Fight Back Against the FDA’s Attack on Supplements

The agency is deciding what to do about “old” supplements—tell them what you think! Action Alert!

Last year, we told you about the FDA’s massive attack on supplements that came in the form of a guidance document. That guidance is meant to provide clarity to supplement companies regarding “new supplements”—referred to as new dietary ingredients, or NDIs.

Federal law requires companies to submit a notification to the FDA before an NDI is sold in the US. Federal law also defines a NDI as an ingredient that was not marketed in the US before 1994—meaning that supplements marketed before 1994 are “old dietary ingredients,” or ODIs, for which no notification is required.

This leaves the question: how will companies know which supplements are considered NDIs and which are considered ODIs?

The FDA is asking for feedback from the public on whether or not to develop an official list of ODI ingredients.

While the creation of an official list may sound like a good thing, we think it’s possible that the FDA would use such a list to target supplements. FDA inspectors could simply go to a vitamin store with their ODI list, and anything that is either not on the list or doesn’t have an approved NDI notification would be wiped off the shelves.

ANH-USA has prepared comments to submit to the FDA that make the following points:

  • As FDA staff have themselves pointed out, no law requires the creation of an ODI list; therefore, no ODI list should be created;
  • If the FDA does decide to create a list, the omission of a supplement from the list should be “neutral”—meaning the exclusion of an ingredient from the list does not automatically make it an NDI;
  • The list should never be closed, accepting new ODIs on a rolling basis;
  • The FDA should broadly interpret the term “marketed” when creating an ODI list. The FDA has maintained that, for a supplement to be an ODI, it needed to be marketed in or as a dietary supplement before 1994. This excludes many nutrients that were in the food supply but not listed on the bottle of a supplement. Instead, the FDA should consider ODIs to be dietary ingredients that were sold, in any form, before 1994.

The FDA’s proposed NDI notification process remains one of the largest threats to the supplement industry ever. A win here would be a significant step toward fixing the mess that the FDA created.

Action Alert! Write your own message to the FDA, urging them to follow the course outlined above. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health via Aloe for Health


New Danger from Weedkillers

Now they’ve been linked to antibiotic resistance. Action Alert!

A new study published in Microbiology finds that both the active and “inert” ingredients in common herbicides induce antibiotic resistance in human pathogenic bacteria. The researchers found that antibiotic resistance was conferred to Salmonella and E.coli even at exposure levels below those found in the environment.

Remember that “inert” ingredients in herbicides are anything but. Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team determined that herbicides can be up to 1,000 times more toxic to human cells than just the active ingredient.

Not only are these products toxic to humans—they are helping to render our medicines ineffective.

Rather than protect consumers, however, government cronies are protecting their friends in the chemical industry. Recall that Jess Rowland, a former top EPA official, helped Monsanto quash an effort by the Department of Health to conduct its own review of glyphosate, among other actions to shield that giant company.

Action Alert! Write to Congress and the EPA, urging more oversight of dangerous herbicides that takes the toxicity of “inert” ingredients into account—to protect human health and the ability of medicines to actually cure. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health via Aloe for Health

New Attack on Raw Milk

The feds persist in curtailing free and organic enterprise. Action Alert!

Following the case of a single woman who became sick from Brucella, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a warning urging anyone who has drunk raw milk in the past six months to go to a doctor immediately.

It’s the second time this year the CDC has warned about raw milk. Earlier, the agency responded to proposals in Montana and Iowa that would loosen restrictions on the sale of raw milk in that state. The FDA has banned the interstate sale or distribution of raw milk, and has taken an aggressive stance towards raw milk purveyors.

The vendetta against raw milk is completely unjustified. As our friends at the Weston A. Price Foundation point out in their campaign for “real milk,” raw milk has a proven safety record and has shown to be superior to pasteurized milk in protecting against infection, diarrhea, rickets, tooth decay, and tuberculosis. Children drinking raw milk also have better growth rates than those drinking pasteurized milk.

ANH–USA believes consumers should have the right to access non-processed foods, and farmers should be able to offer these products directly to consumers. Americans should be able to educate themselves about any risks versus benefits, and make their own decisions without being hassled by the government.

Why the hostility toward raw milk? The way we see it, the FDA prefers to concentrate food and drug production in the hands of a few large companies with which the agency has close ties. But favoring large producers over family and artisanal producers does not make our food any safer. On the contrary, it makes it less nutritious, makes commerce less free, and also invites more corruption as powerful companies grow rich from government-created monopolies.

Following President Trump’s call to eliminate burdensome or duplicative regulations, ANH has suggested, among other things, that the FDA relent on its raw milk ban, and instead allow for labeling of raw milk products. Such labeling would alert consumers to the risks associated with consuming unpasteurized milk products, and provide directions for how to home pasteurize raw milk to avoid those risks. With such labeling, there is no reason, other than to protect the pasteurized milk industry from competition, to block the sale of raw milk and milk by-products.

To this end, the FDA and the CDC should hear from consumers who want raw milk restrictions lifted.

Action Alert! Tell the CDC and the FDA that raw milk is healthy and safe, and that the FDA should lift its ban on raw milk provided there is labeling alerting consumers to the risks. Please send your message immediately.

from The Alliance for Natural Health via Aloe for Health