US Congress: Ron Paul Introduces Health Information Independence Act
Congressman Ron Paul introduced, on 18 March 2004, a bill in the US Congress, which would reform the way the FDA assesses health information that manufacturers wish to give on the labels of foods and supplements. A similar bill had been introduced by Paul in the last session of Congress, little more than a year ago.
The idea is that foods, and in particular nutritional supplements, do have immense influence on our health, and choice of food or certain nutrients could be assisted by the general availability of breaking scientific information on the useful properties of certain nutrients and foods.
So far, the FDA has kept an extremely strict control on what may be said about foods' health properties, limiting what can be said to what science, after decades, has finally agreed on as no longer to be denied - such things as "Calcium is good for the bones".
The bill would establish a mechanism for independent scientific review of health information the FDA believes should not be allowed.
Ron Paul's bill comes at a time when similar legislation is being considered for Europe, although the proposal for a European Health Claims directive seems to be going in a much more restrictive direction.
From Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx)
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act. This act restores the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Health Information Independence Act restricts the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) power to impede consumers' access to truthful claims regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements to those cases where the FDA has evidence that a product poses a threat to safety and well-being or that a product does not have a disclaimer informing consumers that the claims are not FDA-approved.
Claims that could threaten public safety, or that are marketed without a disclaimer, would have to be reviewed by an independent review board, comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. However, anyone who is, or has ever been, on the FDA's payroll is disqualified from serving on the board. The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim, then the FDA must approve the claim.
The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting a disclaimer, before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds that the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer, then the board must approve the claim provided the claim is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that "scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive" and/or "these claims are not approved by the FDA." Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society.
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access.
In 1994, Congress responded to the American people's desire for greater access to information about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), that liberalized rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh'g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers' First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson decision anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.
In the years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of "asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.''The FDA's "grocery store censorship" not only violates consumers' First Amendment rights, but, by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements, the FDA's polices are preventing consumers form taking easy steps to improve their own health!
If Congress is serious about respecting First Amendment rights, and the people's right to act to improve their own health, we must remove the FDA's authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers' First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.Health Information Independence Act (Introduced in House)
HR 4004 IH
108th CONGRESS2d Session
H. R. 4004
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a system independent of the Food and Drug Administration for the review of health claims, to define health claims, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMarch 18, 2004
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
--------------------------------------------------------A BILL
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a system independent of the Food and Drug Administration for the review of health claims, to define health claims, and for other purposes.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Health Information Independence Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Access to accurate information at the point of sale concerning the effect of nutrients on disease is indispensable to the exercise of informed consumer choice in the marketplace and to the health and welfare of the American people.
(2) In 1999, 2000, and 2001, Federal courts have held that Food and Drug Administration suppression of nutrient-disease information is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(3) Despite those holdings and despite the courts' orders, the Food and Drug Administration continues to suppress nutrient-disease information that could improve public health, reduce the costs of health care, and promote the welfare of the American people.
(4) The history of the Food and Drug Administration review of nutrient-disease relationships reveals a strong and unscientific bias against food and dietary supplement health claims in direct violation of the constitutional mandates of Federal courts and the intent of Congress.
(5) The Food and Drug Administration favors suppression of health claims over disclosure, despite court imposed constitutional requirements to the contrary.
(6) To ensure that health claims are evaluated rationally, fairly, and in compliance with constitutional requirements and the intent of Congress, the federal government must be denied authority to deny the public access to health information absent probable cause that the claims are untrue, misleading or pose a danger to human health and jurisdiction over health claims evaluation must be removed from the Food and Drug Administration and placed in the hands of Independent Scientific Reviewers who do not harbor a bias against food and dietary supplement health claims.
SEC. 3. AUTHORITY FOR MAKING HEALTH CLAIMS.
(a) Limitation on Agency Authority to Restrict Distribution- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, the Federal Government shall have no authority to restrict the distribution of any dietary supplement or other nutritional food on the basis that the manufacturer is making health claims unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration if--
(1) the product has a label clearly stating that its health claims are not FDA approved; and
(2) such Administration lacks evidence establishing probable cause that the claims contain misleading information posing a threat to the safety and well-being of those who use such product.
(b) Independent Review of Agency Determination of Existence of Probable Cause- In the event that the Food and Drug Administration determines that there is probable cause that the claims for a dietary supplement or other nutritional food contain misleading information posing a threat to the safety and well-being of those who use such product, such Administration shall, before acting against the product carrying the allegedly offensive claims, submit the claims to review before an independent review board as described in the following sections of this Act.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(nn) The term `Independent Scientific Reviewer' means a person who--
`(1) holds a Ph.D., an M.D., or both, and has been employed full-time for at least the past 5 consecutive years as a professor or assistant or associate professor in a department of medicine, biochemistry, epidemiology, pharmacology, pharmacognosy, or nutrition at a university that is accredited by an organization recognized by the Department of Education of the United States;
`(2) has never been employed by, and has never been contracted to do work for, the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency or office of the Department of Health and Human Services (except to review health claim petitions under section 403D);
`(3) has never been employed by, and has never been contracted to do work for, the health claim petitioner;
`(4) signs an oath pledging to evaluate the health claim petition provided to him or her by the Secretary in strict accordance with the criteria specified in section 403D;
`(5) signs an oath pledging not to discuss with any person the fact that he or she is reviewing the health claim petition or the substance of the petition or the substance of the evaluation before the results of the scientific review are supplied in a complete written evaluation to the Secretary;
`(6) signs an oath pledging to supply complete copies of all publicly available scientific evidence reviewed along with a complete written evaluation of the health claim to the Secretary no later than 180 days after receipt of the health claim petition from the Secretary; and
`(7) signs an oath pledging to exercise independent professional judgment, free of any external influence and any unscientific bias that might interfere with the objective evaluation of the health claim.'.
SEC. 5. HEALTH CLAIMS.
Section 403(r) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(r)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (A)--
(i) by striking `food intended' and inserting `food or dietary supplement intended'; and
(ii) by striking `food which' and inserting `food or dietary supplement which'; and
(B) in clause (B)--
(i) by inserting after `health-related condition' the following: `(including any statement that the nutrient prevents, treats, or cures a disease)'; and
(ii) by striking `or (5)(D)';
(2) in subparagraph (3), by amending clause (B) to read as follows:
`(B)(i) The Secretary shall promulgate no later than 30 days after receiving an evaluation from an Independent Scientific Reviewer regulations that authorize use on labels and in labeling of all claims of the type described in subparagraph (1)(B) recommended for approval by the Independent Scientific Reviewer together with such disclaimer or disclaimers as the Independent Scientific Reviewer may also recommend.
`(ii) The duties of the Secretary described in subclause (i) are nondelegable and may be discharged only by the Secretary.';
(3) by striking subparagraph (4) and redesignating subparagraph (5) as subparagraph (4); and
(4) in subparagraph (4) (as so redesignated), by striking clause (D).
SEC. 6. INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW.
Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 403C the following new section:
`SEC. 403D. INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW.
`(a) Invitations to Participate- No later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the Health Information Independence Act, and every 180-days thereafter, the Secretary shall send to every department of medicine, biochemistry, epidemiology, pharmacology, pharmacognosy, and nutrition at every university that is accredited by an organization recognized by the Secretary of Education a notice and invitation to participate, stating the following:
`(1) Scientists employed by the university in its departments of medicine, biochemistry, epidemiology, pharmacology, pharmacognosy, or nutrition who possess a Ph.D. or an M.D., or both, and have been either a full-time professor or a full-time assistant or associate professor for at least the past 5 consecutive years are invited to apply to the Secretary to be Independent Scientific Reviewers in assessing health claims made without a label clearing stating its health claims are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration or such Administration has evidence establishing probable cause that the claims contain misleading information posing a threat to the safety and well-being of those who use the product. Health claims are statements of nutrient-disease association.
`(2) Scientists who qualify to be Independent Scientific Reviewers will be selected at random by the Secretary to review all publicly available scientific evidence on a particular nutrient-disease association, must supply copies of all evidence reviewed to the Secretary, and must supply a written evaluation of that evidence and the health claim to the Secretary no later than 180 days after receipt of the health claim petition. The Independent Scientific Reviewer shall state whether the claim is supported by scientific evidence and is, therefore, recommended for approval. The Independent Scientific Reviewer should only conclude that the health claim is not supported by scientific evidence, and, therefore, not recommended for approval, if the reviewer finds--
`(A) no credible scientific evidence supporting the claim; and
`(B) no disclaimer that could accompany the claim that could eliminate any potentially misleading connotation conveyed by the claim.
Recommended disclaimers must be accurate and concise. Disclaimers should reveal the extent of support for the claim by stating whether evidence in support of the claim is less than conclusive, e.g., that evidence in support of the claim is preliminary and inconclusive, suggestive but not conclusive, or generally accepted but not yet proven to a conclusive degree.
`(3) Independent Scientific Reviewers must complete their reviews within 180 days of receipt of a health claim petition from the Secretary.
`(4) To qualify to be an Independent Scientific Reviewer you must certify in writing under penalty of perjury that--
`(A) you hold a Ph.D., an M.D., or both, and have been employed full-time for at least the past 5 consecutive years as a professor, assistant professor, or associate professor in a department of medicine, biochemistry, epidemiology, pharmacology, pharmacognosy, or nutrition at a university that is accredited by an organization recognized by the Department of Education of the United States;
`(B) you have never been employed by, and have never been contracted to do work for, the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency or office of the Department of Health and Human Services (except to review health claim petitions) or for the health claim petitioner;
`(C) you will evaluate any health claim petition submitted to you in strict accordance with the criteria specified in section 403D;
`(D) you will not discuss with any person the fact that you are reviewing the health claim petition or the substance of the petition or the substance of the evaluation before you submit a complete written evaluation of the health claim to the Secretary;
`(E) you will complete your review of the health claim petition and will supply your complete written evaluation of it along with all scientific evidence reviewed to the Secretary no later than 180 days after receipt of the health claim petition from the Secretary; and
`(F) you will exercise independent professional judgment, free of any external influence and any unscientific bias that might interfere with the objective evaluation of the health claim.
`(5) Failure to abide by the above rules will result in disbarment from the Independent Scientific Review program and disallowance of all compensation for any review undertaken.
`(b) Confirmation of Independent Scientific Reviewer Status- No later than 30 days after the Secretary determines that a health claim meets the criteria established in section 3 of the Health Information Independence Act for government approval, including the certifications required under subsection (a)(4) of this section, from a person who seeks to serve as an Independent Scientific Reviewer, the Secretary shall notify that person whether he or she satisfies the qualification criteria specified in such subsection and is, thereby, eligible to be selected to serve as an Independent Scientific Reviewer.
`(c) Random Selection of Independent Scientific Reviewer to Evaluate Health Claim- Not later than 15 days after the Secretary determines that a health claim meets the criteria established in section 3 of the Health Information Independence Act for government approval, the Secretary shall select an Independent Scientific Reviewer at random and shall provide that person with a complete copy of the health claim petition for evaluation. The Secretary shall not reveal the name of the Independent Scientific Reviewer to the public or to the health claim petitioner until after the Secretary receives from the Independent Scientific Reviewer all publicly available scientific evidence reviewed and a complete evaluation of the health claim.
`(d) All Publicly Available Scientific Evidence Shall Be Reviewed- Upon receipt of a health claim petition, the Independent Scientific Reviewer shall acquire and evaluate all publicly available scientific evidence relevant to the claim. The Independent Scientific Reviewer shall determine whether credible scientific evidence supports the health claim.
`(e) Every Health Claim Shall Be Recommended for Approval That Is Supported by Credible Scientific Evidence- If the Independent Scientific Reviewer finds that credible scientific evidence supports the health claim, the Independent Scientific Reviewer shall recommend to the Secretary that the health claim be approved. If the Independent Scientific Reviewer finds the scientific evidence in support of the claim less than conclusive, suggestive but not conclusive, preliminary and inconclusive, or generally accepted but not yet proven to a conclusive degree, or if the Independent Scientific Reviewer finds the claim to convey a potentially misleading connotation, the Independent Scientific Reviewer shall also recommend that the health claim be approved accompanied by a concise disclaimer carefully worded to render the claim nonmisleading.
`(f) Health Claims not Recommended for Approval- If the Independent Scientific Reviewer finds that no credible scientific evidence supports the health claim and that no disclaimer can eliminate a misleading connotation conveyed by the claim, then the Independent Scientific Reviewer shall recommend that the Secretary not approve the health claim.
`(g) Compensation for Independent Scientific Reviewers and Sanctions for Noncompliance- The Secretary shall pay each Independent Scientific Reviewer the sum of $40,000 no later than 60 days after the Secretary receives all publicly available scientific evidence reviewed and a complete evaluation of the health claim. If the Secretary finds that the Independent Scientific Reviewer has submitted a false certification under subsection (a)(4), the Secretary may debar the Independent Scientific Reviewer from the Independent Scientific Review program and shall refrain from paying the $40,000 fee.'.
SEC. 7. LEGAL EFFECT OF HEALTH CLAIM RECOMMENDATION BY INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEWERS.
Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as amended by section 6 of this Act, is amended by inserting after section 403D the following new section:
`SEC. 403E. LEGAL EFFECT OF HEALTH CLAIM RECOMMENDATIONS.
`(a) Secretary's Response to Health Claim Evaluations by Independent Scientific Reviewers- No later than 30 days after the Secretary receives from an Independent Scientific Reviewer copies of all publicly available scientific evidence reviewed and a complete written evaluation of a health claim, the Secretary shall--
`(1) make the evaluation and all scientific evidence reviewed publicly available; and
`(2) publish in the Federal Register as a final and binding order of the Department of Health and Human Services the recommendation of the Independent Scientific Reviewer verbatim and without any alteration in content whatsoever, including the claim, whether the claim is approved or disapproved, the reasons therefor, and whether the claim must be accompanied by a disclaimer and the content of the disclaimer, and the reasons therefor.
`(b) Order on Health Claims Recommendations of Independent Scientific Reviewers Immediately Appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit- Any health claim petitioner, or any other aggrieved party, may file an appeal for review of an order of the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 90 days of the date of publication of the order in the Federal Register.'.
SEC. 8. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS.
(a) Costs of Implementation- All costs associated with implementing this Act shall be borne by the Department of Health and Human Services from its existing budget.
(b) Offsets- This Act eliminates the need for the Food and Drug Administration to review health claim petitions for foods and dietary supplements. No later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall eliminate staff, reduce operating expenses, and maximize cost savings in the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to offset the costs of implementing this Act.
SEC. 9. DEFINITION REGARDING DISTINCTION BETWEEN FOOD AND DRUGS.
Section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)) is amended in clause (B) by inserting `(other than food, including dietary supplements)' after `articles'.
- - -
See also:Food and health information
On the one hand, governments say we can get all the nutrients we need for health from our normal foods, on the other, they make sure no one knows which foods really do contain important nutrients by muzzling the vendors. Here's a piece about healthy cherries...
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday March 25 2004
updated on Friday December 10 2010URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/03/25/us_congress_ron_paul_introduces_health_information_independence_act.htm
Related ArticlesSouth Africa Opposes Codex Rule on Food Health Information
The international food standard setting body, Codex Alimentarius has been deliberating a giudeline to determine what information food product labels may contain. The draft guideline, which is ready to be adopted at the next meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Geneva, Switzerland, to be held from 28 June to 3 July 2004, says that no information may be given regarding any food's effects for the prevention, alleviation or cure... [read more]
June 12, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerThe Worst Is Still To Come (Codex Report - Bonn 2005)
..."the CCNFSDU remains a significant danger to the future of natural healthcare and health freedom. Specifically, the pro-pharmaceutical lobby want to see the NRVs to be set at, or near to, RDA levels, thus weakening the arguments in favour of dietary supplements; the Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims to as far as possible prevent the communication of lifesaving information by dietary supplement manufacturers; the Discussion Paper on... [read more]
January 04, 2006 - Chris GuptaSugar: FAO Scientific Consultation In Doubt - Financed by Sugar Industry
Sugar is a refined carbohydrate devoid of all the nutrients necessary to assimilate and metabolise it in the human body. It is a net robber of nutrients. That means, for each gram of sugar we eat our body needs to utilize vitamins and minerals obtained from other foods - just to metabolize the sugar and unlock its energy potential. Sugar, in other words, is a positively unhealthy food. Who would... [read more]
October 09, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerCodex: Labelling Committee Asked to Allow Information on Food Preventive Effects
The Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling in its recent meeting in Montreal, Canada, heard a proposal of the Republic of South Africa, to re-think its rules which prohibit food manufacturers saying or implying that a food may aid in the prevention or cure of a disease. Although various foods clearly do prevent and even cure diseases, any claims for such effects are strictly limited to pharmaceutical products registered as... [read more]
May 25, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerEuropean Health Legislation, Codex And The Sustainability Of Health Care
Brussels has been busy "adjusting" EU food and medicine laws for several years now, bringing increasingly onerous controls for natural products - notably herbs and food supplements. Some observers have criticized these moves as designed to give an unfair advantage to "conventional", pharma-based medicine and will cut across preventive health strategies. Prevention is high on the agenda, but official strategies are largely limited to avoiding and killing off germs. Nutritional... [read more]
April 20, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerFDA Censorship: Freedom on Trial
In Canada, sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Food and Drugs Act prohibits telling the truth in informational and advertising as published by mainstream science about the effectiveness of food supplements in the treatments of a wide range of health conditions. See: Use (Abuse) of Regulations to Protect Pharma Monopoly FDA accused of suppressing drug safety information (commentary) Similar rules exist in Europe and Australia as well. Chris Gupta ------------------------... [read more]
August 01, 2005 - Chris Gupta
