By James J. Gormley
With Citizens for Health supporters already having generated over 11,000 letters to Congress demanding that the FDA’s NDI Draft Guidance be withdrawn, the organization is now on a mission to collect 10,000 petitions in 10 days calling for Congress to withhold FDA appropriations until this unaccountable agency is held to account: by adjuring the FDA to withdraw the supplement-killing NDI Guidance and to cease and desist from reviewing and enforcing against dietary supplements and nutritional ingredients according to its willfully adversarial re-interpretation of the laws governing dietary supplements.
To help us in this effort, Australian truth rapper and activist Jody Lloyd, aka Trillion, has re-mastered CFH’s “10,000 Signatures” video to make our call-to-arms that much more impactful!
Please sign the petition today and send out the link (and video!) to all of your contacts, friends and family, work colleagues, in short, everyone in your personal universe who cares about their rights to high-quality, innovative dietary supplements!
Strategy. Communications. Trade Relations.
Showing posts with label the gormley files. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the gormley files. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
A Defining Moment for the Dietary Supplement Industry
By James J. Gormley
The Federal Register states that the New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Draft Guidance, “when finalized, will represent the Agency’s current thinking on NDIs and dietary supplements that contain NDIs.”
Although this same notice observes that the Guidance is not binding, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new dietary supplements’ director and erstwhile industry representative, Daniel Fabricant, PhD, made it clear that the FDA believes that the guidance contains “no surprises” (It, in fact, contains many) and merely provides “clarity” (Yes and no: it makes it clear that the FDA is willfully re-interpreting DSHEA is several key areas but is fuzzy on specifics).
And while Dr. Fabricant and his new employer may persist in believing that the Guidance contains no rabbits pulled out of a proverbial hat, a chief architect and co-author of DSHEA, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), is alarmed by the Guidance.
Recently, at least one industry opinion leader has suggested that playing nice with the FDA on the Guidance would be the way out of the NDI quagmire since the FDA supposedly has such a stellar track record of working collaboratively with industry.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Every major victory won by the natural products industry has been always bloody, sometimes ugly and never cordial.
War seldom is.
In 1966, the FDA announced plans that it was going to ban nutrient potencies over the RDAs by reclassifying them as drugs, along with labeling restrictions that would have forbidden the inclusion of any useful information about supplements.
When this, the health-food industry’s, first defining conflict was waged in the late 1960s and 1970s, the battle cry that the great, and recently departed, Max Huberman rallied the industry and consumers around was, “No surrender! No retreat!”
The battle cry was not “Let’s play nice,” of that I can assure you.
In the early 1990s, when the industry and consumers were fed up with FDA raids on health-food stores and efforts by the agency to use food additive provisions of existing law to go after supplements and companies for which the agency bore a deep-seated animus, a dramatic response was needed, and aggressive, coordinated grassroots action was with what consumers and the industry fought back: black, funereal fabric was used to cover dietary supplements in health food stores, a major public service announcement was aired and millions of Americans demanded the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
And we won.
Offering an olive branch to the FDA at the time would have led to the destruction or gutting of the dietary supplements industry before many of us were even a part of it.
So for our industry to offer concessions on the Guidance while the battle has just begun is diametrically opposed to what the greatest debaters have known since the time of Cicero: being unattached to the outcome.Master negotiator Herb Cohen said this often: “I care, I really do … but not that much.”
Modern-day Cicero, Jeff Schneider explains this to mean that whichever party has the greater need to get the deal done is the party that is at a competitive disadvantage. He says that the moment we start making concessions prematurely is the moment we lose our leverage.
“It is unwise to assume that the person [or Agency] you are negotiating with maintains the same commitment to Win-Win outcomes that you have,” writes Schneider. He advises negotiators to “establish your line in the sand. […] You must vow not to cross the established line in the sand for any reason.”
Do those industry experts and pundits applauding accomodationist approaches to the NDI Draft Guidance know that the FDA is not our industry’s friend, and that the agency bears an institutional resentment (some might say hatred) against our marketplace and its products and has shown this since the 1960s with raids, illegal wiretaps, improper seizures and a boatload of adversarial rulings and decisions?
Do those self-appointed savants know that the legal duty of any agency is to solely regulate and enforce according to the law given to it by the American people through Congress, and agencies do not have the power to devise policy and are not allowed to issue regulations or enforce one millimeter outside of the express letter of the law?
They should.
When any agency, in this case the FDA, violates the law by re-interpreting the plain and intended letter and meaning of it, in this case DSHEA, it must be called on it.
We must not stand for side-door efforts to cripple or maim our industry, and we have no obligation to give one inch on this, especially when dealing with an out-of-control agency that is, through stated intent, itself violating the law with which it was entrusted by the American people to uphold.
For those who have not yet taken action on the issue, there are only about 20 days left to so, given the current deadline of December 2nd. Please write to Congress here and to FDA Dockets here and circulate these links via all of your lists!
Let no one in our industry fall victim to the romance of “having a seat at the table” as a representative of the regulated industry.
Because that plate in front of them might well be empty.
The Federal Register states that the New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Draft Guidance, “when finalized, will represent the Agency’s current thinking on NDIs and dietary supplements that contain NDIs.”
Although this same notice observes that the Guidance is not binding, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new dietary supplements’ director and erstwhile industry representative, Daniel Fabricant, PhD, made it clear that the FDA believes that the guidance contains “no surprises” (It, in fact, contains many) and merely provides “clarity” (Yes and no: it makes it clear that the FDA is willfully re-interpreting DSHEA is several key areas but is fuzzy on specifics).
And while Dr. Fabricant and his new employer may persist in believing that the Guidance contains no rabbits pulled out of a proverbial hat, a chief architect and co-author of DSHEA, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), is alarmed by the Guidance.
Recently, at least one industry opinion leader has suggested that playing nice with the FDA on the Guidance would be the way out of the NDI quagmire since the FDA supposedly has such a stellar track record of working collaboratively with industry.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Every major victory won by the natural products industry has been always bloody, sometimes ugly and never cordial.
War seldom is.
In 1966, the FDA announced plans that it was going to ban nutrient potencies over the RDAs by reclassifying them as drugs, along with labeling restrictions that would have forbidden the inclusion of any useful information about supplements.
When this, the health-food industry’s, first defining conflict was waged in the late 1960s and 1970s, the battle cry that the great, and recently departed, Max Huberman rallied the industry and consumers around was, “No surrender! No retreat!”
The battle cry was not “Let’s play nice,” of that I can assure you.
In the early 1990s, when the industry and consumers were fed up with FDA raids on health-food stores and efforts by the agency to use food additive provisions of existing law to go after supplements and companies for which the agency bore a deep-seated animus, a dramatic response was needed, and aggressive, coordinated grassroots action was with what consumers and the industry fought back: black, funereal fabric was used to cover dietary supplements in health food stores, a major public service announcement was aired and millions of Americans demanded the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
And we won.
Offering an olive branch to the FDA at the time would have led to the destruction or gutting of the dietary supplements industry before many of us were even a part of it.
So for our industry to offer concessions on the Guidance while the battle has just begun is diametrically opposed to what the greatest debaters have known since the time of Cicero: being unattached to the outcome.Master negotiator Herb Cohen said this often: “I care, I really do … but not that much.”
Modern-day Cicero, Jeff Schneider explains this to mean that whichever party has the greater need to get the deal done is the party that is at a competitive disadvantage. He says that the moment we start making concessions prematurely is the moment we lose our leverage.
“It is unwise to assume that the person [or Agency] you are negotiating with maintains the same commitment to Win-Win outcomes that you have,” writes Schneider. He advises negotiators to “establish your line in the sand. […] You must vow not to cross the established line in the sand for any reason.”
Do those industry experts and pundits applauding accomodationist approaches to the NDI Draft Guidance know that the FDA is not our industry’s friend, and that the agency bears an institutional resentment (some might say hatred) against our marketplace and its products and has shown this since the 1960s with raids, illegal wiretaps, improper seizures and a boatload of adversarial rulings and decisions?
Do those self-appointed savants know that the legal duty of any agency is to solely regulate and enforce according to the law given to it by the American people through Congress, and agencies do not have the power to devise policy and are not allowed to issue regulations or enforce one millimeter outside of the express letter of the law?
They should.
When any agency, in this case the FDA, violates the law by re-interpreting the plain and intended letter and meaning of it, in this case DSHEA, it must be called on it.
We must not stand for side-door efforts to cripple or maim our industry, and we have no obligation to give one inch on this, especially when dealing with an out-of-control agency that is, through stated intent, itself violating the law with which it was entrusted by the American people to uphold.
For those who have not yet taken action on the issue, there are only about 20 days left to so, given the current deadline of December 2nd. Please write to Congress here and to FDA Dockets here and circulate these links via all of your lists!
Let no one in our industry fall victim to the romance of “having a seat at the table” as a representative of the regulated industry.
Because that plate in front of them might well be empty.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
News Flash: ‘Supplements Are Safe, Healthful and Well-Regulated’!
By James J. Gormley
On March 25th, 1999, I was part of a live television debate on FOX-TV’s “Good Day New York” with a drug industry attorney on the topic: “Are dietary supplements regulated?”(1)
Needless to say, with all of the facts showing how well regulated dietary supplements were then, winning the debate was not a difficult accomplishment; I even had the host, Jim Ryan, on the side of supplement consumers about midway through the segment.
In fact, the regulations and laws governing nutritional supplements today are even more stringent than they were in 1999, when I did that show.
READ MORE
On March 25th, 1999, I was part of a live television debate on FOX-TV’s “Good Day New York” with a drug industry attorney on the topic: “Are dietary supplements regulated?”(1)
Needless to say, with all of the facts showing how well regulated dietary supplements were then, winning the debate was not a difficult accomplishment; I even had the host, Jim Ryan, on the side of supplement consumers about midway through the segment.
In fact, the regulations and laws governing nutritional supplements today are even more stringent than they were in 1999, when I did that show.
READ MORE
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
9 Reasons S. 3002 Has to Go
By James J. Gormley
http://www.citizens.org/?p=1965
1. No phase-in period or “effective date”. Since legitimate dietary supplement companies and health-food stores would not have even one day to come into compliance with the new law, they would effectively be breaking the law the day after S. 3002 is passed.
2. Registration of supplement licensors. S. 3002 would require outfits that license dietary supplements to register their “facilities” under the FDA Food Facility program established by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. Including these requirements would go against the purposes of the Bioterrorism Act and would serve no useful purpose other than creating more bureaucracy and red tape.
3. Registration of health-food stores. S. 3002 is unclear as to whether the current retailer exception to the Bioterrorism Act registration requirement is intended to be honored for supplement retailers.
4. Product and ingredient registration. The product/ingredient registration process included in S. 3002 is unclear in its use of the terms “ingredients” and “labeling.” As worded, S. 3002 would apparently require duplicate, therefore unnecessary, registration of every product at every point in its distribution! This would be an incredible burden, one that would mandate annual updates, and one that would not protect any proprietary information that is not required on product labels but that that may be required to be submitted in the registration process.
5. Replacement of new dietary ingredient (NDI) requirements with an FDA positive list. FDA received information between 1996 and 1998 from dietary supplement trade associations to record ingredients believed to be marketed in the U.S. prior to the passage of DSHEA. If there is any lack of clarity as to what dietary ingredients are “old,” the agency should initiate rulemaking to formally adopt the ingredients directly submitted by the trade associations.
6. Retailer evidence of compliance. The bill’s proposal to require health-food stores to obtain evidence of compliance with product registration and NDI notifications is would be ridiculously burdensome and something that is not required for other regulated goods.
7. Civil penalties. The bill would establish new, unnecessary civil penalties despite the fact that current law already imposes adequate fines and penalties for violations of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.
8. Non-serious adverse event reports. The FDA itself has made it clear that it would not be helpful for the agency to receive boatloads of minor or trivial (and probably not substantiated) adverse event reports associated with dietary supplements. Under current law, dietary supplement companies are already required to maintain records of all adverse event reports for 6 years and the FDA has the authority to inspect these records at any time.
9. FDA recall and “cease distribution” authority. S. 3002, as well as other food safety legislation already introduced in the 111th Congress (such as S. 510), would provide FDA with authority to mandate products recalls when health risks are presented by marketed products, which is fine. However, what is not fine is that S. 3002 would obligate the agency to issue a “cease distribution” order for any supplement identified as adulterated or misbranded, even in the absence of any perceived health risk.
http://www.citizens.org/?p=1965
1. No phase-in period or “effective date”. Since legitimate dietary supplement companies and health-food stores would not have even one day to come into compliance with the new law, they would effectively be breaking the law the day after S. 3002 is passed.
2. Registration of supplement licensors. S. 3002 would require outfits that license dietary supplements to register their “facilities” under the FDA Food Facility program established by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. Including these requirements would go against the purposes of the Bioterrorism Act and would serve no useful purpose other than creating more bureaucracy and red tape.
3. Registration of health-food stores. S. 3002 is unclear as to whether the current retailer exception to the Bioterrorism Act registration requirement is intended to be honored for supplement retailers.
4. Product and ingredient registration. The product/ingredient registration process included in S. 3002 is unclear in its use of the terms “ingredients” and “labeling.” As worded, S. 3002 would apparently require duplicate, therefore unnecessary, registration of every product at every point in its distribution! This would be an incredible burden, one that would mandate annual updates, and one that would not protect any proprietary information that is not required on product labels but that that may be required to be submitted in the registration process.
5. Replacement of new dietary ingredient (NDI) requirements with an FDA positive list. FDA received information between 1996 and 1998 from dietary supplement trade associations to record ingredients believed to be marketed in the U.S. prior to the passage of DSHEA. If there is any lack of clarity as to what dietary ingredients are “old,” the agency should initiate rulemaking to formally adopt the ingredients directly submitted by the trade associations.
6. Retailer evidence of compliance. The bill’s proposal to require health-food stores to obtain evidence of compliance with product registration and NDI notifications is would be ridiculously burdensome and something that is not required for other regulated goods.
7. Civil penalties. The bill would establish new, unnecessary civil penalties despite the fact that current law already imposes adequate fines and penalties for violations of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.
8. Non-serious adverse event reports. The FDA itself has made it clear that it would not be helpful for the agency to receive boatloads of minor or trivial (and probably not substantiated) adverse event reports associated with dietary supplements. Under current law, dietary supplement companies are already required to maintain records of all adverse event reports for 6 years and the FDA has the authority to inspect these records at any time.
9. FDA recall and “cease distribution” authority. S. 3002, as well as other food safety legislation already introduced in the 111th Congress (such as S. 510), would provide FDA with authority to mandate products recalls when health risks are presented by marketed products, which is fine. However, what is not fine is that S. 3002 would obligate the agency to issue a “cease distribution” order for any supplement identified as adulterated or misbranded, even in the absence of any perceived health risk.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The DEA Should Take Over All Sports Doping Enforcement
By James J. Gormley
In February 2010 in New Orleans, three men were charged by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with drug-trafficking Ecstasy, or MDMA (3-4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), a synthetic chemical that can be derived from an essential oil of the sassafras tree.
If convicted, the defendants face a possible maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, a $1 million fine and at least three years of supervised release for each count.
MDMA is also one of the easiest illegal drugs to obtain. Its effects are similar to those of amphetamines and hallucinogens. First developed as an appetite suppressant in 1912, MDMA was used as a psychotherapeutic tool and also started to become available on the street is the late 1970s and early 1980s. It wasn’t until 1985 that Ecstasy was made illegal. It is classified as a “Schedule 1” controlled substance along with other narcotics like heroin, cocaine and LSD.
One reason Ecstasy can be especially dangerous is the lack of content control. Ingredients are hard to get and manufacturers of the drug often use substitutes, mixing other harmful additives with the already dangerous mix. This practice is so common that “drug test kits” are often sold with the drug so users can test for purity.
Because of the uncertainties about the drug sources, pharmacological agents, chemicals used to manufacture them, and possible contaminants, it is difficult to measure the toxicity, consequences and symptoms that might be expected.
Herbal Ecstasy is another form of MDMA that is composed of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine and caffeine from the kola nut. Also sold in tablet form, Herbal Ecstasy can cause permanent brain damage and death. Though not currently classified as a controlled substance, Herbal Ecstasy shares many of the same qualities and effects as MDMA. Also known as Cloud 9, Herbal Bliss, Ritual Spirit, Herbal X, GWM, Rave Energy, Ultimate Xphoria and X.
Anabolic Steroids
Anabolic steroids are synthetically produced versions of the naturally occurring male hormone, testosterone. Both males and females have testosterone produced in their bodies: males in the testes, and females in the ovaries and other tissues. The full name for this class of drugs is androgenic (promoting masculine characteristics) anabolic (tissue building) steroids (the class of drugs).
Some of the common street names for anabolic steroids include: arnolds, gym candy, pumpers, 'roids, stackers, weight trainers and juice. Currently, there are more than 100 different types of anabolic steroids that have been developed, and each requires a prescription to be used legally in the U.S.
Anabolic steroids can be taken orally, injected intramuscularly, or rubbed on the skin when in the form of gels or creams. These drugs are often used in patterns called cycling, which involves taking multiple doses of steroids over a specific period of time, stopping for a period, and starting again. Users also frequently combine several different types of steroids in a process known as stacking. By doing this, users, more properly abusers, believe that the different steroids will interact to produce an effect on muscle size that is greater than the effects of using each drug individually.
Another mode of steroid use is called "pyramiding." With this method abusers slowly escalate steroid use (increasing the number of drugs used at one time and/or the dose and frequency of one or more steroids), reach a peak amount at mid-cycle and gradually taper the dose toward the end of the cycle. The escalation of steroid abuse can vary with different types of training. Bodybuilders and weight lifters tend to escalate their dose to a much higher level than do long distance runners or swimmers.
Legislation and Enforcement
On March 16th 2004, Joseph Rannazzisi, then deputy director of the DEA's Office of Diversion Control, said in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security:
"The DEA has one mission: to protect the public from dangerous drugs. However, the current law regarding steroids causes regulatory delay, especially with respect to steroids that we know are hormonally, chemically or pharmacologically related to testosterone. Because DEA’s authority extends only to controlled substances, steroids that are not classified as controlled substances continue to fall outside our jurisdiction. H.R. 3866 [The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 ] will correct this problem."
Well, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act passed in October 2004.
On the bill's passage, one of its sponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), remarked:
"Under this bill, clever chemists will no longer be able to dodge the law by disguising their chemicals to skirt the legal definition of a steroid. Our bill gives the Drug Enforcement Agency the power to schedule nearly any steroid precursor now or in the future--giving the law flexibility we don't have to play catch-up with every new andro look-alike that comes along."
On September 29, 2009, the DEA's Rannazzsi, now deputy assistant administrator, said this in testimony before the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs:
"Although DEA does not have the authority to enforce DSHEA [the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994], DEA does have statutory authority to investigate incidents involving the illegal manufacture and distribution of anabolic adrenergic steroids in the dietary supplement market. [...] DEA has the authority and responsibility to investigate companies that are marketing products as dietary supplements that are adulterated with controlled substances."
As well the DEA should; if yogurt were suddenly used as a delivery vehicle for sports steroids, would our guardians of public health call for a new law restricting access to yogurt or would increased enforcement and enforcement funding be directed to the DEA to get the job done? The latter, I would think.
If supplements are being adulterated by illegal labs, why then should supplements get a bad rap? Steroids and sports doping is all about unethical pharmacies and illegal labs.
Case in point, in January 2009, a 198-count DEA indictment was unsealed charging 12 pharmacists and pharmacy owners with participating in a conspiracy that dispensed and sold thousands of dosages of anabolic steroids, including powerful veterinary steroids approved for animal use only.
Another case in point: in October 2009 the DEA announced the completion of a 10-month undercover investigation into an illegal anabolic steroid manufacturing ring that led to three arrests. In the raid, agents seized over 500 vials and 1,850 capsules of anabolic steroid pills.
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been involved in sweeps relating to the illegal sale of unapproved or misbranded drugs, such as the recent Internet sweep in November 2009 called the "International Internet Week of Action," many observers, including this commentator, strongly believe that all investigation and enforcement of sports doping and illegal steroid distribution and use should immediately be more clearly placed under the aegis of the DEA, as sports doping is not a problem of food products (such as supplements) but a problem of drugs---a problem of dope, pure and simple.
In February 2010 in New Orleans, three men were charged by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with drug-trafficking Ecstasy, or MDMA (3-4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), a synthetic chemical that can be derived from an essential oil of the sassafras tree.
If convicted, the defendants face a possible maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, a $1 million fine and at least three years of supervised release for each count.
MDMA is also one of the easiest illegal drugs to obtain. Its effects are similar to those of amphetamines and hallucinogens. First developed as an appetite suppressant in 1912, MDMA was used as a psychotherapeutic tool and also started to become available on the street is the late 1970s and early 1980s. It wasn’t until 1985 that Ecstasy was made illegal. It is classified as a “Schedule 1” controlled substance along with other narcotics like heroin, cocaine and LSD.
One reason Ecstasy can be especially dangerous is the lack of content control. Ingredients are hard to get and manufacturers of the drug often use substitutes, mixing other harmful additives with the already dangerous mix. This practice is so common that “drug test kits” are often sold with the drug so users can test for purity.
Because of the uncertainties about the drug sources, pharmacological agents, chemicals used to manufacture them, and possible contaminants, it is difficult to measure the toxicity, consequences and symptoms that might be expected.
Herbal Ecstasy is another form of MDMA that is composed of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine and caffeine from the kola nut. Also sold in tablet form, Herbal Ecstasy can cause permanent brain damage and death. Though not currently classified as a controlled substance, Herbal Ecstasy shares many of the same qualities and effects as MDMA. Also known as Cloud 9, Herbal Bliss, Ritual Spirit, Herbal X, GWM, Rave Energy, Ultimate Xphoria and X.
Anabolic Steroids
Anabolic steroids are synthetically produced versions of the naturally occurring male hormone, testosterone. Both males and females have testosterone produced in their bodies: males in the testes, and females in the ovaries and other tissues. The full name for this class of drugs is androgenic (promoting masculine characteristics) anabolic (tissue building) steroids (the class of drugs).
Some of the common street names for anabolic steroids include: arnolds, gym candy, pumpers, 'roids, stackers, weight trainers and juice. Currently, there are more than 100 different types of anabolic steroids that have been developed, and each requires a prescription to be used legally in the U.S.
Anabolic steroids can be taken orally, injected intramuscularly, or rubbed on the skin when in the form of gels or creams. These drugs are often used in patterns called cycling, which involves taking multiple doses of steroids over a specific period of time, stopping for a period, and starting again. Users also frequently combine several different types of steroids in a process known as stacking. By doing this, users, more properly abusers, believe that the different steroids will interact to produce an effect on muscle size that is greater than the effects of using each drug individually.
Another mode of steroid use is called "pyramiding." With this method abusers slowly escalate steroid use (increasing the number of drugs used at one time and/or the dose and frequency of one or more steroids), reach a peak amount at mid-cycle and gradually taper the dose toward the end of the cycle. The escalation of steroid abuse can vary with different types of training. Bodybuilders and weight lifters tend to escalate their dose to a much higher level than do long distance runners or swimmers.
Legislation and Enforcement
On March 16th 2004, Joseph Rannazzisi, then deputy director of the DEA's Office of Diversion Control, said in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security:
"The DEA has one mission: to protect the public from dangerous drugs. However, the current law regarding steroids causes regulatory delay, especially with respect to steroids that we know are hormonally, chemically or pharmacologically related to testosterone. Because DEA’s authority extends only to controlled substances, steroids that are not classified as controlled substances continue to fall outside our jurisdiction. H.R. 3866 [The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 ] will correct this problem."
Well, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act passed in October 2004.
On the bill's passage, one of its sponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), remarked:
"Under this bill, clever chemists will no longer be able to dodge the law by disguising their chemicals to skirt the legal definition of a steroid. Our bill gives the Drug Enforcement Agency the power to schedule nearly any steroid precursor now or in the future--giving the law flexibility we don't have to play catch-up with every new andro look-alike that comes along."
On September 29, 2009, the DEA's Rannazzsi, now deputy assistant administrator, said this in testimony before the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs:
"Although DEA does not have the authority to enforce DSHEA [the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994], DEA does have statutory authority to investigate incidents involving the illegal manufacture and distribution of anabolic adrenergic steroids in the dietary supplement market. [...] DEA has the authority and responsibility to investigate companies that are marketing products as dietary supplements that are adulterated with controlled substances."
As well the DEA should; if yogurt were suddenly used as a delivery vehicle for sports steroids, would our guardians of public health call for a new law restricting access to yogurt or would increased enforcement and enforcement funding be directed to the DEA to get the job done? The latter, I would think.
If supplements are being adulterated by illegal labs, why then should supplements get a bad rap? Steroids and sports doping is all about unethical pharmacies and illegal labs.
Case in point, in January 2009, a 198-count DEA indictment was unsealed charging 12 pharmacists and pharmacy owners with participating in a conspiracy that dispensed and sold thousands of dosages of anabolic steroids, including powerful veterinary steroids approved for animal use only.
Another case in point: in October 2009 the DEA announced the completion of a 10-month undercover investigation into an illegal anabolic steroid manufacturing ring that led to three arrests. In the raid, agents seized over 500 vials and 1,850 capsules of anabolic steroid pills.
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been involved in sweeps relating to the illegal sale of unapproved or misbranded drugs, such as the recent Internet sweep in November 2009 called the "International Internet Week of Action," many observers, including this commentator, strongly believe that all investigation and enforcement of sports doping and illegal steroid distribution and use should immediately be more clearly placed under the aegis of the DEA, as sports doping is not a problem of food products (such as supplements) but a problem of drugs---a problem of dope, pure and simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
