If passed and signed into law, the Health Freedom
Protection Act, H.R. 4282, will provide cancer patients with the right to be told of potential health benefits regarding
vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. As it stands now, it is against the law for a company to provide any
treatment claims or refer to any relevant scientific evidence proving the effectiveness of a nutrient, herb or
supplement that they manufacture or sell. An excellent example of this restriction is made in the case of curcumin. As stated in the March issue of CancerWire, there are over 500 scientific articles about curcumin and cancer. Curcumin, also known as turmeric, has been shown to be effective in protecting against colon cancer. However, a curcumin manufacturer or distributor can run into serious trouble with the law by sharing this information with a customer who is fighting colon cancer.
Cancer Monthly interviewed attorney Jonathan Emord who practices food and drug law, deceptive advertising law, and libel law. Mr. Emord supports the Health Freedom Protection Act. I am going to share one of the statements he made during the interview that might stun you, as it did me, "Right now FDA censors EVERY nutrient-disease treatment claim. The FDA now prohibits companies from giving to consumers peer-reviewed articles by independent scientists and institutions if they concern the role of a nutrient in treating a disease, including the government's own scientific publications on the role of nutrients in treating disease."
Here is the stunning part of the interview. Emord goes on to say, "Dr. David Graham, the senior FDA drug safety officer explains that on dozens of occasions, FDA allowed into the market unsafe drugs, knowing that deaths would result -- all because it aimed to protect the economic interests of the drug companies that sponsored the drugs." And yet, a company cannot make any claims to the public that curcumin might offer cancer prevention benefits? I checked on H.R. 4282, and it appears there has been no activity on this bill since November 2005.
I do not want to go back to the days where snake oil salesmen traveled from town to town duping the vulnerable out of their hard-earned cash. But this is the 21st century of information-rich, consumer-savvy grown-ups capable of making informed decisions. In my opinion, we do not need big brother protecting us from ourselves. Your opinion?
1. The writer of this article, and I guess this blog, is clearly very unaware of the reasons for this law. It also seems clear that the writer is neither a scientest nor is the writer aware of the academic and statistical scrutiny any substance must go through, in order to be considered a drug and/or to be marketed to the american public as nutrionally beneficial. This law actually protects the consumer. The reason you might ask? Certainly there are numerous articles concerning the effect of Tumeric as an anti cancer agent useful in the treatment of Colon cancer. Some of these articles have even been peer reviewed, and potentially some of these substances may be in the position to make it through the rigourous FDA clinical trials. However a clinical study on the treatment effects of tumeric has not been undertaken, and no significant results concerning the efficacy of this substance have been obtained. Furthermore this FDAs shielding and control over what marketing is allowed to print on a box or put in an Ad campain is a far cry from censorship. The information concerning the efficacy of Tumeric is open and freely available to the public, just goto Pubmed and search and read to your desire. As for the claim of collusion between the FDA and Pharmaceuticals about the passing of "unsafe" drugs to hit the market, this claim is specultation. It may or may not be true, however it is a wholly seperate issue. Drugs HAVE hit the market which are potentially unsafe to the user. However these drugs have also proven to be significantly therapeutic. Sometimes potential benefits outweigh side effects in the approval of a drug. Finally a note about the law. I do not disagree that a change needs to be made, more money needs to be spent on clinical studies as opposed to pre-clinical trials. More channels of information need to be opened between the scientific community and the public. However repealing this law could have devastating effects. Like what you ask? $50/lB for anti-cancer blue berries, false advertising and a loss of accountability between industry and consumers. This is America not Eden industry, even your friendly tumeric farmer, will skin and sell your hide for a buck, and they would certainly lie or misrepresent information to you, if it means you would buy and/or pay more.
Posted at 7:36PM on Apr 7th 2006 by gwthm