Archives | (February 2002) Printer Friendly
------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 1970s, the FDA had attempted to classify vitamins and minerals as drugs if, in the Agency’s view, they were at levels of potency that its bureaucrats believed were excessive. There was an immediate public outcry. Alerted to the problem, Congress enacted the "Proxmire Amendment" stopping the proposed action. But the FDA was undeterred in its lust for power. Some years later, it again proposed regulations that would give it authority to regulate vitamins, minerals and other supplements like drugs. This time, over 170,000 citizens filed comments with the Agency opposing the move. As it had in the 1970s, Congress again acted to curb the FDA power grab - this time by enacting the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Representative Dan Burton described what Congress intended in a statement submitted to the Breaux hearing.

"In 1994, Congress passed DSHEA by unanimous consent and with significant grass roots support. With the passage of the DSHEA Congress recognized the important role that vitamins, minerals, botanicals, and other dietary/nutritional substances can play in improving and maintaining health. Congress found that:

• the importance of nutrition and the benefits of dietary supplements to health promotion and disease prevention have been documented increasingly in scientific studies;
• there is a link between the ingestion of certain nutrients or dietary supplements and the prevention of chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis;
• consumers should be empowered to make choices about preventive health care programs based on data from scientific studies of health benefits related to particular dietary supplements;
• national surveys have revealed that almost 50 percent of the 260,000,000 Americans regularly consume dietary supplements of vitamins, minerals, or herbs as a means of improving their nutrition;
• although the Federal Government should take swift action against products that are unsafe or adulterated, the Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers; and
• dietary supplements are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare."

In short, the DSHEA statute, AS A MATTER OF LAW, recognizes the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements. Moreover, Congress found that this fact was well supported by scientific evidence! So there is no doubt of congressional intent.

So how do the DSHEA opponents feel about the congressional findings?

The attitude of witness Dr. Robert Baratz, a professional defender of the status quo was typical of the panel members:

"To get to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda from DuPont Circle I can take a cab or the Metro, I can walk or even ride a bicycle. These are true "alternative" methods. However, no matter how hard I wish, or whatever I may choose to believe, I can’t ride a magic carpet or self-levitate and fly to Bethesda. The "alternative" to scientific, evidence-based medical practices is non-evidence based non-scientific nonsense. It is grossly wrong and frankly ridiculous to place this collection of anecdotes, pseudo-science and conjecture called "alternative medicine" on the same stage with the real thing."

This emphasis on science sounds reasonable at first glance. In fact it is a mantra repeated time and time again by the self-anointed "quackbusters." But when you examine the content of Baratz’ organization’s (the National Council on Health Fraud) website a different picture emerges. Even a cursory review makes clear that Dr. Baratz and his colleagues never met an alternative therapy or supplement they didn’t hate. Moreover, when the scientific evidence doesn’t confirm their prejudices, they simply dismiss it.

For example, when a consensus conference involving a number of health agencies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health found that:

"There is sufficient evidence . . . of acupuncture's value to expand its use into conventional medicine and to encourage further studies of its physiology and clinical value."

Despite this, and other strong support from within the SCIENTIFIC medical community, Baratz’s organization insists:

"Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment."

Or take the widely used supplement Glucosamine. Baratz’ organization refers visitors wanting to know more about the supplement to a paper by its Vice President Stephen Barrett which quotes the "Medical Letter," a publication it deems the medical professions "most respected drug advisory," as saying:

"Glucosamine with or without chondroitin may have some beneficial effect on osteoarthritis, and studies up to 3 years in duration have found no more adverse effects than with placebo, but most Medical Letter consultants are skeptical. Whether Glucosamine offers any advantages over better-established drugs such as acetaminophen, traditional NSAIDS or selective Cox-2 inhibitors remains to be determined. As with other dietary supplements, the quality and purity of the ingredients may vary [4]."

Barrett’s paper concludes:

"Decisions to use Glucosamine or Chondroitin must be based on information that is far less complete than is desirable. In addition, product quality control is a significant problem."

This highly skeptical attitude concerning Glucosamine and Chondroitin is expressed despite numerous clinical trials, including trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health that demonstrate the efficacy and safety of these supplements for the treatment of osteorarthritis.

More important, Barrett’s paper implies that patients suffering from osteoarthritis should rely on so-called "Cox-2 inhibitors" such as Celebrex and Vioxx instead of Glucosamine and Chondroitin. His advocacy of these drugs ignores the fact that they have been found to carry the risk of life-threatening adverse effects including sudden, uncontrolled bleeding, liver damage and increased risk of heart attack and blood clots. Further, Barrett makes no mention in his paper of the numerous medical journal articles documenting these risks.

In short, it doesn’t matter what Congress has determined, it doesn’t matter what scientific evidence exists, if it’s outside orthodox medicine, it simply cannot work as far as Baratz, Barrett and their colleagues are concerned!

View this article in printer friendly format

1 - 2 - 3 - 4