Pharma sell-outs: Lawmakers once again taking aim at supplements, looking to ban them over ‘health concerns’
By JD Heyes // Jan 05, 2023

Because they don't apparently think there are any other problems in the country, like high food prices, an out-of-control border, falling 401(k) accounts, or woke curriculum in our public schools, a group of lawmakers are once again looking to ban health supplements.

"If this proposed legislation passes, more than 41,000 nutritional supplements could vanish from store and internet shelves. Crafted and ramrodded by ... two senators, this act would cripple small companies and turn nutritional supplements into near-worthless pharmaceutical products," The Epoch Times reported this week.

"In April 2022, Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Mike Braun, R-Ind., introduced the Dietary Supplement Listing Act of 2022. The Act would require supplement makers to provide information about their products to the FDA," the outlet added.

According to the report, here is a sampling of what the legislation would create if it passes:

-- A federal database for dietary supplements, requiring manufacturers to submit reams of information to the Food and Drug Administration (which would no doubt be used to shut them down over 'false claims' at some point);

-- Mandatory Product Listing, or MPL, for all dietary supplements as a means of allowing the FDA to know which products are currently on the market and the ingredients in them;

-- A redundancy in regulatory control that is problematic and burdensome, especially for smaller companies;

-- It would give the FDA the power to ban supplements from the market altogether;

-- The MPL requirement could make it easier for the FDA to acquire premarket approval authority, which would fundamentally change consumer access to supplements;

-- Concentrate the industry into fewer companies, as multinationals including Nestle, Bayer, Unilever, Proctor & Gamble, and Clorox have been snatching up supplement companies at an increasingly fast pace (in 2018 there were 83 transactions but that rose to 137 by 2021).

The Epoch Times noted further:

The U.S. supplement market was valued at $48.4 billion in 2021, with an expected compounded annual growth rate of 8.9%. In the U.S., where 80% of Americans use dietary supplements, the industry is viewed as trustworthy by the majority of adults (79%). However, access to high-quality supplements is continually being threatened by legislation, along with corporate mergers and acquisitions.

Proposed legislation is calling for a federal database for dietary supplements, which could pave the way for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to gain premarket approval power — changing access to supplements as we know it.

Much of what the legislation would require is already being done, making this bill not just redundant but unnecessary -- another hint that there is a nefarious purpose behind it (think big government nanny state).

"The information that MPL would require is already available via existing sources, including facility registrations and product labels, which include ingredients and dosing information readily available for the public to see. The National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database also contains some supplement label information," the outlet's report continued.

According to Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA), in an interview with Nutritional Outlook, “We keep … wonder[ing] why the reporting requirement is so redundant. It requires submission of not just the label but also a whole bunch of information that’s already on the label … You gotta ask this question: Should American taxpayers pay for two databases?"

The answer, of course, is no.

Daniel Fabricant, president and CEO of the Natural Products Association (NPA), also told Nutritional Outlook: “The thing is, if the safeguards were there” — meaning language built into the bill to clearly state that the law doesn’t let FDA reject any database submissions — “they would be specifically spelled out. They would say, ‘Hey, nothing in this act would allow the Secretary to remove an ingredient that isn’t the subject of final agency action.'"

He added: "Now, if the goal is something else, well then people need to be honest about what that goal is."

Sources include:

Take Action:
Support NewsTarget by linking to this article from your website.
Permalink to this article:
Embed article link:
Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use is permitted with credit to (including a clickable link).
Please contact us for more information.
Free Email Alerts
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more. © 2022 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

This site uses cookies
News Target uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy.
Learn More
Get 100% real, uncensored news delivered straight to your inbox
You can unsubscribe at any time. Your email privacy is completely protected.