Report: Dietary Supplement Industry Lavishes Cash on Congress, Gets Its Way

[HuckleB]

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/02/report-dietary-supplement-industry-lavishes-cash-on-congress-gets-its-way.html

"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has released a report that it says demonstrates that the dietary supplement industry spent millions of dollars on well-connected lobbyists and made numerous campaign contributions to successfully thwart increased regulatory oversight of supplements.

"This is yet again another disturbing example of pay-to-play in Washington, D.C.," said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan. "The old Schoolhouse Rock cartoon about how a bill becomes a law is sadly outdated - in today's world, legislative results are bought and paid for."

Far and away the largest recipient of campaign contributions from the supplement industry in the 2010 election cycle was Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who took in $45,780, 59% more than the lawmaker in second place, freshman Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI). Sen. Hatch wasn't up for reelection, making campaign funds unnecessary.

Further, the supplement industry paid the lobbying firm of Walker, Martin and Hatch - in which Sen. Hatch's son, Scott Hatch, is a partner -- $125,600 in 2010 alone. Scott Hatch cannot lobby his father directly, but records indicate Jack Martin, a former aide to Sen. Hatch, lobbied for supplement industry clients.


...."


--------------------


More FYI...

[derby378]

1. It's been like this ever since DSHEA was signed into law in 1994

It's basically a license to steal - if you're in the "health supplement" industry.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. Okay now, there's a reason for this...

The FDA is now officially filled with corporate assholes and right wingnuts, who want nothing more than to BAN supplements that so many people in the U.S. (and the world) take. Pharmaceutical companies are chomping at the bit to ban all kinds of natural supplements, and if they 'regulate' them, you bet they will ban natural supplements left and right. WHY? Well, because if there's nothing natural to take that will heal, the pharma assholes will take natural supplements, add some synthesized whatever, call it a 'drug' then sell it for a LOT of money via prescription.

God, I hate pharmaceutical companies.

However, in a FAIR country, this sort of shit wouldn't happen.

In any case, supplement makers are having to defend their products by paying off assholes in Wash. D.C. just as everyone else is paying them off. In this case, it's to protect people like me, who take natural supplements.

[HuckleB]

3. Thanks for the supplement industry PR.

If you think the supplement industry is somehow more ethical than the pharma industry, please buy my coastal property in eastern Oregon. It's a steal! And it's all natural!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

It consists of herbs. Open a capsule and there it is. No patent on plants, PERIOD.

You can't get a patent on something you can grow in your backyard.

I have no backyard, so I gotta get it that way.

[HuckleB]

5. It consists of claims without basis.

It's called a scam. Perhaps you've heard of it. Clearly, you have fallen for it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Oh I see! You don't like natural herbs and so on. Fine. Don't take them, okay?

But DON'T TAMPER WITH THEM. I TAKE THEM!

There. I feel heaps better now.

[HuckleB]

10. I don't take things that have unproven claims.

It has nothing to do with them being herbs, or anything else.

A scam is a scam. It's time to stop fooling yourself.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. And they do work. You might be worshipping at the God of pharma companies, but I'm not

Let's stick to defending unions, shall we?

[HuckleB]

11. Most of them offer nothing but placebo or less.

Stop wasting your money, and stop supporting con artists.

[astral]

80. Your comment about placebos does not even make sense.

Placebos are PLACEBOS. The placebo-effect is in the dictionary.
Supplements are SUPPLEMENTS. They are not placebos.
Wild herbs are wild herbs. They are not placebos.
Vitamins, Minerals, they are real things.

I agree there are MANY bottles of vitamins and pills for sale out there that are worthless, just the same as a lot of the packaged food at the grocery store we are free to buy.

We must educate ourselves, but taking away everything that is not derived from a pharmaceutical plant is not something we can allow to go forward.

I am quite shocked there are people so rabid against health freedom they think everything SHOULD be regulated.

You wanna smoke cigarettes, you can smoke cigarettes.
You wanna drink alcohol, you can drink alcohol.
You wanna drink super-duper caffeinated drinks, you can have them.
Even your KIDS can buy little tubes of caffeine-laden crap at the checkout counter at the grocery store.

But do you think THESE things should be regulated? Shall we monitor how many bags of Nacho Cheese Doritos you buy every week? Tubs of ice cream? Donuts? Trips to McDonalds?

NO. Only the healthful items many of us already buy. And you know what? A lot of us KNOW what we're doing! We're not being taken by scammers, but that's not to say there aren't scammers out there -- in EVERY area of production of consumer items.

[HuckleB]

84. ROTFLMAO!

Apparently you don't understand what a placebo is. It is ANYTHING that has no proven effect. Try again. Thanks for the laughter!

[uppityperson]

76. digitalis is a plant, foxglove, yet the medicine is patented. Big Vita sucks as much as Big Pharma

[astral]

79. Foxglove is not an example that applies well to what is going on.

Do you think big pharma should spoon-feed us everything that passes across our lips?

I am very happy you realize 'drugs' are derived from natural substances.

[HuckleB]

87. And the usual red herring is offered up.

:rofl:

[BuddhaGirl]

4. +1000

:thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

6. Keep pushing the scam!

Woo hoo! :rofl:

[BuddhaGirl]

9. scam is in the eye of the beholder - you

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[HuckleB]

12. Scam is in the eye of the evidence.

Unfortunately, you don't care about evidence. You care about letting scam artists get away with their con.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Um. Not if you have ever used a natural herb and it has helped heal you...

and watched how people can die from pharmaceutically concocted garbage.

[trotsky]

16. My mother is still alive today thanks to "pharmaceutically concocted garbage."

Thankyouverymuch.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. Some are real, some are not. My nephew is a physician who practiced years....

went back to get a Ph.D. in PUBLIC health, and now heads a branch of a dept. where studies are performed. I know just about anything a human would want to know about what pharmaceuticals actually do, and what pharmaceutical companies actually put out there to make a profit.

If you'd like to know, just say the word and I'll get started. I can write endlessly about the topic.

I'm not saying "ALL" pharmaceuticals are "BAD." What I'm saying is that pharmaceutical companies have one goal: to make a profit, and the way they do it is through patents.

It's very interesting what a patent actually consists of, and what studies they do to get their "patented pharmaceuticals." And I do use the quotes purposefully.

[trotsky]

18. "Some are real, some are not."

Same can be said about your herbs and supplements. Yet you hate one industry and embrace the other, even though both are composed of companies looking to profit. Carry on.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. But the only threatened products are my herbs, not BIG PHARMA's pharmaceuticals.

Do you see what I mean, or not?

[trotsky]

21. I see only double standards.

You want one industry to be regulated, and another be allowed to act freely without oversight.

If you are OK with your double standard, so be it. But that's what it is.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. One set of co.'s uses plants. The others use some decent drugs, and lots of bullshit drugs.

Pharma drugs these days consist of the same drugs as before, but in order to continue to charge through the nose, they add an innocuous or not so innocuous product, give it a new name, claim it does something slightly different, hire a lab to say that it does marvellous things, get the patent, and sell the same damned thing as before, but instead of for $10, they sell it for $250.

This is not me making this up. This is common knowledge and the word of my physician nephew, who now works 'in the industry.'

Natural supplements that I buy, are herbs for $6.95 and $8.00 a bottle.

The amount in lobbying money, of course, that gets spread around by the pharma companies is shocking, and they lobby their own former CEOs placed in the FDA, where they now sit, trying to ban natural supplements.

But of course, to you pharma companies are admirable.

Not to me.

[trotsky]

27. I see a lot of opinion being thrown out as fact, trying to justify your double standard.

First, your false statement should be addressed: supplement companies do NOT just "use plants." They chemically extract and sometimes synthesize ingredients too. You are aware of this, right?

Second, the argument here is not about pharma companies sometimes "reformulating" an existing product to skirt patents expiring. That is a red herring to this discussion.

Natural supplements that I buy, are herbs for $6.95 and $8.00 a bottle.

How much does it cost the companies to make them? What's the percentage profit? Do they make money or not? Are they motivated to make more money or not? And I noticed you never did answer my questions in post #15. As long as someone is making something that they claim will improve your health or treat a condition, I think they should be regulated to make sure their claim is accurate. I don't care if that is a supplement manufacturer or an international pharmaceutical company.

But of course, to you pharma companies are admirable.

And that is an unwarranted, unjustified, personal attack. It has NO PLACE in this discussion.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

34. It's an attack to say that you think pharma companies are admirable? Interesting!

You do think they are admirable. Or else why are you defending them? Just to argue?

[trotsky]

38. That's the thing. I'm not defending them.

I'm trying to find out why you think one large industry that manufactures products that you are going to put into your body to make yourself healthy shouldn't be regulated, whereas another one should. I think they BOTH should. I'm consistent. Why aren't you?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. And I'm explaining to you that the pharma industries are far more heinous and trying to kill off

the natural supplement industry, spending huge amounts of money to do so, and that lots of people take herbs (which are FOOD), and want to continue taking them. And you're arguing with me.

[trotsky]

49. Okey dokey.

You are fine with your double standard, I get it.

Personally I want capitalism regulated no matter what they're selling. You can choose to trust a business on your own, I suppose. Buyer beware.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. I want it regulated as well, but since nothing else is, why the hell regulate the herbs?

Oh forget it.

[HuckleB]

58. Uh, most of the health care system is regulated.

Why is the scam of the supplement industry not regulated? That makes no sense at all.

[trotsky]

64. Lots of things are regulated.

I think supplements should be too. You don't, because evidently you believe supplement manufacturers can be implicitly trusted, unlike just about every other capitalist venture in the free world. Good luck!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. But one patents products to make a MINT. The other merely sells what some sell in their backyard.

As I said, I don't have a backyard.

[trotsky]

22. One also patents products to recoup what one spent in R&D.

How much innovation would there be if the instant you invented something, someone else could just copy the design and sell it themselves?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. The difference is supplement companies sell me herbs at $6.95 a bottle....

the pharma companies lobby with money that makes our heads spin, get their former CEOs sitting on the FDA, where they now sit trying to ban natural supplement companies so they can sell those supplements with an added whatever and patent them and sell them for $250 a shot, and a huge number of their new patents are merely OLDER DRUGS with an added substance that does nothing, but still allows them to patent the damned thing.

According to my nephew, the pharma companies have not come out with anything truly 'new' in a while. They keep refabricating the same thing. Like taking a suit and redoing it every year. But they get to patent the redone suit every time and charge through the nose as if it were a new drug.

[trotsky]

29. I'm not interested in continuing the split thread.

Please keep your comments in the other branch.

[HuckleB]

62. Most of those "herbs" are far more costly than that, and they should be free.

They don't offer anything for the money you spend on them.

[BuddhaGirl]

28. and my FIL is dead thanks to pharmaceutically concocted garbage

Thankyouverymuch

[trotsky]

30. Yep and Coretta Scott King is dead because of herbal/alternative crap.

We can play this all day.

[BuddhaGirl]

33. and FAR more people die or are harmed by pharmaceutical drugs

...it's a fact.

[trotsky]

39. So you say.

And who could possibly question your knowledge of the cause of death of every person on the planet in history?

[BuddhaGirl]

45. um, look it up on the internets

:eyes:

[trotsky]

47. Because EVERYTHING you read on the Internets is true! n/t

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

41. Prescription drug deaths are the #2 biggest cause of 'accidental' death in the U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-prescription-drug-idUSTRE6350MR20100406

(Reuters Health) - More and more Americans are landing in the hospital due to poisoning by powerful prescription painkillers, sedatives and tranquilizers, according to a report released today. City-living middle-aged women seem particularly vulnerable....

"Unintentional poisoning is now the second leading cause of unintentional injury death in the US," Coben and colleagues note in their report. Among people 35 to 54 years old, unintentional poisoning surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of unintentional injury death in 2005...


and


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prescription-drug-deaths

[trotsky]

46. Key word: "Unintentional"

Just about anything can kill in the right dose. Even your special herbs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. You simply enjoy arguing even if fact is staring you in the face.

That being the case, it's a pointless exercise in futility to continue.

[trotsky]

56. The fact that any substance can be deadly in the right dose?

I'm not arguing that. You just don't believe it, apparently. Only stuff made by big evil pharma can kill. I wonder why any of us died before big pharma was invented and all we ate was natural foods and herbs.

[HuckleB]

59. And your credibility for any such claim is zero.

[BuddhaGirl]

65. yawwwwwnnn

It concerns me not what you think. I know the truth.

[HuckleB]

68. You think you know "the truth."

You've proven that the truth is not an actual concern for you, far too many times for anyone to take you seriously.

[BuddhaGirl]

69. that's your opinion

however faulty it may be :hi:

[HuckleB]

72. No, that's what the evidence indicates.

[BuddhaGirl]

73. the evidence that supports your preconceived notions

Got it! :thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

75. You seem to want to believe that, but that is where you miss the point.

You've never come to close to showing this claim, while you've repeatedly shown that you do just that.

Are you that dishonest, or that blind?

[BuddhaGirl]

77. dishonest or blind?

really now, insults?

Seems to be a pattern of yours...pfftt

[HuckleB]

78. I'm only stating your behavior.

That's not an insult. That's reality.

[BuddhaGirl]

92. In YOUR eyes...remember that

:-)

[HuckleB]

93. You keep telling yourself that.

I guess it allows you to ignore your own behavior.

Thanks for the kick, btw!

[BuddhaGirl]

94. no, it's just a much needed reminder for you

and you're welcome on both counts!

:toast:

[HuckleB]

95. You always remind me that your goal is to end all regulation and all genuine science.

In fact, that's so completely obvious, that I need no reminders, and yet you continue to offer them.

[BuddhaGirl]

97. you couldn't be more wrong...

but that never seems to stop you...carry on!

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

98. I'm quite correct, as you well know.

[BuddhaGirl]

99. Nope

not at all.

[HuckleB]

23. Your body did its job, while you wasted money on useless products.

Further, people have died because they spent time trying to "heal" themselves with useless products, instead of getting actual treatment.

Cut the crap.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. Actually, whenever you take pharma drugs, your body does its job DESPITE the poison you

put into it. Except for antibiotics, there's almost nothing pharma out there that does a curative job. Read up on it. Don't take MY word for it. You're taking my word for it, and it's making you angry. Do some research on your own and try to prove me wrong legitimately, not just as a gut reaction because you have some belief that pharma companies magically DO come up with curative drugs.

[trotsky]

31. So, I take it that leukemia now has a 90-95% cure rate...

because our bodies all try harder now? It has nothing at all to do with the "non-curative" drugs made by pharma?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. "New research conducted at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center shows..."

"New research conducted at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center shows that vitamin A cures as many as 33% of patients with a rare form of leukemia -- without using chemotherapy..."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/001123.html#ixzz1TVQzrwuc

[trotsky]

37. Cure rate with deadly big pharma drugs that do nothing is 90-95%.

Your red herring is meaningless.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. Yeah?!? Where does it say that? nt

[trotsky]

48. Here.

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=5b25e64c5b470110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. The survival rates without treatment, where are those? Are they also 5 years? nt

[trotsky]

57. I'm not going on an endless dig for stats for you.

The information is widely available.

[HuckleB]

60. Man, when you start digging yourself into a hole, you really don't stop, do you?

That's really your response? Wow.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

61. I'm out of this thread and blocking two of you. Bye.

[HuckleB]

63. So you push a dishonest scam, and offer dishonest nonsense over and over again...

... and then block those who call you on your nonsense?

That is funny.

[HuckleB]

54. You seem to think "research" is buying into the propaganda of scam artists.

Your post here is pure ideology. You've offered nothing but nonsense on this thread, and you want me to "prove" your claims wrong? Try proving any of your claims to be correct. That's how this works.

[BuddhaGirl]

32. I do care about evidence

but since it doesn't jive with your idea of "evidence" you dismiss it and engage in insult and derision. Bah - nobody cares.

Carry on!

[HuckleB]

55. You only care about evidence that coincides with your preconceived notions.

[BuddhaGirl]

66. the same as you

:hi:

[HuckleB]

67. Bzzzzzt.

Wrong answer.

:eyes:

[BuddhaGirl]

70. Bzzzzt

I'm sure you'll have another pithy reply :hi:

[HuckleB]

71. No reply necessary.

[BuddhaGirl]

74. okey dokey!

eom

[trotsky]

15. Just a couple of questions for you:

Do you think it's possible that a supplement company, intentionally or unintentionally, might have a variance in the potency of their products?

If so, would you like to know if that happens?

That's regulation, you know. Being forced to sell what you claim you're selling.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. Of course. I have a friend that grows herbs and puts them in capsules, and when she does...

there is somewhat of a variance in the potencies, because they are not drugs, they are actual plants, as in food.

[trotsky]

40. That's a nice story.

What about the companies that manufacture supplements, which was what I asked about?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Look at my other posts. The answer is there. nt

[trotsky]

50. No it's not. n/t

[trotsky]

14. Now just a gol durned second.

Are you telling me that the supplement industry is out for profit just like any other business? That they AREN'T just a bunch of caring hippies who only want to pick herbs and cure disease for people for free?

NO WAY!

[astral]

81. I am truly afraid of what is going to happen.

The new regulations will make it impossible for us to buy ANYTHING at all to help our own health, because the study contingencies required are so extremely expensive that no company can afford to do them.

If you don't believe it matters what we eat, or that our health has anything to do with what we ingest, you will be perfectly happy to see this take place. You already are doing what you plan to do with your health and the rest of us don't have any right to do MORE for ourselves than you choose to do for yourself.

After all, there's been a drug invented for everything that ails us.....

We don't want to PREVENT disease, God forbid!

[laconicsax]

82. Should we take steps to ensure that what we ingest is safe and is what we're told it is?

I'll bet you would want for a fish oil tablet to 1)actually contain the amount of fish oil stated on the label and 2)be uncontaminated by mercury.

As it is, Big Supplement doesn't have to do either. This is one reason why regulation is needed.

[HuckleB]

85. No.

End government regulation NOW!

[astral]

86. Obviously I want to have accurate labeling.

I don't know what "Big Supplement" is, that's kinda cute. I know a lot of supplments are not what they claim to be. The new law is going to take everything away from us. Is there another way between total regulation of everything with nothing allowed that hasn't been approved by the FDA, and total lack of regulation where the very definition of "organic" has been changed to allow genetically modified substances?

Here's the latest, Dimond Nuts isn't allowed to say walnuts have omega-3 fatty acids, good for the heart, unless they want their walnuts classified as a 'drug.'

There are plenty of scientific studies and medical doctors who agree on the value of walnuts, but the FDA doesn't allow anyone selling walnuts to claim they are good for anything.

This isn't just the direction we are GOING in, this is where we are NOW.

Wake up and smell the coffee. We have to fight for our right to decide what we eat and drink. I don't see that as a controversial issue. I really don't.

[laconicsax]

88. Sorry, not buying the scaremongering.

I notice that you stayed away from the issue of regulating quality.

Do you want supplement companies to have to have exactly what they say, in the quantities they say, and without contaminants? Accuracy in labeling only affects part of that.

[astral]

90. I am totally in favor of regulating quality, and agree that this is not happening now.

What we are facing is regulation of what natural living plants that grow on the planet we are going to be allowed to access. We of course can go find them ourselves and grow our own (well that is not always true either) but we would not be able to buy them anywhere because nobody would be allowed to sell them to us.

The Frito-Lay comparison is too funny but only because it is tragically true. The FDA doesn't care if Frito Lay makes health claims but we better not hear any for WALNUTS and CHERRIES?

Pray tell, which of these substances is safer and healthier to eat, in your opinion?

NOT TO WORRY, nobody will be banning any Frito-Lay chips!

[laconicsax]

91. If Frito-Lay made health claims, they'd be subject to the same rules that prohibit such actions.

In other words, your argument is a straw man.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eShirl]

83. What a surprise.