Do Democrats Hate Supplements?

By James J. Gormley

I thought that would get your attention.

Of course the answer is not (categorically) yes.

There are staunch and stalwart dietary supplement champions on the “D” side of the aisle, such as Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and one of the greatest supplement industry gladiators of all time, Democratic Sen. William Proxmire (Wisconsin), whose name is attached to one of the most important pro-supplement bills ever passed in the last 100 years, what is often referred to as the Proxmire Vitamin Bill of 1975, or Senate Bill 548, which was signed into law in 1976.

As we approach the November 2012 elections, we may well wonder if one party or another is a better champion of dietary supplements. Some political observers have suggested that the Democratic party may boast a few more anti-supplement foes in Congress than does the Republican party. But do party labels matter when it comes to dietary supplements?

What the Experts in Washington Tell Us

Edward Long, Ph.D., vice president of  Washington, D.C. lobbying firm, Van Scoyoc Associates Inc., told "The Gormley Files" in 2008 that there is no one completely pro-supplement and pro-health freedom party, and that different ideologies run through both major parties.

“There are two strains of Democrats,” noted Long. “One is a populist strain, which goes back to the 1890s, the goo-goos, the good government people who believe that American citizens need to be protected by government in every possible way and to be told what to do. It’s from this camp that a few of dietary supplements’ greatest critics have emerged.”

“Then there’s the more liberal, anarchistic side of the Democratic Party that goes back to the 1960s and 1970s, which holds that mainstream medicine doesn’t really work. It’s out of this strain that we have found a few of dietary supplements’ greatest advocates.”

What about the Republicans? Long said that while there is a sizeable subset of the Republican Party that is opposed to regulation, and over-regulation, in general, “there’s another strain that believes that, in certain cases, we need more regulation.”

Red States, Blue States and Purple States?

Unfortunately, however, goo-goos from the Democratic Party have been consistently proposing, co-sponsoring and advocating for the worst anti-supplement pieces of legislation since the bi-partisan passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994.

In May 2012, the latest challenge to dietary supplements was Sen. Durbin’s Senate Amendment 2127 that was defeated by a vote of 77 to 20.

Assuming blue states lean Democratic, red states lean Republican, and purple states are up-for-grabs, 13 out of the 20 Senators (or 65%) who voted in favor of Durbin’s amendment (or more technically, voted for it to stay attached to Senate Bill 3187) were from blue states, four were from purple states (20%) and three were Democrats from red states (15%). Here was how the voting went.

Looking back to last year, Sen. Leahy’s Food Safety and Accountability Act, S. 216 (originally introduced as S. 3767), which could potentially criminalize nearly anything related to food and food supplements that the FDA wants, was a fully Democrat-sponsored bill that passed the Senate last April. Looking at this year, it has now moved on to the House.

Also, Democrats have received (and continue to receive) a great deal of criticism from constituents and stakeholders for their weak (or non-) response to the FDA's outrageous NDI Draft Guidance that was proposed last year.

Of course not all anti-supplement legislation originates on the “donkey” side of the aisle. In 2010, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the widely vilified Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010, or S. 3002, which the Senator was forced to withdraw after massive grassroots opposition.

Of the two much-despised House bills from 2009 (Rosa DeLauro’s HR 875 and Jim Costa’s HR 1332), the former was a 100% Democrat-sponsored bill (with 41 co-sponsors) and the latter was largely (approximately 66%) backed by Democrats.

And for clarity’s sake, it is important to remember that although almost all (if not all) anti-supplement bills are couched in names that carry the word “safety” in their titles, they do not advance safety at all but, instead, reduce consumer access to high-quality, innovative supplements; they are, therefore, anti-safety bills or, at a minimum, anti-health!

Gormley Take-Away: The point of this commentary is not to point any fingers at any one party, as all American patriots are presumably both democratic and republican (lower-case intentional). It is merely to recommend that you do your homework before the November presidential and Congressional elections so that you know which candidates seem most likely to be supportive of health freedom and supplements . . . and which do not. You may also be able to educate your U.S. legislator on the issues if he or she is not familiar with the science, benefits and safety of nutritional supplements. Ask your legislator to join the Congressional Dietary Supplement Caucus, which is currently co-chaired by 2 Democratic Congressmen (Frank Pallone and Jared Polis) and 2 Republican Congressmen (Dan Burton and Jason Chaffetz); Sens. Orrin Hatch (R) and Tom Harkin (D) have previously served as co-chairs. Your U.S. legislators can reach the Caucus at 202-225-2161 (Cannon House Office Bldg., Room 501).

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.