Orwellian to have members of the military report on their supplement use. What business is it of the government if a service member is taking vitamin D, or B12? Big Brother shouldn’t be able to reach into your toiletries kit or control what you tell your doctor—even on a military base.

The third and most troubling of the amendments would extend a currently existing policy which regulates certain supplements on military bases to require all supplements that are to be sold to members of the military at exchange stores or commissaries to undergo a third-party review for “recognized public standards of identity, purity, strength, and composition, and adherence to related process standards.” This may sound innocent, but it is anything but.

First, supplements must already, by law, hold to current good manufacturing practices (CGMPs), which require that that they be processed in a consistent manner and meet quality standards. Second, supplement companies will likely be expected to pay huge sums for this review. Only the biggest companies, many of them owned by Big Pharma, will be able to comply. Yet another government-created monopoly will be handed over to big drug companies.

In addition, once this regime is established, it will be only a short step to expand it to all US consumers, not just the military. Then the pharmaceutical industry will have what it really wants: control over the supplement industry. Many supplements will become drugs and soar in price while their availability is restricted. As with any monopoly, quality will also decline, because regulations are never a substitute for real competition involving new and small as well as old and large companies.

Supplements are incredibly safe and already fully regulated by the FDA and FTC. These amendments are misguided attempts to limit access and hamper individual health freedom.

The truth of the matter is that the current regulatory regime governing dietary supplements is working—which is why supplements have such a sterling safety record. In fact, our counterparts at ANH-Europe found that UK residents were about as likely to get struck by lightning as die from taking dietary supplements.

We’ve come to expect this sort of maneuver from Durbin and company: what can’t be accomplished through more conventional democratic means, they try to accomplish through sneaky, eleventh-hour maneuvering before the public can catch wind of it. This military appropriations bill has nearly 200 amendments attached to it, and not all of them will be discussed by the Senate. With your help, we hope to prevent the Blumenthal/Durbin amendments from ever being considered on the Senate floor. The natural health community has responded vigorously to defeat previous Durbin attacks against supplements: in one instance, our readers sent nearly 90,000 messages in less than twenty-four hours. The time has come again to make our voices heard on Capitol Hill to protect our access to quality dietary supplements!

Major Action Alert! Write or call your senators and urge them to stop the Blumenthal/Durbin amendments, which will take dangerous steps towards limiting consumers’ access to dietary supplements.

A vote can come any day – Please send your message immediately!