Last March, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced a bill, S. 722, titled the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003, that would expand the FDA's power to remove nutritional supplements from the market. It would not only require manufacturers to report adverse events or reactions to the federal government, but also ask for premarket approval for dietary supplements containing stimulants. As written, the bill would also categorize products promoting muscle growth as anabolic steroids rather than as dietary supplements, thus requiring expensive testing protocols before they can be sold.

In short the bill would apply to nutritional supplements standards similar to those applied to drugs in cases where adverse effects are reported. New pharmaceutical products incur millions of dollars of costs for proof of safety and efficacy, which makes sense - most drugs contain synthetic substances never before encountered by human physiology. But applying those same standards to nutritional supplements, as S. 722 proposes, would generate costs entirely inappropriate for substances that are, for the most part, more food-like than drug-like.

What was Durbin thinking?

He was thinking about ephedra. It's true that ephedra appears to have been over-marketed and abused. And there appears to be justification for regulating it. It has resulted in several adverse reactions, including heart attacks, strokes, and at least two deaths. But it is quite a stretch to equate the isolated instances of ephedra's side effects with those of all nutritional supplements. And it would be a shame if a few products that are arguably risky take down most of our freedoms to use the supplements of our choice.

Why didn't the FDA simply pull ephedra from the market if the safety of this substance was in doubt? It could have been done under existing laws.

According to a 2002 report by the Washington, D.C.-based Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the use of multi-vitamins, antioxidants, folic acid, calcium, and other nutritional supplements could reduce the incidence of neural tube birth defects by 50 percent, osteoporosis - caused hip fractures by at least 20 percent, and sick days due to infectious diseases in the elderly by 50 percent. The CRN reports that nutritional therapies could delay the onset of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and osteoporosis by five years, potentially saving $89 billion a year in health care costs.

A part of that $89 billion now being spent goes straight into the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. So it's no surprise that a powerful lobby is making the case for this bill, which would restrict our access to some of our best, most cost-effective health care tools. Fortunately, the pharmaceutical companies don't always get what they want.

Please do what you can to derail Durbin's bill. With conventional prescription medicine pricing itself out of the market, there is no question as to who would hold the upper hand in the long run. If S. 722 passes, it will be an unpopular disaster, and most Americans will realize that quickly enough. Let's make sure it never happens.

S. 722 must be stopped. Write or fax your senator today, using the following letter, or your own version.