Health Freedom Nation: Consumers Take Control

By James J. Gormley
[Courtesy of NOW Foods]

Consumers and the health-food industry may have stopped S. 3002 in its tracks, but S. 510 and other threats to health freedom remain. Nevertheless, a new slate of bills, along with a re-invigorated health-freedom movement, offer new hope for the future.

Since the health-food movement’s earliest origins in New Hampshire in the 1790s, there have been many champions of health freedom.

The one who immediately springs to mind, at least for me, is Frank Murray, who happened to be my first boss before I became editor of Better Nutrition magazine in 1995.

In 2006, Frank was the recipient of the Natural Product Association (NPA) President’s Award for “long-time contributions to the natural products industry.”

He was for many years editor of Health Foods Retailing, the health-food industry’s very first trade publication and the official magazine of the NPA for 50 years, from the late-1930s until the mid-1980s.

More Than One Slingshot
A bestselling health-book author, Frank has been one of the industry’s most articulate, enthusiastic and tireless crusaders, having stood arm-in-arm with Milton Bass, Max Huberman and NPA in successful opposition to the Vitamin Volstead Act from 1966 through 1976, when the Proxmire Vitamin Bill was signed into law.

His book, More Than One Slingshot, which was written for the association, tells the history of the health food industry from its origins in the late 1890s up through the early 1980s.

The book has this great, dated cover that I love, one which depicts David and Goliath, a popular representation of the battle between the health-food industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Today, in early 2010, we face many of the same threats to health freedom even if the names of the bills and the players have changed.

Today’s Threats to Health Freedom
In March of 2009, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, a bill that would hand over extensive, unwarranted powers to an agency, the FDA, that has shown that it cannot objectively and properly fulfill its mission regarding dietary supplements since it constantly works to undermine the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) through coordinated suppression of supplement companies and health information regarding products sold by legitimate manufacturers.

As this bill was reviled by consumers and farmers across the country, it appeared to fall by the wayside, that is until Sen. John McCain introduced S. 3002, the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010.

Senate Bill 3002 was said to be about athletics ─ trying to protect athletes from spiked or doped supplements (although one would think the athletes would know what they were taking, especially if they themselves ordered these products from shifty chemists and fly-by-night pharmacists), but it included a whole host of anti-supplement provisions that almost made S. 510 pale by comparison.

A firestorm of consumer outrage ensued: many tens of thousands of letters were sent to the Senate thanks to powerful grassroots advocacy campaigns organized by Citizens for Health, the Alliance for Natural Health and the NPA. In early March, Sen. McCain decided to withdraw his support of the bill, with the caveat that certain provisions should be carried over to S. 510, most of which are already in S. 510 as it now stands.

Consumers, and the natural products industry, must be especially vigilant now and throughout 2010 ─ regarding S. 510 so that the bad provisions in this bill are dropped or drastically revised, and that nothing even worse from the dry-docked S. 3002 winds up being added to S. 510.

Tomorrow’s Health Freedom Opportunities
As to bills that offer a ray of hope, there are currently three main ones: H.R. 4913, H.R. 3394 and H.R. 3395.

On March 23rd, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced the Free Speech about Science Act (H.R. 4913); since then, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana) has signed on as a co-sponsor. The bill allows producers of healthy foods and dietary supplements to cite legitimate scientific studies on the health benefits of their products.

Similar in title to H.R. 4913, the Freedom of Health Speech Act (H.R. 3394), which was introduced by Rep. Ron Paul on July 29, 2009 and co-sponsored by Rep. Dan Burton and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), is geared to prevent the FTC from taking action against any advertiser that communicates a health benefit for a product unless the FTC first establishes, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the statement made is false and that its communication causes harm to the public.

The Health Freedom Act (H.R. 3395) is designed to remove FDA's power of prior restraint over all nutrient-disease relationship claims.

According to Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Emord, under the bill “FDA may not prohibit any statement concerning a nutrient affecting a disease (including treatment effects) from being made in the market and may only act against a statement once made if it possesses clear and convincing evidence that the statement is false.”

Gormley Take-Away: The powerful advocacy campaigns against S. 3002 (which generated tens of thousands of letters), in addition to meetings and conference calls with Sen. McCain and his staff, effected a partial yet still very important victory. The momentum and informed action that allowed consumers and the natural products industry to achieve this win must be maintained so that objectionable provisions of S. 510 are removed or drastically revised. Other bills that offer opportunities for informed action should be kept on our radar screens, including H.R. 4913, H.R. 3394 and H.R. 3395.

Food Safety for 2010: the Good, the Bad … and the Ugly

By James J. Gormley  
courtesy of NOW Foods
In October, we alerted you to serious worries about Senate Bill (S.) 510. Now that we have just started the New Year, let’s take a look back at the whole food safety picture in 2009 and how things are shaping up for 2010.

Here’s a partial run-down on some of the biggest food safety news stories of 2009:

1. Starting in January 2009, a giant peanut manufacturing corporation began voluntary recalls of up to 3,918 products made with peanut butter and peanut paste that reportedly caused nine deaths and 714 confirmed cases of Salmonella in 46 states.
2. In June and July of 2009, a fast-food restaurant in Milan, Illinois had two workers infected with hepatitis A working at the eatery; in addition to workers and customers getting sick, 10,000 people were exposed by the time the situation was under control.
3. Beginning in July (going through December), two mammoth meat manufacturers (based in Denver, Colo. and Fresno, Calif.) recalled 1.314 million pounds of beef due to concerns that it was contaminated with three strains of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.
4. On September 1st, the Washington Post alerted us to the case of a Nevadan woman severely injured by chocolate-chip cookie dough contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7.
5. On October 4th the New York Times’ Michael Moss reported that a children’s dance instructor from Minnesota was partially paralyzed from E. coli 0157:H7 in hamburgers she ate. The meat originated in massive slaughterhouses in Nebraska, Texas, Uruguay, and a South Dakota firm that treats fat trimmings with ammonia to kill bacteria.
6. In December 2009, a series of articles in USA Today uncovered that Jack in the Box, Burger King and Costco are “are far more rigorous”─up to 10 times more stringent─ in checking for dangerous bacteria than is the USDA in setting standards for beef served to our children via the National School Lunch Program.

And lest these cases create the impression that contamination only relates to beef or peanut butter, ConsumerReports.org posted “The 10 riskiest foods overseen by the FDA,”  which lists the top ten offending foods. In decreasing order of “riskiness,” the article listed (somewhat surprisingly) the following 10 foods and food products: leafy greens; eggs; tuna; oysters; potatoes; cheese; ice cream; tomatoes; sprouts; and berries.

What do 2009’s food-safety outbreaks mean to us?
What the outbreaks in 2009 (and, for that matter over the last 19 years) mean is this: Food production by gargantuan factories and slaughterhouses is questionable; one marked by potentially unsanitary practices and stopgap remedial treatments that don’t work well .

As to food safety bills on Capitol Hill, here’s where things stand as of this writing:

• H.R. 759, or the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009, sponsored by Congressman John Dingell (Mich.); 10 co-sponsors; introduced January 28th, 2009; referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 29, 2009.
• H.R. 875, or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (Conn.); 40 co-sponsors; introduced February 4th, 2009; referred to House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry on April 23rd, 2009.
• H.R. 1332, or the Safe Food Enforcement, Assessment, Standards, and Targeting (FEAST) Act of 2009, sponsored by Congressman Jim Costa (Calif.); 30 co-sponsors; introduced March 5, 2009; executive comment requested from the FDA and the USDA on April 23rd, 2009.
• H.R. 2749, or the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, sponsored by Congressman John Dingell; 5 co-sponsors; passed under suspended rules on July 30, 2009.
• Senate Bill (S.) 510, or the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (Ill.); 15 co-sponsors; placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (No. 247).

There are a couple of issues in these bills that stand out like sore thumbs. As to H.R. 875, this bill calls for the creation of yet another agency with another “czar”, the Food Safety Administration; not a welcome addition to fans of limited or more efficient government.

As to H.R. 2749, which passed the House already, this column has previously noted problems associated with this bill, including registration fees for food facilities and powers to “restrict the movement of food” by effectively quarantining (i.e., shutting down) a town, city or region. These aggressive new police powers should be reserved for demonstrable risks to public safety, not given freely as a blanket trust and authority granted to unelected agency bureaucrats.

On the positive side, thanks to grassroots advocacy organization new language in S. 510 exempts safe dietary supplements and organics while softening language relating to the threat of harmonization with Codex Alimentarius; however, there are still some areas of concern.

What will be the legislative fate of these bills?
Since H.R. 759 is considered the flagship House food-safety bill by Congresswoman DeLauro (who is the sponsor of H.R. 875, above) and since Congressman Dingell is the sponsor of H.R. 759 and of the House Bill which was last introduced but which passed first, I foresee two scenarios.

One strong probability is that all of the other House food-safety bills will fall by the wayside, since H.R. 2749 already passed and since S. 510 is likely to pass in the full Senate this year or early next.

A second possibility is that portions of H.R. 875 and 1332 will either make it into negotiations on the Senate side for S. 510─not very likely since H.R. 2749 has already passed─ or will be incorporated into this year’s agriculture appropriations bill, more likely since Congresswoman DeLauro was the sponsor of the 2009 “agriculture bill” that passed in October 2009.

Gormley Take-Away: Senate Bill 510 will likely be the “last man standing” in terms of food-safety bills in the remainder of this current 111th legislative session of Congress─ and perhaps in the first half of next year’s 112th session─and we do need to be vigilant on this bill before it becomes law.   Nevertheless, regardless of whatever food-safety bills are introduced or debated in 2010, we must push for increasing support of local food production (including food co-ops and community supported agriculture [CSA]). We also need food manufacturers to take more responsibility for ensuring the safety of the foods they produce by the use and enforcement of existing audited GMP and HACCP systems, backed up by testing. This will continue to keep the public safe and prevent Congress from setting up overly broad enforcement mechanisms without fixing the underlying problems.

Senate Bill 510: The $825 Million Dollar Folly

By James J. Gormley

courtesy of NOW Foods

Are you a backyard grower of heirloom tomatoes you sell on your own property or at a local farmer’s market? If so, you will be in for a whopper of a surprise if Senator Durbin’s Senate Bill 510 (S.B. 510) passes: you may be receiving a visit from inspectors.

Products not grown according to designated standards will be considered adulterated and your business records will be subject to warrantless searches by inspectors from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), all this without any evidence that you have violated any law.

Wonder why the National Guard or Federal agents have effectively imposed martial law by quarantining your town? Under S.B. 510’s House counterpart bill, H.R. 2749 (Section 133b, “Authority to Prohibit or Restrict the Movement of Food”), sponsored by Congressman Dingell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the power to prohibit all movement of all food within a geographic area, whether the food is in your grandmother’s grocery bag in her Toyota Hybrid or on a flatbed. No court order will be needed, just a phone call to the appropriate state official and a public announcement will be sufficient.

Upset that raw milk or raw milk cheeses (like feta) are no longer available in the U.S.? This could well happen thanks to the “performance standards” powers that would be granted to the FDA by S.B. 510, especially since the agency has made it clear that it is vehemently opposed to the consumption of raw milk products.

Amazed that U.S. food safety regulations strangely match those of other countries? Well, Section 306 of S.B. 510 would require “Recommendations to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius.”

And what about food supplement manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and health food stores? Will they be ensnared in this bill’s draconian, 1984-esque net? Very possibly so.

This all may seem far-fetched, but theoretically, this new law would give the government all this authority.

S.B. 510 (which would cost Americans $825 million in 2010 alone) and the House of Representatives version of this bill, H.R. 2749, which did pass under suspended rules, do not address the root causes of the U.S.'s food safety problems, which were highlighted in both a recent campaign by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) and by a letter to 99 U.S. senators by the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF USA).

According to Citizens for Health (http://www.citizens.org/), if this proposed law is enacted it would:

• Undermine DSHEA and move the U.S. one step closer to harmonizing our standards under Codex with those of supplement-restrictive regimes like the European Union. (DSHEA, or the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, asserts that supplements are food and are safe for consumption unless proven otherwise – ensuring that millions of Americans are able to enjoy access to safe, effective and affordable dietary supplements).

• Give the FDA unprecedented control over farms and direct-to-consumer distributors. If passed, the bills would charge facilities an annual $500 registration fee, require additional record keeping, and expand FDA authority to quarantine geographic areas for alleged food safety problems – all without significantly improving food safety.

• Cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars ($825 million in 2010 alone) while providing fewer physical inspections and less food safety overall.

• Harm U.S. organic farmers by imposing overlapping regulations.

• Hurt food supplements and health-food stores by imposing standards that are already covered by the AER (Adverse Event Reporting) Law, cGMPs (current Good Manufacturing Practices) and food facility registration.

• Cripple local food co-ops, farm stands, independent ranchers and artisanal food producers by imposing unnecessary standards and unfair bureaucratic burdens.

Clearly, S. 510, while purporting to increase food safety would actually leave consumers more vulnerable to foodborne disease since the FDA would be required to use a risky, risk-based food safety system rather than doing old-fashioned, effective physical, on-site inspections in plants, factory farms and slaughterhouses, where the actual food safety concerns are.

Furthermore, the U.S. has abrogated its duty to inspect and enforce food safety standards, both here and abroad, by allowing processing plants to regulate themselves under a failed system; and it has embraced policies that have driven independent U.S. farmers and ranchers out of business and replaced them with corporate-owned, industrialized food production units that are known to cut food safety corners to maximize corporate profits.

So what do we need to do?

Click here for an opportunity to send a letter opposing S.B. 510 as it is currently written.

Gormley Take Away: As of this writing, our nation is over $11.8 trillion in debt. Let’s not add $825 million more (actually several trillion dollar over the next few years) for a bureaucratic monster to be foisted upon an already deeply flawed U.S. food-safety system. S.B. 510 is sadly, and ironically, not about food safety, although I wish it were. It’s about food madness, pure and simple, and it must be fixed … or stopped.