<DOC> [108th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:93725.wais] 10 YEARS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DSHEA: THE STATUS OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND WELLNESS of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MARCH 24, 2004 __________ Serial No. 108-146 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ 93-725 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------ ------ PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------ KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent) Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida (Independent) ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Ex Officio TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Mark Walker, Chief of Staff Mindi Walker, Professional Staff Member Danielle Perraut, Clerk Richard Butcher, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on March 24, 2004................................... 1 Statement of: Brackett, Robert, Ph.D, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services............................... 41 Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois................................................... 11 Micozzi, Marc, M.D., Ph.D., Director, Policy Institute for Integrative Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital; David Seckman, executive director and CEO, National Natural Foods Association; Annette Dickinson, Ph.D., president, Council for Responsible Nutrition; Douglas C. Rose, president, Irwin R. Rose and Co., Inc.; and Alan Dumoff, J.D., M.S.W., American Association for Health.............. 70 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Brackett, Robert, Ph.D, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, prepared statement of........ 44 Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of.......................... 4 Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 130 Dickinson, Annette, Ph.D., president, Council for Responsible Nutrition, prepared statement of........................... 93 Dumoff, Alan, J.D., M.S.W., American Association for Health, prepared statement of...................................... 107 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, prepared statement of....................... 15 Micozzi, Marc, M.D., Ph.D., Director, Policy Institute for Integrative Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, prepared statement of...................................... 72 Rose, Douglas C., president, Irwin R. Rose and Co., Inc., prepared statement of...................................... 118 Seckman, David, executive director and CEO, National Natural Foods Association, prepared statement of................... 83 10 YEARS AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DSHEA: THE STATUS OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES ---------- WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman of the subcommittee) Presiding. Present: Representatives Burton and Watson. Also present: Representative Davis of California. Staff present: Mark Walker, chief of staff; Mindi Walker and Brian Fauls, professional staff members; Nick Mutton, press secretary; Danielle Perraut, clerk; Sarah Despres, minority counsel; Richard Butcher, minority professional staff member; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager. Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness will come to order. And I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witness' written and opening statements be included in the record. And, without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits, extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in record. Without objection, so ordered. Today, the subcommittee has the honor of being joined on the dais by my colleague Congresswoman Susan Davis from California along with my ranking member, Ms. Watson. We have a guest who is very welcome, a former Member of the House, Senator Durbin. So, Senator Durbin, we will welcome you to the witness chair. And if you would give me just a second to make a statement here, we will get started. The subcommittee is convening today to discuss the Federal Government's implementation and status of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, commonly referred to as DSHEA. To aid us in this dialog, the subcommittee will be hearing from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, dietary supplement industry leaders, medical professionals, and policy researchers regarding the impact of this law in the United States. I, along with millions of Americans, firmly believe that dietary supplements have been shown through research and historical use to be of immeasurable benefit to human health. That is why I proudly serve as co-chairman of the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Caucus in Congress, along with my colleague, Representative Dennis Kucinich, who everybody knows is running for President--of Ohio--and Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Tom Harkin of Iowa who have been true champions on the other side of the building. Given this role as well as my duties as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, I am particularly concerned with the status and implementation of the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act of 1994. This legislation has provided the framework for how the Federal Government ensures the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements sold in the United States. Prior to DSHEA, dietary supplements were treated and regulated as food products. Seeing a need for the Federal Government to address the American consumer's growing interest in dietary products and public safety, Congress overwhelmingly passed the DSHEA bill in 1994 to make sure that all dietary health products sold in the United States are held to the highest and safest quality standards. This legislation ensures the safety of dietary supplements by requiring manufacturers to follow standards called ``good manufacturing practices.'' Essentially, all ingredients in supplements sold in the United States must be previously approved by the FDA and listed on the bottle label, and distributors must follow strict guidelines on any claims that are made in regard to a particular product to provide consumers with the most accurate information on supplements. Additionally, if at any time the FDA decides that a particular product or dietary ingredient is detrimental to human health, it reserves the right to have those items removed from the marketplace. And that has happened. Now that we have reached the 10th anniversary of the enactment of this legislation, I found it necessary to conduct an oversight hearing to ensure that our Federal health agencies and the dietary supplement industry have maintained the integrity of this act so that Congress might consider ways in which the act could be improved and educate American consumers to the latest developments in dietary supplement policy and nutritional labeling practices. To explain in greater detail the status of DSHEA's implementation on the Federal Government level, the subcommittee has the pleasure of hearing, in addition to Senator Durbin, from the Honorable Robert Brackett, M.D., and Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, whom I met yesterday, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As Director of CFSAN, Dr. Brackett is directly responsible for overseeing the day-to-day implementation of DSHEA in the United States. And to provide insight into how DSHEA has affected the dietary supplement industry, the subcommittee will also be hearing from a good friend of mine, Mr. David Seckman, chairman and CEO of the National Natural Foods Association [NNFA], on these matters. Founded in 1936, even before I was born, the NNFA is the Nation's oldest and largest trade association in the natural products industry, and they represent over 5,000 retailers, manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of health-related products. The subcommittee will also be hearing testimony on the impact of DSHEA from Ms. Annette Dickinson, president of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, which represents many suppliers, manufacturers, and marketers of dietary supplements in the United States. In today's rapidly changing health care delivery system, many medical practitioners have combined traditional medical treatments with complementary and alternative medicine to create the discipline of ``integrative medicine'' in an effort to give more complete health care to their patients. And I go to one of those doctors. Dr. Marc Micozzi, director of the Policy Institute for Integrative Medicine at Thomas Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, PA, will testify before this subcommittee on the current research of the PIIM and how DSHEA has played a successful role in the integrative care of many American patients. The subcommittee will also hear from Alan Dumoff of the American Association for Health Freedom on these most important issues. As I stated before, dietary supplements have been shown through credible scientific research to provide substantial health benefits for the users. Mr. Doug Rose, a good friend of mine from Indianapolis, the great State of Indiana, and a businessman from our State, is here to discuss his experiences about the potential health benefits of folic acid, and how this supplement may decrease the likelihood of birth defects in children, such as Spina Bifida. From my own personal experience and observations over the last decades, the FDA's implementation and execution of DSHEA has generally provided the dietary supplement industry with the increased opportunity for competition, as well as easier access to safe health products for the millions of American consumers like me who use these products and supplements to maintain and improve their health. While no government program is perfect, I would like to congratulate all the men and women of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for their hard work over the years to put into place and strengthen the principles originally outlined in DSHEA 10 years ago. It is my sincere hope that this hearing will help point out the positive effects of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, while at the same time providing suggestions from our witnesses that could further improve this program to better accommodate U.S. health policymakers and supplement consumers many more years to come. And I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. And with that, Ms. Watson, do you have an opening statement? [The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.005 Ms. Watson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I feel that natural foods and supplements are very important to a healthy population. Natural foods and supplements are the completion of what I call the ``global circle.'' In the beginning of life we came from the Earth, and in death we return to the Earth. Natural foods and supplements come from the Earth and support the rhythm of nature. If one understands what should go into a body, then it is possible to live a healthier and more productive life. Breast milk nurtures an infant and promotes accelerated learning. Vitamins and minerals give cells and organs the proper building blocks for optimal performance. Herbs and trace elements have medicinal value and sickness-preventing properties. I have long believed that we need to put a greater emphasis on our health care system into prevention, wellness, and self- care. The natural foods and supplement industry can help more and more Americans take charge of their own health. They can assist our constituents in adopting healthier lifestyles that include a good diet, exercise, supplementation, and becoming more educated about all of the above. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act [DSHEA], is a very important piece of legislation. Prior to the enactment of DSHEA, the FDA regulated dietary supplements as food. Because manufacturers' claims are often promising and completely positive, Congress created guidelines to address supplement definitions, safety concerns, ingredient and nutrition labels, supplement claims, good manufacturing practices, and new dietary ingredients. In addition, DSHEA created a Supplement Commission and an Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health. In the oncoming educational process, our purpose today is to review its report card. Americans are very concerned about their health. Recent news about supplements containing ephedra and black cohosh have received national attention. Natural nutritions are nothing to be scared of, but they should be respected, treated with care, and used properly. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your foresight, and as chair, and myself as ranking member, of an appropriately named subcommittee, Human Rights and Wellness, I look forward to working with you and to hearing our witnesses as we promote a healthier America. Thank you very much. Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Watson. And I like your broach and earrings. Very pretty. That is not part of the program; I just thought somebody ought to tell her. Ms. Davis. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Burton and Ranking Member Watson, for convening this important hearing today. I am honored to be a part of it, and welcome the opportunity for some thoughtful dialog today. Dietary supplements, as we know, are readily available and appeal to many consumers who are looking to improve their health. Some supplements have very important health benefits, and I believe we are going to be talking about some of those today. Folic acid, for example, can prevent certain birth defects, and calcium is important for healthy bones. However, since the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act [DSHEA], 10 years ago, the market has grown considerably and now includes supplements for which there is little evidence of either benefit or, perhaps more troublesome, of safety. There are also potentially dangerous products out there right now. According to Bruce Silverglade from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a respected consumer group, ``The challenge for most consumers is to determine which supplements are beneficial and which are nothing more than 21st century snake oil, or even dangerous.'' Since coming to Congress, I have sought to provide the FDA and American consumers with information about both the benefits and the risks associated with other dietary supplements on the market. With the support of my colleagues, Representatives Waxman and Dingell, we introduced the Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act this fall. Our bill, H.R. 3377, addresses the gaps created by DSHEA to greater information exchange and accountability. And I understand that there are some individuals here who would like to comment on that, and I appreciate that. Some dietary supplements present a serious consumer protection and public health problem. The average citizen believes dietary supplements are safe because they are sold off the shelves of our convenience and grocery stores. However, potential consumers do not know about the burden of proof the FDA must meet before taking an unsafe product off of the market. As former FDA Director David Kessler wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine a couple years ago, ``Congress has put the FDA in the position of being able to act only after the fact and after substantial harm has already occurred.'' My own interest in dietary supplements goes back to my tenure in the California State Assembly when I was chair of the Committee on Consumer Production. Constituents using ephedra diet pills approached me to share their accounts of serious side effects. Just this past July, I heard heartbreaking testimony from the Beckler and Riggins families. Both families lost their sons as a result of taking ephedra pills. These families represent countless numbers of people who have already been adversely affected by dietary supplements. Every day, young men are drawn to the supplements in the hopes of enhancing their athletic ability, and our young women are seduced into believing they will lose weight by simply popping pills. It is critical that we remember that the discussion regarding DSHEA does not begin and end with ephedra. We are looking for a long-term solution, not a Band-Aid approach. As Members of Congress, we can prevent a repeat of the ephedra tragedy where for 9 years thousands of adverse effects were amassed and FDA was unable to act. We already know a dietary supplement called bitter orange is gaining in popularity. This is a substance derived from orange rinds. It is a stimulant sold in combination with other stimulants, and some experts fear that it could pose similar risks as ephedra. Ephedra should be viewed as the canary in the coal mine that it is. Without changes, we could see more and more potentially dangerous supplements follow in ephedra's wake. Current regulations that cover dietary supplements are loose at best and completely ineffective at worst. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing and from hearing from today's witnesses, and I really do appreciate the ability to sit in today. Thank you very much. Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Davis. We are very happy to have our former colleague, Senator Durbin, with us. He for some reason decided to go to the lower House, so we let him go. But he is back here today to testify, and we welcome you. And you are welcome to make a statement, Senator. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Senator Durbin. Chairman Burton, Congresswomen Watson and Davis, thank you very much for allowing me to testify. The reason I feel so good today is that I returned to the House to witness your meteoric rise in leadership, Mr. Chairman. And, second, because I got up this morning and took my vitamin. In fact, I took a multivitamin and a couple other supplements, and I feel pretty good about it. And like a lot of Americans who do that, we think we are doing the right thing to stay healthy and to maintain our energy despite advancing years. So I want to tell you that I don't come here with any prejudice against vitamins and minerals and those supplements which really do help people. And I think people should have the right to make a choice to go in and take those things which they think will be of value to their health. Of course, we like to believe someone will counsel them along the way, but, more importantly, we like to make sure that the products that they are taking are safe. If you walk into a drugstore today and you pick up your prescription drug, you know that drug has gone through clinical tests to determine whether it is both safe and effective. If you take an over-the-counter drug, you will find in the monograph a similar test that has been given to the basic compounds that are included in over-the-counter drugs. Such is not the case, though, when you walk into a natural food store or a dietary supplement store. The products that you are using there quite likely have never been tested. In fact, you are the person who is conducting the test. As a consumer, you are ingesting this compound, whatever it may be, in the hopes that it will help you. But there has never been a clinical trial or test to establish that fact. It is, in fact, the consumer who is playing the role of the rat in the laboratory, the guinea pig. And that, I think, is something that we should reflect on. I would say that there are many who have questions about dietary supplements, legitimate questions. I want to salute Congressman Davis for her leadership on this. Before I held hearings in the Senate, she had introduced a bill with Congressman Waxman and others, and I know that it is an interest that is based on a real concern about ephedra. At the time that we started holding hearings on ephedra, the following had occurred: Canada had banned the sale of products containing ephedra; the American Medical Association had warned those in America that ephedra could be a dangerous compound to some individuals; we had prohibited the sale of ephedra--products containing ephedra on military bases across the United States and around the world because of adverse events involving soldiers. We had also seen major sporting associations such as the Olympic Committee and Major League Baseball and others that had banned or at least suggested that their players shouldn't use ephedra. Despite all of that mounting evidence, we couldn't really say with any degree of certainty that the government in our country was going to step in and stop the sale of products containing ephedra, and that is why the hearings were held. We need to make a couple critical changes in the DSHEA. We need to require premarket safety review of supplements containing stimulants like ephedra. And we need to require companies to report serious adverse event reports to the FDA. I don't believe that every natural substance needs to be subject to premarket safety testing but, at the least, stimulants should be. When a supplement raises people's blood pressure, increases their metabolism, constricts their blood vessels, it is only prudent that we test the product before it is marketed. Supplement manufacturers who have come to see me say they test their products that they market. And maybe some do and I hope that they do. In my experience, many do not. Last July I wrote seven companies that market ephedra-free products containing citrus aurantium, also known as bitter orange. This citrus aurantium contains the chemical synephrine, a substance very similar to ephedra, that stimulates the central nervous system and can cause hypertension, heart attacks, and strokes. My interest was supported by a statement from FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan who said at the University of Mississippi last fall, ``there are other supplements with chemically distinct and less-well-understood components that may have similar adverse pharmacologic effects to ephedra or pose health risks for other reasons. An example of these is bitter orange or citrus aurantium.'' I by letter to these companies that sell dietary supplements containing bitter orange or citrus aurantium, asked them whether or not they had conducted any studies in-house or independently on the safety or efficacy of this supplement. I also asked for information on the number of employees dedicated to monitoring product safety. Only four companies of the seven responded. The letters were distressing. Neil Reithinger of Baywood International, which sells numerous ephedra-free products, answered none of the questions posed either in whole or in part. Instead, he stated, ``as with all of the company's dietary supplemental products, we believe that our ephedra-free products lawfully may be sold as currently formulated or promoted.'' He is exactly right. Under DSHEA, he has no requirement to test citrus aurantium or any of the supplements that he is selling before he can lawfully sell them in the United States. Now, Robert Occhifinto--and I hope I am not mispronouncing his name--the president of NVE Pharmaceuticals, is the marketer of something you might have seen on TV, Stacker 2, ephedra- free. He wrote to me and said, ``In our experience, it is unusual for companies to conduct in-house testing for neutraceutical compounds.'' On the subject of safety, Mr. Occhifinto cited a study that was conducted by a highly regarded pharmacologist, but the study didn't substantiate his assertions. He said the study showed that blood pressure and cardiac effects of citrus aurantium were found to be no different than water. ``No different than water.'' In fact, the study was not evaluating the safety of supplements containing citrus aurantium; it was examining whether orange juice--orange juice, a natural source of the active ingredient in citrus aurantium--is safe to use in drug metabolism studies. So we went and contacted one of the pharmacologists who really conducted the study that Mr. Occhifinto used as the basis for justifying selling his product. This is what the pharmacologist responded, and I want to add this--all of these letters for the record so you can make them part of your testimony, this is from the pharmacologist, ``I don't consider our study using Seville orange juice even remotely sufficient to assess the safety of synephrine-containing dietary supplements. If the industry is doing that, then in my opinion they are committing an egregious error.'' I am going to give you the letters. I want you to take a look at them. I do believe, when we are talking about stimulants, credible testing needs to take place. There is another change I would like to see in DSHEA, and that is making adverse event reporting mandatory so that serious adverse events become part of a public record. I am not talking about someone getting dizzy after taking a supplement. I am talking about death, incapacity, and hospitalization. It is absolutely necessary we know when a product is seriously harming people. This morning's Washington Post, Mr. Chairman, talks about antidepressant drugs and whether or not Prozac and other drugs should be recommended. Well, there are some British studies and foreign studies that are leading this inquiry, but also adverse event reports that are coming in from drug companies that sell these prescription drugs containing antidepressants are starting to accumulate and raise questions. In the dietary supplement industry, under DSHEA there is no requirement for this reporting. And let me tell you how this works. Metabolife is one of the giants in the supplement industry. In 1999, Metabolife told FDA, ``Metabolife has never been made aware of any adverse health events by consumers of its products. Metabolife has never received a notice from a consumer that any serious adverse health event has occurred because of the ingestion of Metabolife 356.'' 1999, Metabolife to the FDA. Then the Justice Department start investigating, and then class-action lawsuits were filed. And you know what they found? Metabolife has received 16,500 adverse event reports, including 2,000 significant cardiac, neurological, and psychiatric reports. Metabolife has misled the FDA. Metabolife refused to acknowledge the obvious. People were taking their product containing ephedra and having serious adverse health events. Now, under the law, there is no requirement that Metabolife or any other supplement company even reports when people are dying from their product. Now, another company, Rexall Sundown, marketed an ephedra product called Metabolite, discovered through a court case that they had significant numbers of adverse event reports that they never turned over to the public. When we were made aware of that, we contacted the company and asked them for these reports. And they said, ``well, you are talking about the old Rexall Sundown.'' You know what they had done? They had used the old trick to shield themselves from liability: They dissolved their own company that sold this product and started a new one with the same name. They took all the assets to the new company, hoping to leave all their liability for the adverse health consequences from selling these ephedra products behind them. The lawyer in the case filed a motion to have the reports released, but the motion was denied. Now, if companies aren't sharing information with the FDA that can help protect consumers, we have to make this system mandatory and give the FDA the authority to demand adverse event reports. Congresswoman Davis mentioned the name Sean Riggins. Sean Riggins was a 16-year-old boy who lived just a few miles from my home in Springfield, IL. He was a football player. And he went to--in the hopes of having a better football game, went to a local gas station convenience store, and he bought one of these ephedra products, took a couple of the pills; legally purchased it, no questions asked, washed it down with Mountain Dew, and died of a heart attack the next day. Now, that really brought it home to me. Here was a young boy who went in and innocently bought a product that he thought would help him. If you go to a high school or junior high in Indiana or Illinois, or in any State for that matter, ask them how many have heard of these products that we are talking about. They are going to tell you, a lot of these kids are aware that they are out there. Mr. Chairman, I believe that vitamins and minerals and dietary supplements can be very good for all of us. But we have an obligation to the consumers across America to make certain that we don't sell them something that is dangerous. As Congressman Greenwood has said over and over, you can sell snake oil in America; that is up to you, and consumer beware. But we don't allow you to sell snake venom. And that, unfortunately, is the case with some of these products. It is going to take some political will and courage for us to move forward on this. I hope that we can begin it in the House, perhaps in the Senate as well. Keep DSHEA in place, but make the modifications that will protect consumers across America. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burton. Thank you, Senator Durbin. We really appreciate your testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.031 Mr. Burton. And some of the issues that you have raised today we will discuss with our other witnesses from the industry. We will ask them questions about that. And hopefully that will illuminate the issue further. I don't have any questions further for the Senator. Do you have any, Ms. Watson? Ms. Watson. No, I don't. Mr. Burton. Ms. Davis? Senator, thank you very much. It is nice to see you back. Thank you very much. Our next panel consists of Dr. Robert Brackett, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition from the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services. And we will welcome you to the panel. A tough act to follow the Senator, but I am sure you are up to the task. We don't swear in our colleagues because they are liable to shoot us, but we like to swear in all of our other witnesses. So would you rise and be sworn, please. [Witness sworn.] Mr. Burton. Do you have an opening statement, Dr. Brackett? STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRACKETT, PH.D, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Mr. Brackett. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Davis and Congresswoman Watson. I am Dr. Robert Brackett, and Director of FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. And I am very pleased to testify before the subcommittee on ``10 Years After the Implementation of DSHEA and the Status of Dietary Supplements in the United States.'' Many Americans take some type of dietary supplement, and in many cases there is either strong or suggestive evidence that many of these vitamins and minerals and other naturally occurring products have important benefits. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, DSHEA, amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to set up A distinct regulatory framework for these products in an attempt to strike the right balance between providing consumers access to dietary supplements that they may be choosing to use to help maintain and improve their health, and giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authorities to take action against supplements or supplement ingredients that present safety problems, have false or misleading claims, or are otherwise adulterated or misbranded. As with most foods, there are no premarket FDA approval of safety for dietary supplements. However, there is a 75-day premarket notification requirement for marketers of certain dietary supplements that contain so-called new dietary ingredients that were not marketed in the United States prior to October 15, 1994. In the new dietary ingredient notification to FDA, the manufacturer or distributor of the supplement must submit information that provides the basis on which it includes that dietary supplements containing the new dietary ingredient will reasonably expect it to be safe. FDA regulates the safety of dietary supplements primarily through a postmarket evaluation of whether the product is adulterated under the provision of the FD&C Act. And in developing a comprehensive postmarket safety evaluation of dietary supplement products, FDA collaborates with consumers and industry stakeholders, other Federal partners, and, of course, academic centers. An important tool that FDA uses for developing a signal which may identify potential safety problems are adverse event reports. These reports are not mandatory and consist of voluntary reports from industry, health care providers, and consumers. Under DSHEA, FDA was given the authority to promulgate regulations for dietary supplement current good manufacturing practices [CGMPs]. Such regulations could help ensure product quality and consistency, and FDA published a proposed rule on March 13, 2003, extended the comment period, and convened true satellite downreach--outreach meetings, and attended three outreach meetings organized by the industry. We are currently analyzing over 1,600 pages of comments from those, and publishing the final rule remains a high priority for FDA. FDA uses three principles--direct health risk, indirect health risk, and economic harm--to guide the development of its risk-based enforcement strategy. Our highest priority is on products that have a potential for causing serious adverse effects or where there is risk of injury or death. FDA uses all available civil and administrative remedies to quickly remove such products from the market. FDA also uses publicity to warn consumers and health professionals about the products. Products that are not themselves hazardous can still present an indirect health hazard, in that consumers may delay or forego proven medical treatments or drug therapies. Examples include unproven products promoted for the treatment of cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, and high blood pressure. Dietary supplements that present primarily an economic injury to consumers because they are promoted using unsubstantiated claims are also a key element in the agency's enforcement strategy. This strategy provides a basic outline of the agency's enforcement activities. However, we do continually reevaluate our actions and emphasis in light of emerging issues or products to ensure that our activities achieve compliance in a fair and balanced way through voluntary enforcement action. Let me cite two recent examples. The first involves seasilver. In June 2003, U.S. Marshals seized $7 million worth of seasilver, a liquid dietary supplement. Seasilver USA was promoting seasilver on the Internet and in marketing materials as a safe and effective treatment for 650 serious diseases including AIDS, cancer, diabetes, hepatitis, and arthritis. On March 8, 2004 the producers and distributors of seasilver signed a consent decree of permanent injunction in which they agreed to stop manufacturing and distributing violative products, and agreed to destroy the sea products at their expense and pay liquidated damages of $10,000 per day for any future violation of the consent decree. Under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission entered on March 4, 2004, the seasilver defendants and the individual distributors agreed to pay $4.5 million in consumer redress. The second example involves coral calcium. In June 2003, FDA issued warning letters to 18 firms which operate 24 Web sites marketing multiple coral calcium products as effective treatments or cures for a variety of diseases and conditions including cancer, multiple sclerosis, lupus, and heart disease. One product called Calcium Supreme was promoted in nationally televised 30-minute infomercials. In June, on FDA's behalf, USDA Marshals seized $2.6 million of Coral Calcium Supreme, and in separate actions the Federal Trade Commission charged the marketers of Coral Calcium Supreme with making false and unsubstantiated claims that the product can treat or cure diseases. In December 2003, a U.S. district court entered a consent decree of condemnation and permanent injunctions against the marketers of this product from promoting any products as a treatment for disease. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify today. And I will be happy to answer any of your questions. Mr. Burton. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brackett follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.051 Mr. Burton. Does the FDA have the authority under DSHEA to eliminate products that they think are a risk to public health? Mr. Brackett. Well, as indicated by the fact that we have taken enforcement on products such as this, we do have the authority and we are in the process of trying to completely implement DSHEA to give us all of the tools that we need. Mr. Burton. And when DSHEA is fully implemented, you will have the tools to do what is necessary to protect the public health from a product that you feel is not safe? Mr. Brackett. We think that we will have the tools that we need, using the existing authority that we have. However, taking into account that these have not yet been tested in courts, and that will be the final event that will see how thoroughly we can regulate these products. Mr. Burton. I understand. But we have studied the DSHEA law pretty thoroughly, as has the industry. And there are a number of us in Congress that feel like if there is a threat to public health, the FDA and our health agencies do have the authority under DSHEA to get those products off the market. Mr. Brackett. Right. And at this time the administration has no indications that we are going to seek additional legislative action on DSHEA. Mr. Burton. Well, Senator Durbin, a good friend of ours, has legislation that he is supporting, and others like Ms. Davis, that would add additional regulation and authority, I guess, to DSHEA. But under the current law, you do have the tools necessary in order to get any threat to the public health off the market? Mr. Brackett. Of everything that we have tested, we do have the authority to make those seizures and those types of actions against unsafe products. Mr. Burton. Thank you. And one of the issues that I have been concerned about, a product like ephedra. Now there is a synthetic ephedra and then there is a natural ephedra. Do they both react the same? Or have you ever tested that? I mean, have you ever checked that out? Because in China they have used ephedra products for thousands of years, and they do it to this day. But there is a synthetic ephedra that has caused a number of problems. And I just wonder are they similar? Mr. Brackett. Well, they may be similar. In terms of our rule against ephedra, that would specifically exclude those that are used in traditional Chinese medicine or teas, the natural form of ephedra. Mr. Burton. It would exclude them as well. Mr. Brackett. Correct. Mr. Burton. So all forms of ephedra would be excluded. The labeling on the various bottles of products like ephedra, when the FDA looked into that, did they find that the people who suffered adverse events from the ephedra products, that they had followed the labeling on those products? Mr. Brackett. It is my understanding in many of those cases that in fact they did follow the recommendation on those products. Mr. Burton. They did. Mr. Brackett. That is correct. Mr. Burton. I would like to see some of those cases if you have those, because a number of the cases that I followed very closely in the newspaper, like the baseball player that died-- and it was a highly publicized event. And I don't know about the young man that Ms. Davis and Senator Durbin talked about, but they were overweight and had high blood pressure and had other health problems already, and the ephedra specifically should not have been used by them, and I think it said so; it so stated on the directions on the bottle. And that was one of the things that was troubling. Had they read that, they might have not had that horrible experience that occurred. So the bottom line is that you believe that the DSHEA law as is currently written gives you the tools necessary to get potentially hazardous products off of the market? Mr. Brackett. That is correct. As indicated by the two examples that I shared in my oral testimony. In addition, in my written testimony there are a number of other actions that we took, some of which were against small companies, large companies, that we did take on the various conditions that I had mentioned earlier. Mr. Burton. And FDA and HHS and the administration at this time are not seeking additional legislation to alter or change DSHEA? Mr. Brackett. That is correct. Mr. Burton. Thank you. Ms. Watson. Ms. Watson. Thank you very much for your testimony. And my question is, under DSHEA, is there--if you order a product taken off of the market, that would be the extreme. Correct? Mr. Brackett. That would be the case where we would have sufficient scientific evidence to show that there would be cause for human health problems, yes. Ms. Watson. What are the options that you have, less taking it off of the market? Are you considering more on the labels, warnings on the labels like we do on packages of cigarettes? What are the options that you would have under the law? Mr. Brackett. Well, some of the options that we have, for instance, is to send letters to the manufacturers of these products that they are in violation, and in many cases they voluntarily withdraw it from the market. In other cases, we would have to go back to the science, with the ingredients, find out exactly which ingredients are in those products, and develop the scientific evidence, the pharmacology, and then go back and review and see if that meets the standard that we need to remove that product. Ms. Watson. Since many of these natural supplements have been used by other cultures for hundreds of thousands of years, what have you been able to identify is the current void or lack on the part of the manufacturers of these supplements? Is it that they are not doing extensive scientific testing on humans? What have you been able to identify, or have you been able to identify at this point what the problem might be? Mr. Brackett. Well, the two main reasons why they may be denied in a letter is, first of all, because they have not shown that they provided sufficient evidence that the product is safe. The second one is that they have not identified the ingredients in the product itself. So those are two of the provisions under DSHEA that we have used to either--looking at new dietary ingredients, on whether they meet the bar or not. Ms. Watson. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Ms. Davis. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Brackett, for being here. You know, we know that ephedra was taken off the market because of safety concerns. But it has been replaced, as Senator Durbin mentioned and I had mentioned also that, replaced by new stimulant combinations. And I am wondering if FDA has evidence that these products are significantly safer-- -- Mr. Brackett. No. Mrs. Davis of California [continuing]. Than the products that were taken off the market. Mr. Brackett. Sorry. No, we don't have that evidence. We are replacing something with a known pharmacology, that is ephedra, with perhaps items for which we know a lot less. And so in response to that, we are working very closely with the National Institutes of Health and University of Mississippi, National Center for Natural Products Research, to try to find as much information about those products as we can to make sure that they do not have the same risks as ephedra does. Mrs. Davis of California. And you are looking at that from what--I guess what would--what kind of information would satisfy you that you have the appropriate information? Mr. Brackett. Well, we are looking mostly at the scientific evidence, both the pharmacology of the products. And first of all, in many of these products we have to identify exactly what is the ingredient in that we need to be concerned about. Identify the products is the first thing. The second thing is identify what pharmacological properties that ingredient may have, look at the scientific literature to see what published information we have about that, together with such things as adverse events that we may hear about. All of that together needs to take it so that each individual ingredient or compound needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Mrs. Davis of California. And you mentioned the adverse event reports. I think my concern is that we know that at least one company had a number of adverse event reports that they were sitting on, basically. And that there was nothing in law, nothing in DSHEA, to mandate that they turn those over. If nothing changes then, how will you necessarily have those AERs to be able to make an assessment about the way that they are actually influencing people in the real world? Mr. Brackett. Well, adverse events are just one tool among a number that we will use to evaluate the safety of the a product. But in the meantime, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has developed an adverse event reporting system, CARES, which is meant to tabulate all of these regulated products to try to develop a signal that something may rise to the point where we need to take a closer look at it. Mrs. Davis of California. So is it a standardization of those reports that has changed? What has changed, I guess, from prior to? There was no system in place before? Mr. Brackett. There were a number of different systems, but no one portal for which all the information would come in. And I think that is the main thing that has changed. So we have better information for a broader set of sources. Mr. Davis. What kind of changes has that made in terms of personnel and the ability of people to actually monitor that? Has the number of employees in that area changed? What have you done specifically within FDA to bring about perhaps greater monitoring, then? Mr. Brackett. We have hired a number of people specifically to look at the adverse events reports, decide which are more qualitative, or complaints about product versus those that may actually involve human health; and, of course, prioritize those based on those that might rise to the level of a serious adverse health effect. Mrs. Davis of California. And how do you get those if it is not mandatory? How do you know whether people or the companies are actually responding? Mr. Brackett. Well, we don't know. We rely a lot on consumers, a lot on the medical profession to provide some of those to us. Mrs. Davis of California. If we are relying on the consumers, then how are you necessarily getting that information? Are most consumers giving out information to the companies, or are they calling the companies or are they calling FDA? Mr. Brackett. Well, I would hate to speculate on what specific consumers would do. They will do all of the above. They will make reports to the companies, to their physicians, to FDA. Mrs. Davis of California. OK. I appreciate the changes that you see that are being made. But it really does concern me that we were aware of the fact that these reports are not necessarily turned over, and yet you are relying on those. And I think that if there is any change, I certainly believe that we need to find a way to make at least those adverse event reports that are very substantive, and I think that we all recognize the difference between somebody perhaps once responding, but then there are others that are really quite serious. One of the concerns that I had in talking to people over the years is that people are quite embarrassed sometimes, at they should have known better, and so we need to--part of it is education, of course, but then I think it is also the experience that people have that if they do report, that something will happen to that information. And we need to find a better way, I think, perhaps to make sure that people have that confidence. Mr. Brackett. I agree. Mrs. Davis of California. I have, Mr. Chairman, one or two just other quick questions. You know, the burden is on the FDA to have knowledge of the products and the ingredients, and you mentioned that, to know better. I know that when we had our hearing here it did surprise us that when we asked the companies what was contained in their products, they really didn't know. That is an important element, and I think that needs to be followed up. One of the questions would be whether the authority that you have is adequate to make sure that supplements containing aristocholic acid, which can and has caused severe kidney toxicity and which is a potent carcinogen, that those are not on the market. Do you have that kind of authority to be able to look at those kind of supplements as well? Mr. Brackett. Yes, we do have that kind of authority. And that is another one of the instances where we are very hurriedly trying to obtain as much good scientific proven evidence or characteristics of the compound and its pharmacology that could be used in making those judgments. Mrs. Davis of California. OK. Thank you very much, Dr. Brackett. I appreciate it. Mr. Burton. Let me just followup on a couple of questions. You know, in 1994, Congress passed this law, and it wasn't until 18 months ago, 9 years after passage, that the FDA passed the good manufacturing practices. Why did it take 9 years? I mean, we gave FDA the authority to do that so that they could followup on this, and a lot of this criticism would have been avoided if FDA had gotten on the ball and used the authority that it had to come up with these good manufacturing practices. Why did it take 9 years? And you weren't there all that time, so I am not beating on you. Just, why did it take so long? Mr. Brackett. The first thing I want to reemphasize is getting that particular rule out is one of the highest priorities we have in the center. Mr. Burton. Excuse me. I know it is one of your highest priorities, but you have had almost 10 years. Why did it take that long? Because some of the things that Senator Durbin is talking about and Congresswoman Davis is talking about, I think could have been avoided had the FDA said, OK, we have the authority, let us get with it. Why did they take 10 years? Mr. Brackett. Well, it wasn't because things weren't happening. There was a lot going on in the background. Not long after DSHEA was implemented, we met with the industry at their request to try to learn from them what the appropriate framework for the dietary supplement good manufacturing practices would be, and from that developed advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for which we took comments from the industry, met with them. And it was during that time where we were formulating what we thought the framework for the GMP would look like. And that resulted in what we saw last March when we proposed the dietary supplement GMP rule from that time we got many substantive comments. We wanted to make sure we got this rule right. We wanted to make sure it wasn't overly burdensome on the industry. And so a lot of it was doing our homework beforehand and since that time. Mr. Burton. Thank you, Director Brackett. But 10 years is a long time to get it right, I mean. So I think the FDA bears some of the responsibility for not getting on the ball a little bit quicker. Critics of DSHEA say that the regulations placed on dietary supplements under the law are too flexible to provide for the safety of the products. In your opinion, do you believe that the FDA should take more stringent actions toward supplements, or do you think the law as presently written is sufficient? Mr. Brackett. I think we should use the existing law to its fullest extent, which is why the administration is not proposing any legislative changes at this time. Mr. Burton. So, in effect, you think it is sufficient. Mr. Brackett. We have no changes to make to it. Mr. Burton. It has come to my attention that the FDA created a new process for reporting adverse events in regard to dietary supplements. And as was talked about, this new reporting system is different than its predecessor. And you believe this new system is going to provide more accurate data and will get the job done. Mr. Brackett. We think it will be a vast improvement to what we had previously, again, because it is bringing multiple sources of information in through one portal that we can use to generate the signal that would tell us that something may be happening. Mr. Burton. OK. And what measures do you believe the FDA could take to improve the existing policies on dietary supplements? Mr. Brackett. Well, the best thing that FDA could do is again use DSHEA to its fullest, and we are committed to implementing it to its fullest, taking the appropriate actions that we need to, enforcement actions, getting our dietary supplement GMP that creates a level playing field for the industry and consumers and using the existing authority that we have. Mr. Burton. You have been over there in this capacity for how long now? Mr. Brackett. Two months. Mr. Burton. Well, it is nice to have you there. I am sorry the FDA took 10 years to get you there, but it sounds like you are a pretty sharp guy, and we will look forward to working with you to make sure we solve some of these problems. Do you have any further questions or statements for this gentleman, Mrs. Davis? Mrs. Davis of California. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, and good luck in your new position. And if we can help you at all, you contact us, because we are very concerned about this issue. Mr. Brackett. I will do that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burton. Our next panel is Marc Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D. With the Policy Institute for Integrative Medicine from the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital; my good friend David Seckman, executive director and CEO of the National Natural Foods Association; Annette Dickinson, president of the Council for Responsible Nutrition; and Doug Rose, dietary supplement consumer, a good friend of mine from Indianapolis, IN, and, Doug, it is good to see you, Buddy; and Alan Dumoff, J.D., MSW, for the American Association For Health Freedom. Would you all stand? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Burton. I think we will just start and go right down the line. We will start with you, Dr. Micozzi. STATEMENTS OF MARC MICOZZI, M.D., PH.D., DIRECTOR, POLICY INSTITUTE FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE, THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; DAVID SECKMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CEO, NATIONAL NATURAL FOODS ASSOCIATION; ANNETTE DICKINSON, PH.D., PRESIDENT, COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE NUTRITION; DOUGLAS C. ROSE, PRESIDENT, IRWIN R. ROSE AND CO., INC.; AND ALAN DUMOFF, J.D., M.S.W., AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR HEALTH Mr. Micozzi. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Davis, thank you for the opportunity to be here. Appreciate your efforts on behalf of dietary supplement safety and information. Over the past decade, under DSHEA, improved information about the structure and activity of dietary supplements has helped many health practitioners make judgments and provide recommendations to their patients about the use of herbs and nutrients. In addition, DSHEA has helped facilitate integration of dietary supplements into medical practice. Further, over the past decade, much third-party research, that is research not done by the university but by medical and scientific institutions, has been conducted and, in fact, demonstrates the benefits of dietary supplements in the management of many medical conditions. In addition, this type of research has shed light on interactions between herbs and pharmaceuticals as well as medical procedures and anesthetic agents. These developments are important in light of increasing use of CAM, complimentary alternative medicine, and dietary supplements among U.S. adults. A current survey, which we published in Seminars and Integrative Medicine last year, shows that two-thirds of adults demonstrate lifetime use by age 33. Further use is actually highest among post baby boomers, 7 out of 10, with only 5 out of 10 boomers and 3 out of 10 pre- boomers. These trends may, indeed, indicate that utilization is related to managing medical conditions, which are more common among older Americans. In addition, two-thirds of HMOs offered at least one type of alternative therapy as of 1999, with acupuncture, massage and nutritional therapy as the three most likely modalities to be offered. The best single predictor of the use of CAM and dietary supplements is higher educational status, perhaps reflecting disposable income, as well as knowledge, awareness, and attitudes. Unfortunately, up to half of all patients do not tell their physicians about their use of CAM and dietary supplements, indicating much additional work is needed on integration and good continuum of care. A higher proportion of adults with cancer utilize CAM. Several surveys found rates 80 percent or higher. CAM use is also marked in neurological diseases, phychiatric disorders, physical disabilities, psoriasis, diabetes and other disorders. In addition to the management of medical conditions, CAM and dietary supplement therapies have gained increasing attention in the prevention of chronic disease. The 2002 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association on vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults provided clear substantiation for the important role of dietary supplementation in light of the typical U.S. diet as well as limitations in the nutrient composition of foods. Dietary supplement use is already prevalent among older Americans. In addition, efforts are underway to provide older Americans with dietary supplementation by the Healthy Foundation, for example, with support from U.S. Senator Tom Harkin, Senate co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on CAM and the Dietary Supplements for Senior Health program based in Idaho, has been seeking support from Senator Larry Craig, who chairs the Senate's Special Committee on Aging. In 2001, this Committee on Aging commissioned a report by the General Accounting Office on the use of dietary supplements in older Americans. The GAO report documented the many problems associated with this practice but did not address the evidence of benefits. Senator Craig has indicated to us interest in revisiting this issue. Under DSHEA, physicians and other health professionals have been able to incorporate the use of dietary supplements in integrative medicine, combining the best of mainstream and alternative approaches. At the Jefferson-Myrna Brind Center for Integrative Medicine in Philadelphia, we provide over 500 different dietary supplements to 7,500 patients who visit us each year with a very high rate of patient satisfaction. Under DSHEA, licensed physicians and pharmacists in the hospital recommend dietary supplements based upon scientific evidence, published evidence, in appropriate doses, forms and combinations. This experience is shared with a nationwide clinical network of seven leading integrative medicine centers and also among 22 members of the Consortium of Academic Health Centers For Integrative Medicine, potentially reaching millions of patients. One answer to improved and more effective use of dietary supplements and other CAM modalities lies in the continued integration of herbal and nutritional therapy into medical practice through the active involvement of physicians, pharmacists, other health care professionals and the health care system. In this manner, medical science and practice will continue to learn and apply optimal utilization of dietary supplements and provide collective and individual guidance to consumers. This goal is already being achieved through integrative medicine, and the current DSHEA provides regulatory authority, as we have heard. What is missing from the present formula can best be provided by the continued expansion of the integration of herbs, nutrition and dietary supplements into medical education, science and practice. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Micozzi follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.058 Mr. Burton. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Seckman. Mr. Seckman. Chairman Burton and Congresswoman Davis, thanks for the opportunity to address you today as a representative of the dietary supplement industry. I am David Seckman, executive director and CEO of the National Natural Foods Association. We represent the interests of more than 5,000 retailers, manufacturers, suppliers and distributors of health foods, dietary supplements and related items. The committee has asked that I address the status of dietary supplements in the United States as we reach the 10- year milestone of the law that governs these diverse products, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Although DSHEA was enacted 10 years ago, much of its key implementation has only happened within the past 18 months. Because dietary supplements are often viewed in regard to their safety, quality and efficacy, my testimony today will address how these and how well the law is supported and is being applied in these three broad categories. Since the law underlies all that we have discussed and will be discussing here today, let me start with DSHEA. DSHEA is often wrongly characterized as taking away from the Food and Drug Administration their ability to regulate supplements. In fact, DSHEA increased FDA's enforcement powers. These powers include, but are not limited to, stopping the sale of an entire class of dietary supplements if they pose an imminent public health hazard, seizing dietary supplements that pose a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury, or keeping a new dietary ingredient from being marketed if not enough safety data is received. In evaluating the effectiveness of any law there are a couple of critical steps that must be followed for their enactment. First is implementation and enforcement. Laws only work when their provisions are put into practice and the failure to abide by them punished. In regard to DSHEA, and for a number of reasons, this law has never been fully implemented or adequately enforced. Although I will highlight specific instances where DSHEA has not been fully implemented, let me say that the FDA, under the leadership of its most recent commissioner, has made progress, particularly in regard to enforcement. But there is still much more to be done. Quality: Having standards in place that help to ensure that what is on the product label is actually in the product is essential. DSHEA provides for the establishment of good manufacturing practices [GMPs], tailored to the dietary supplements. A regulation for GMPs was just introduced last year, more than 9 years after the law was enacted. Under the rule, manufacturers would be required to identify the purity, quality, strength, and composition of the dietary ingredients and dietary supplements. The industry supports the introduction of this regulation, and we encourage its swift finalization, implementation and enforcement. Safety: While I want to discuss specific examples of how DSHEA has been applied when an issue of safety has arisen, I would like to put it in perspective. Dietary supplements are far more safer than most common foods and drugs. For instance, the common pain reliever, ibuprofen, is responsible for more than 17,000 deaths annually. Prescription drugs, for all the testing they go through and copious usage directions that are issued with them, are estimated to be one of the top five leading causes of death in the United States at more than 106,000 annually. Illnesses from tainted foods kill 5,000 Americans each year. One reason dietary supplement safety is questioned is because few can agree on accurate sources of statistical information about their use. Even so, the FDA's most recent adverse event estimates for dietary supplements are at 1,214 in a given year. Comparatively, the FDA received more than 300,000 adverse event reports about drugs over the same 12-month period. Critics of DSHEA claim that the number of adverse event reports would be much higher were a different reporting system in place. The FDA has just begun implementing an extensive revamped reporting system for dietary supplements that should yield more accurate data and information and provide us with more information about problems we have with products. This new system should be given a chance to work. The industry supports continuing efforts that will provide a constructive and impartial representation of dietary supplement safety. In the rare instances that a safety issue does arise, the FDA has all the authority it needs to either prevent a dietary supplement from reaching the marketplace or recovering it once it has. Recent FDA actions regarding ephedra and androstenedione, or Andro, proved this point. In the instance of ephedra, the product was banned because the agency deemed it a health hazard. In the case of Andro, the FDA determined that it had not received the pre-market notification necessary under DSHEA for new dietary ingredients. These examples, again, illustrate that the law works. But it also begs the question of what and why it took the FDA so long to take its action. Efficacy: In passing DSHEA, Congress recognized that there may be a positive relationship between sound dietary practices and good health. While conceding that further scientific research is needed, Congress also recognized the potential between dietary safety and dietary supplement usage in reduced health care expense and disease prevention. The Office of Dietary Supplements [ODS], was established as a result of DSHEA to stimulate, coordinate and disseminate the results of science and research on the benefits and safety of dietary supplements in the treatment and prevention of chronic disease. ODS has begun funding research on botanical supplements at university-based research centers that promote scientific discourse and provide the critical scientific mass necessary for sound science on the efficacy and safety of botanical supplements. With the support of the NNFA and other industry associations, the ODS budget has grown from $69,000, when it was first created in the mid 1990's, to $20 million in fiscal year 2003. NNFA supports future increases in funding. Thanks to ODS and others, each year, more and more studies are published in major medical journals that support the use of supplements for the treatment of specific conditions, prevention of diseases or for general nutritional enhancements. Examples of notable dietary supplement research includes an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association where researchers concluded that every child and adult would benefit from taking vitamins daily. Other landmark studies include two others published in JAMA relating to the delay and lessening of symptoms of Alzheimer's disease by patients who took the herb ginkgo and vitamins C and E. Not only has research demonstrated the health benefits of dietary supplements, it has also shown they can reduce health care costs by billions of dollars. For instance, a study published late last year reported that if seniors took a multivitamin daily, it could reduce health care costs by $1.6 billion annually. Another study in a major medical journal reported that increased intakes of vitamin E, folic acid, and zinc could save $20 billion annually in hospital costs. Let me add that while science increasingly validates the role dietary supplements play in maintaining health and preventing illness, it makes sense that these products receive the same favorable treatment the IRS provides for drugs in recognizing their costs for those. To that end, we support passage of a bill introduced by you, Mr. Chairman, that would do just that, H.R. 2627, the Dietary Supplement Tax Fairness Act. In summary, DSHEA increased the FDA's enforcement authority, preserved consumer safety and mandated higher product standards. It also provided for more funding for supplement research that would make and validate their efficacy. The result is an increased ability by consumers to make informed personal health decisions. But to be effective, like any law, it needs to be implemented and enforced. The bottom line is that there is no issue with dietary supplements, be it quality, safety or efficacy, which cannot be addressed under the current regulatory and legal framework. Finally, I leave the committee with three recommendations to improve the effectiveness of DSHEA. The first is to give the FDA the resources it needs to fully implement this law. This can be done through the appropriation process and through passage of a new bill introduced in the Senate by Senators Tom Harkin and Orrin Hatch, Senate bill 1538, the DSHEA Full Implementation Enforcement Act. This bill would provide the FDA with the funding it needs to ensure the FDA is carrying out its congressional intent. It would also increase funding for the National Institute of Health's Office of Dietary Supplements. I understand there is a companion bill likely to be introduced in the House soon. The second recommendation I have is for the FDA to quickly finalize and begin enforcement of good manufacturing practices for dietary supplements. Although I believe the vast majority of dietary supplement manufacturers have implemented production procedures that meet or exceed what is currently accorded by law, a Federal GMP regulation would bring others into line as well. My final recommendation is this: Stop seeking legislative solutions to regulatory problems when it comes to DSHEA. Currently, there are six bills in Congress that would amend, augment or otherwise modify DSHEA in an attempt to fix perceived weaknesses in the law. Although we support the intent of some, I believe most would not have been introduced if the FDA would have used its authority in a more timely manner to fully implement and enforce DSHEA. Congressional hearings such as this one make strong impressions on the minds of Americans about the issues they cover. Often these issues are negative, and they focus on what went wrong and how it can be fixed. I want to thank Congressman Burton and members of the subcommittee for taking time to examine what is right with dietary supplements. [The prepared statement of Mr. Seckman follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.066 Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Seckman. Ms. Dickinson. Ms. Dickinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am president of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, which is a trade association representing what we have referred to as the mainstream core of the dietary supplement industry, the products that are used by millions of Americans who purchase them through natural food stores, through the mass market, through direct sales and through mail order. DSHEA was passed in 1994 because, in 1993, FDA had floated a notion that would have led to restriction of a number of dietary supplements, restricting dosage of vitamins and minerals, restricting herbs and botanicals and not permitting the sale of supplements containing amino acids. DSHEA had two purposes: One was to assure consumers access to a wide variety of products. The other was to increase the information available to consumers about how to use those products. The growth of the market since the passage of DSHEA and, in fact, before the passage of DSHEA indicates that it was successful with regard to maintaining access to products. With regard to access to information, one of the new tools that DSHEA provided for consumers were statements of nutritional support, also known as structure/function statements. To date, FDA has been fully implementing the requirement of the law regarding structure/function statements. There have been more than 10,000 letters of notification submitted to FDA for these statements, as required under DSHEA. FDA has been reviewing those statements and has, in fact, sent courtesy letters back to about 10 percent of the notifiers indicating their claims actually went over into disease claims and, therefore, would not be permitted. So this is an area in which DSHEA is working, as it was intended. It is sometimes forgotten that DSHEA also had an impact on nutrition labeling. At the time DSHEA was passed, FDA would have required nutrition labels for supplements to be basically the same as those for conventional foods, allowing them only to mention in the facts box, which you see on these products, vitamins, minerals and other macro nutrients; not allowing them to mention the identity of the herbs, the active components of those herbs or substances such as echinacea, substances such as SAMe, for example, that might have been in the product. DSHEA actually required FDA to revisit that nutritional labeling information and revise it so that it was appropriate for dietary supplements. We have provided the committee with examples of a product that is made by one of our member companies, a product containing echinacea, which demonstrates not only the appropriateness of the nutrition label to this type of product but illustrates that this company, like many other companies in the industry, are going way beyond basic nutrition labeling and providing additional information to consumers. This particular label opens out, if you pull this little red tab, and actually has a three-page little document inside, which was prepared by the company in conjunction with the American Botanical Council and provides more information on the safety, the benefits and the research regarding this ingredient. This is an example of ways in which the industry is moving to increase consumer information about these products. The Council for Responsible Nutrition took the lead in helping FDA develop good manufacturing practices. We organized a working group involving the other associations as well and submitted to FDA, within a year after DSHEA was passed, a draft document on GMPs, which has been working its way through the system and, as you indicate, is just now about to become final. And we are with you in full support of that. The area of new ingredients is another area where FDA has, in fact, been implementing the law as it was intended, and it has been working effectively. Companies are required to notify FDA 75 days in advance about new ingredients that are marketed. FDA has been carefully reviewing those notifications and has, in fact, rejected approximately half of them because they either did not establish adequate information to demonstrate safety or because they did not provide sufficient information on the identity of the ingredient. This is an area we believe is working appropriately, but it needs more implementation yet. One of the areas that we think need more attention, both from the industry and from FDA, is whether all of the companies that are supposed to be submitting these notices are in fact submitting them for certain ingredients or whether there are ingredients being marketed without these appropriate notices. This is an area that we would flag as requiring additional implementation. During the time since DSHEA has passed, we have had two issues that have plagued both the industry and the FDA and that have led to an actual undermining, in our view, of consumer confidence in the entire category of dietary supplements. That has been our failure to resolve the ephedra issue during the years it has been pending and the absence of action restricting the marketing of Andro, which has led to ongoing controversy. We are pleased in the Council for Responsible Nutrition that FDA has taken actions in the past few months that we believe are going to bring both those controversial issues to closure. And we are very hopeful that having brought these issues to closure, that we can move on to what should be our appropriate business, which is to provide more information to consumers about the safety and benefits of the wide variety of dietary supplements that are available, to assure that they are manufactured to high-quality standards and to ensure that the information about them, both in labeling and advertising, is truthful and not misleading. We fully support FDA and FTC enforcement with regard to all of these requirements, because we do believe that safe and beneficial dietary supplements are an important and very positive component of a healthy lifestyle for Americans. [The prepared statement of Ms. Dickinson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.077 Mr. Burton. Thank you, Ms. Dickinson. Mr. Dumoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Alan Dumoff, and I am here on behalf of the American Association for Health Freedom. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on DSHEA, 10 years after its enactment. We would first like to take a brief moment to thank the chairman for his sponsorship and active support for H.R. 2085, the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This is legislation we strongly care about. The AHF is composed of physicians, distributors and Americans dedicated to health freedom and access to the full range of health promotion and treatment options. The organization works toward a health care system which freely uses integrative therapies, including support for the 158 million consumers who want access to these products and information that will help them make constructive choices about their care. DSHEA is a vital part of that ability. Since enactment of DSHEA, the AHF has had the opportunity to testify on DSHEA implementation issues, that you, Mr. Chairman, have already been willing to address. The AHF has also played a major role in trying to ensure that FDA regulatory interpretations comply with congressional intent. This effort has compelled us to take judicial action, starting with the Pearson v. Shalala matter. Since our successful outcome with Pearson, we have needed to challenge FDA's interpretation of allowed health claims in a number of other suits. We agree with the FDA that the enforcement mechanisms for ensuring public safety available to them, for the most part, have and are working. We believe the problems are elsewhere. There are three specific matters we believe deserve the committee's attention and may be candidates for future congressional oversight or legislative action. First, with regard to the FDA's proposed GMP regulations, our concern is that, after 10 years, the FDA does not have it right. It was our hope that, after 10 years, consumers would have the confidence that what is on the label is what is in the bottle. That was really the point for effective GMP regulations. The FDA's delay is, in large part, due to its effort to apply pharmaceutical standards to the supplement industry, which has delayed this critical goal. This approach will have a severe impact on small manufacturers and distributors who cannot bear these overly stringent and unnecessary requirements. While there is a 3-year implementation period for small companies, many of these requirements are ones they should never have to meet and cannot afford, such as batch testing or repetitive certificate-of-analysis requirements. The chilling effect of these excessive regulations would not only affect access to supplements but could cause lost businesses and lost jobs. Second, we are concerned about the manner in which the FDA has entered this arena. While we recognize the FDA has a legitimate role to play in preventing misleading advertising, the standards applied by the FTC are different than the scheme Congress intended in enacting the DSHEA. These actions are creating confusion for manufacturers as to what claims can be made. We applaud recent actions against marketers of Focus Factor and Seasilver, but the standards imposing these actions are based upon unreasonable levels of scientific evidence, such as their production of multi-center studies in which the advertised product itself must be tested rather than simply studies supporting the ingredients of which they are made. Such requirements have no scientific basis. It appears as if the FTC is attempting not just to regulate advertising but to indirectly regulate the dietary supplement industry. Dietary supplement manufacturers that meet the standards of evidence, worked out over years of congressional and judicial action, should not have to meet an additional uncertain burden placed upon them by the FTC. Third, we bring to the committee's attention concerns about the FDA's methods of implementing the Qualified Health Claims requirement under Pearson. The interim approach currently used has not been adequate to assess and inform consumers about the level of scientific support for a claim. There are two significant problems: First, FDA reviewers do not have the expertise in the fields of botanical and nutritional medicine to fairly and efficiently evaluate claims. And second, the juxtaposition of the manufacturer's claim with the FDA disclaimer creates a label you might consider bipolar. There is a glowing claim by the manufacturer countered by an up-to-date disclaimer that greatly limits it. And it reflects, perhaps, more the schism and the politics of dietary supplements than actual useful information for the consumers. There are numerous claims, for example, the saw palmetto claim in the treatment of BPH for which the evidence is very clear to experts in the field. While the FDA review panel members are respected in their scientific endeavors, they lack the expertise in the arena to recognize where the evidence lie. The FDA should seek those with specific knowledge about these issues to expedite review of these claims. While the evidence-based ranking system sounds promising, we suggest that the inclusion of scientists specifically experienced in these areas on supplements could better evaluate and tailor decisions and language that would be useful to consumers. Recently, H.R. 4004 was introduced, which we believe correctly addresses some of these issues. In conclusion, I would like to comment that the prevailing FDA regulatory philosophy too often continues to seek to regulate supplements like drugs. We are opposed to any FDA regulatory or congressional legislative proposals to substantially change DSHEA in this fashion. Under one pending bill, H.R. 3377, our analysis shows that two-thirds of current dietary supplement products could be subject to FDA drug-like regulation, effectively repealing much of DSHEA. When I was asked to testify, I recalled an interesting experience I had a few years ago when I was called to testify in Cairo at a conference on integrative medicine. It was cosponsored by WHO. Many of the speakers at that conference addressed methods of restricting access in countries in Europe and the Arabic states to access to dietary supplements. I took the opportunity in my presentation to review the four decades of history in which consumers have repetitively asked Congress to restrict the FDA's ability to restrict their access to dietary supplements. It is important we remember this 10-year anniversary, the important choice for health freedom that DSHEA represents and how it reflects the U.S. experiment of freedom that is unique in the world. Ten years after DSHEA, the law has greatly benefited millions of Americans. We appreciate the attention of the committee as well as this opportunity to express our views, and we welcome any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Dumoff follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.085 Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Dumoff. Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for the privilege and the honor to speak with you here this morning. My name is Doug Rose. My wife, Michelle, joins me today. Thank you, Michelle. I am president of Irwin R. Rose & Co., Inc. We are an Indianapolis, IN, based commercial real estate firm. We specialize in multifamily housing, own and manage apartment communities across a five-state region. We have no financial interest in the dietary supplement industry. We do not receive any Government grants or funding. We are here at our own expense. We have an interest in supplements because they have been shown conclusively to prevent some of the most severe birth defects faced by children. We are the proud parents of two daughters. Our youngest daughter, Emily, age 4, was diagnosed at birth with permanent birth defects. She was diagnosed with a condition called achondroplasia, which if you are like me, I did not know what that was. It is a form of dwarfism. Fortunately, medical science knows quite a bit about her condition. However, the prevention science is not in place or anywhere near discovery. Fortunately, that is not the case with two of the most severe and common birth defects seen in America and across the world. And I am speaking of spina bifida and anencephaly. My family knows firsthand how the birth of a child with a permanent birth defect is a life-altering experience that should not occur if it can be prevented. A family without a child with birth defects is a family helped. We are interested in seeing our country declare war on birth defects and conduct the research and implement prevention programs so that not a single baby anywhere develops any birth defects. Since our daughter was born, we have learned that folic acid, a simple B vitamin that is in multivitamin supplement pills, has been proven in randomized controlled trials to prevent two of the most common and severe birth defects, spina bifida and anencephaly. This has been known since 1991. In the mid 1970's, FDA regulations permitted multivitamins in servings of cold breakfast cereals to have 400 micrograms of B vitamin folic acid in them. Americans who consumed these products have had many fewer babies develop birth defects, and they themselves have been reported to have less cancer and less cardiovascular disease. The U.S. Public Health Service, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, recommended in the summer of 1992 that all women assume 400 micrograms of folic acid a day to reduce the risk of birth defects. In 1998, the Institute of Medicine clarified by recommending that all women capable of pregnancy consume 400 micrograms of synthetic folic acid a day. The FDA required, beginning on January 1, 1998, that synthetic folic acid be added to all enriched grain products at a rate that would add 100 micrograms to the average woman's diet. The folic acid fortification of enriched grains has been remarkably successful. It has raised blood folics, and it has prevented approximately 1,000 of the 4,000 cases of spina bifida or anencephaly that develop each year in this country. Recently presented research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that the fortifications may have also prevented, each year, 50,000 fewer people dying from heart attacks and strokes. In spite of this significant progress, much work remains to be done. The current estimate is that if folic acid fortification were increased to the levels that CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the March of Dimes recommended, then nearly two to three times as many birth defects could be prevented. The FDA has shown no indication that it will be requiring more folic acid be put into enriched grain products. Thus, if we are to prevent all folic acid birth defects that are preventable, we must find additional ways to get American women capable of becoming pregnant to consume at least 400 micrograms of synthetic folic acid recommended by authoritative sources. Furthermore, the FDA should raise the concentration of folic acid currently required in enriched grain products by 150 percent, to the level that the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the Spina Bifida Association of America, the Teratology Society, and other organizations have recommended. If we are to prevent all of the folic-acid- preventable birth defects that we can prevent, this change in the FDA regulation is a necessary complement to the proposed CDC program. There are two current ways and a third way in progress that can increase the amount of folic acid women consume. Vitamin supplement pills with 400 micrograms are widely available in the usual multivitamin and in the servings of a large number of breakfast cereals. With respect to multivitamins, I want to point out that if you were to go to your neighborhood chain drugstore or to one of the large discount stores--and I won't name any--you can purchase a year's supply of multivitamins containing the daily recommended dose of synthetic folic acid, 400 micrograms, generic product, for approximately $7, for a 1- year's supply. I have checked it. I have shopped. And that is equivalent to about 2 cents a day for women to receive the full prevention benefits afforded by this vitamin supplement. Now, if you contrast that with, for example, Mr. Chairman, Wishard Hospital's cost, which is the public hospital in our community, to treat one spina bifida baby, it is remarkable. And it is why my wife and I are here, because there are babies in Indiana and across the United States and around the world that are being born with birth defects that could be prevented, that should have been prevented. Since 1991, Mr. Chairman, 3,000 to 4,000 babies a year in the United States have been born with spina bifida or were diagnosed with anencephaly, which results in certain death. These figures do not take into account the number of voluntary terminations of pregnancies that result from prenatal diagnoses of these conditions. So these are pro-family issues. These are issues that I believe can make a substantial contribution to public health in America, and I salute you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues on the subcommittee for your leadership in these areas and in public health in general. Access to multivitamin products in the last 40 years has prevented thousands of American families from having children with severe birth defects and is likely to have prevented tens of thousands of adults from dying of heart attacks, strokes, and colon cancer. Johnson & Johnson are working with the FDA to bring oral contraceptive products to market that will include 400 micrograms of folic acid so that women will not need to take two pills. I was struck when I found out that there are approximately a million women in America who become pregnant each year while taking oral contraceptives or within the first 3 months of having stopped taking oral contraceptives. And the studies have shown that this group of women are the most likely not to be receiving the daily recommended requirement of B vitamin folic acid to receive the full prevention benefits. So it is our hope that not only will Johnson & Johnson be able to bring their product to market expeditiously, but we would hope that FDA will require all oral contraceptives to contain folic acid. This is, I think, an ingenious delivery system for the prevention benefits. Perhaps the committee can help see that these products get to market more rapidly. According to the March of Dimes' supported Gallop polls, only 30 percent of American women of reproductive age consume enough folic acid. It is critical, of course, that vitamin supplements and breakfast cereals sold in this country continue to have 400 micrograms of folic acid in a pill or in a serving. Given that it has been nearly 13 years since science proved that folic acid will prevent severe birth defects and given that only 30 percent of our young women are adequately protected from having a baby with these birth defects, there must be better programs implemented to increase the proportion of young women consuming enough folic acid. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be the agency to lead the campaign for the total prevention of folic- acid-preventable birth defects. So far, their appropriations have fallen far short of what is needed to get the job done. As I understand it, it would take approximately $2 million a year per State to implement successful education programs or a national program requiring $100 million. Currently, the CDC spends less than $10 million on folic-acid-prevention programs each year. While I know this is not an appropriation hearing, I trust that you can encourage your colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to increase CDC appropriations to this level to build an effective program that will prevent all folic-acid- preventable birth defects. With the necessary resources, CDC, working with the supplement industry, can substantially increase the likelihood that our babies will not develop preventable birth defects. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for your attention to this matter and your leadership on public health issues. This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Rose follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.091 Mr. Burton. Let me start with you, Mr. Rose. You know, my grandson became autistic after having nine shots in 1 day, seven of which contained mercury, and I was not even aware of what autism was until that happened. Evidently, you and your wife have experienced a similar situation with your daughter. Mr. Rose. Yes, sir. Mr. Burton. I guess it was when your daughter was born and you realized that folic acid and other supplements could have prevented a lot of these other childhood problems. So you are to be commended. I just wish we all knew about these things before they occurred. What I would like to do is--and I would be happy and I hope I will get my colleagues to join me in writing a letter not only to CDC but FDA with the recommendations you have made regarding folic acid. So we want to do that and ask them to try to include this, I think you said the birth control pills and anything else that will help. As far as the advertising is concerned and the budgetary concerns you mentioned, this is probably not the best year to start asking for more money, but at least, we can talk to our health agencies about that. They get billions of dollars anyhow, and they can move that money around without an additional supplemental appropriation. So we will do that. What I would like to do is to have the high points of his testimony put into a letter to both the CDC and the FDA. Mr. Rose. May I make one more comment, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Burton. Sure. Mr. Rose. I was working on this issue during the last Congress, and during the last Congress, the Senate Committee on Agriculture passed language which amended the Food Stamp Act for the first time. That amended language would have permitted food-stamp recipients to purchase multivitamin products containing folic acid. That language was omitted from the bill in conference, and I believe this is something that could be handled by administrative order in the Department of Agriculture. But it seems to me to be most unjust that poor Americans are denied these prevention benefits. Mr. Burton. Well, Doug, I have sponsored legislation that would do essentially the same thing, that would allow people to be able to get these supplements that are necessary through some assistance. Mr. Rose. Thank you, sir. Mr. Burton. So we will check that. We will check that out. And make a note to talk to them about that food stamp as well. Dr. Micozzi, in your testimony, you cited a 2002 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association on vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults. Can you tell me a little more about that article? I am not familiar with that. Mr. Micozzi. The article was by a group of investigators at Harvard, the Nutritional Epidemiology Program, which is led by Walt Willet there, and it was Fairfield and Fletcher who wrote the article. They basically surveyed the biological evidence regarding optimal levels of a whole series of nutrients relative to a typical dietary intake, pointing out that the information that we use for recommended daily allowances is really to avoid deficiency states, to avoid the nutritional deficiencies that have been well documented medically. We have been learning in scientific research that optimal levels of nutrients for the prevention of disease are higher than are usually reflected in the recommended daily allowances. So their main point of the article was to summarize the evidence that has accumulated now to show that Americans really should, for many nutrients, have higher intakes than are presently reflected in the RDAs. Mr. Burton. We have had a lot of people say that there is no direct link between dietary supplements and the well-being of Americans. Does that article or any information that you have indicate to the contrary? Mr. Micozzi. To me, Mr. Chairman, that article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, because of its breadth and scope, its publication in a leading medical journal that reaches American medical practitioners, its origin from a distinguished group of investigators at the Harvard Nutritional Epidemiology Program, all those things together, to me, marked it as a somewhat seminal event in mustering the evidence, where certainly those who read the article in the medical profession can no longer say that Americans cannot benefit from dietary supplementation. Mr. Burton. Mr. Seckman, in 1994, NNFA supported DSHEA, and I think you have already addressed this question, the FDA has not really been on the ball in getting that thing implemented. With their new director, do you think they are moving rapidly enough now? Mr. Seckman. We think under Commissioner McClellan, who recently just left the FDA and moved over to a different agency under HHS, we think under his leadership in the last 18 months we did see very much progress. He took on the issue of ephedra and dealt with that. He also got the long-awaited GMP regulations out. So we see the agency in the last 18 months headed in the right direction with the implementation that was mandated in 1994. Mr. Burton. Well, if there are additional things we can do to speed up the process, to make sure that DSHEA is fully implemented, I wish you would let me know about it. Because there are a number of pieces of legislation that would alter DSHEA, as you know, and that is one of the things we have talked about in the past. If we can make sure that everybody in Congress knows that everything is being done by FDA to fully implement DSHEA, that would probably discourage a lot of that legislation because they would see it is not necessary. So we need to know what kind of progress is being made over there, and on a day-to-day basis, I cannot keep up with it. So I need you guys to keep us informed. Mr. Seckman. We will do so. And that is why I mentioned in my testimony Senate bill 1538, which, as you indicated, this might not be a good year for additional appropriations. Although with the additional appropriations to the FDA to actually implement DSHEA, it specifically spelled out that the FDA would have to report back to Congress on their schedule of the implementations of the act itself. Mr. Burton. Well, like I said before, our health agencies are getting billions and billions and billions of dollars. You could move that money around in a lot of ways. I am not sure an additional appropriation is necessary. We just need to have them prioritize a little bit differently. Ms. Dickinson, as a representative of the mainstream core of the dietary supplement industry, how has DSHEA affected your council, the implementation of it or the lack of implementation of it affected your council? Ms. Dickinson. The lack of implementation of DSHEA, I think, has put a cloud over the entire industry. We feel that the ongoing problems that we have had over the last 10 years in resolving some of the issues that we recognize to be very troublesome issues have led to the impression that FDA cannot act. So we are very pleased, and I share with Mr. Seckman the view that, under the leadership of Commissioner McClellan, FDA has made a commitment to act, has in fact been acting and we feel that is to the benefit of both consumers and the industry, because it demonstrates that the appropriate regulation can work when FDA decides to make it work. We believe that, once FDA has started down this track, that Dr. Crawford and others, who will still be there leading the agency after Dr. McClellan leaves, we hope and expect that they will continue on that track. Mr. Burton. Well, I'm glad to hear that Dr. McClellan has done some positive things over there. We had a little difficulty getting him to testify before Congress, but I think that issue has finally been resolved. Mrs. Davis, do you have some questions? Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of you being here. I wonder if we could talk a little bit more about the self-policing issue. Because one of the things you suggested--and I think Mr. Seckman was critical of the FDA because they did not act sooner, and yet in many ways the legislation left it up to the industry to self-police. But we know that they did not do that or we would have had adverse event reports that had been reported to the FDA. Could you share with me, then, why do you think they should have acted sooner? On what basis would they have acted? Mr. Seckman. I think it is required under the act. There is a new dietary ingredient provision in there for any new dietary ingredients that were not grandfathered in prior to 1994. So, in fact, the FDA, I think, on that has indicated there has been about 190 new dietary ingredient submissions in that time where they have gone ahead and made some kind of action. On the existing products out there, it is up to the FDA to make their prioritization on products like ephedra, where they had a proposed rule, I believe in 1997, on some requirements to come to closure on that. Commissioner McClellan finally did take some sort of action on that. So they have the authority, clearly, and they have indicated that, to take action on products if they so choose. And I think that is up to the agency to go ahead and make those kinds of determinations. Mrs. Davis of California. Can we count on the industry, then, to basically self-police, to be sure that those adverse event reports get to the industry? And I am talking more about really the weight-loss supplements or those supplements that people take to get more energy, not necessarily going as far as steroids, but some of the other ingredients that we are aware of, because that really did not work before. Ms. Dickinson. The industry recognizes the need for an improvement in the adverse event reporting system and is interested in working both with Congress and with FDA to develop a system that is appropriate for this category. I think it is important to recognize, though, that the long period that it took FDA to act on this was not for lack of information and was not for lack of adverse event reports that it began to receive actually as early as 1992. I would even suggest, and I know it is a controversial thing to suggest, that the adverse event reports that were obtained from Metabolife, as offended as everybody is by the fact they said they didn't have them and then they had an awful lot, I think substantively the information in those adverse event reports did not add a lot to the information the FDA already had from the adverse event reports it had received. I think we have seen in other areas, for example, with FDA's action against GHB, that when they receive adverse event reports that have a very clear signal, they have, in the past, been able to act very quickly on those events and did appropriately act. I think the situation with ephedra indicates, in fact their current action is based on scientific information, the adverse event reports that they had even quite a long time ago and the known pharmacology of ephedra, all of which information was available to them before now. So I would not blame the failure of adverse event reporting or mandatory adverse event reporting for the delay. Yes, a company, a responsible company should be reporting serious adverse events. Yes, it may add to the volume of reports FDA receives. But in terms of the meaningful information to be drawn from those reports, I believe FDA had that information and has had it for some time. Mrs. Davis of California. Is the industry encouraging companies, then, to produce those adverse event reports? Ms. Dickinson. As you well know, under the food provisions of the act, companies are not required to submit adverse event reports, even serious adverse event reports, either for foods or for supplements or for OTC drugs that are subject to monograph approval. So supplements are not the only area where adverse event reporting is not mandatory. We do recognize that, because of this ephedra event and because of other events surrounding our industry, we are under extra pressure to do that, and we have made a determination to support mandatory adverse event reporting. The devil is in the details, as you well know, about exactly how that system is going to operate. Mrs. Davis of California. So you are saying that you are supporting the mandatory reporting? Ms. Dickinson. We are in support of mandatory adverse event reporting. We have not yet reached, and I do not think anyone has reached, the full picture of what the details are that would surround that system. We are also exploring with some poison control centers some alternatives that would involve a voluntary system. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make certain that people understood I am not personally here to restrict access to vitamins or minerals. I think that is important, that people have access to those. What is really critical is that they have good information about it. So I look forward to working with the industry on that. I just wanted to make it clear, as well, that I think that Mr. Dumoff's testimony suggested that, in the legislation H.R. 3377, that, in fact, what we are trying to do is regulate supplements like prescription drugs. And I hope you will take another look at that legislation and tell me where you think that is there, because that is certainly not the intent. I do not think you can read that into the legislation. What is a part of that, of course, is the forwarding of adverse event reports. That is what we are interested in, and I appreciate the fact that the industry also sees that there is a need to do that. And we look forward to working with them on that. Mr. Dumoff. Thank you for that comment. We certainly look forward to having that conversation with you. Mrs. Davis of California. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One further comment. Mr. Burton. Sure. Mrs. Davis of California. I know that Dr. Brackett mentioned that there had been an effort to reach out to the community, to reach out to the supplement community and to get some information so that they could promulgate their regulations. I wonder if it's possible to get some more detailed information from him about that outreach so we can understand fully who all was involved in that and whether in fact there are other medical groups or other consumer groups that might have been contacted as well. Mr. Burton. I do not know to whom you are addressing that, but, David, could we get information like that? We would like to have it, if we can get it. Mr. Seckman. I think we could help you get that information, yes. Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much. Mr. Burton. One more thing I want to ask you, Mr. Seckman, David, is, you quoted some statistics there that I think are not widely known. Can you go through those real quickly one more time? For instance, ibuprofen, I take that all the time because I get terrible headaches and backaches. At my age, those things happen. Don't laugh at me out there, young lady. Mr. Seckman. Ibuprofen is responsible for more than 17,000 deaths annually. Mr. Burton. 17,000 deaths annually. Mr. Seckman. Right. Prescription medications are among the top five leading causes of death, about 106,000 annually. Mr. Burton. And I take Lipitor, and they check my liver every 3 months to make sure I don't have liver damage. So I guess, the one point I would like to make is that the supplement industry has had so few, comparatively speaking, adverse events compared to what we do on a daily basis regarding ibuprofen. And people die from aspirin and Lipitor and Zocor, and all the other things we take, atenolol for our blood pressure and all those things. I am mentioning some of the things I take from time to time. So I think you need to keep that in perspective. There is no question DSHEA needs to be fully implemented and that the health agencies need to be vigilant in making sure that we don't have supplements causing people severe side effects. But any time you put something in your body, whether it is too many tomatoes, so you get rashes, you are going to run the risk of some kind of problem like that. Anyhow, thank you very much to this panel, we really appreciate it. We stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3725.094 <all>