I share the concerns of many about the Senate bill S 722 introduced by
Senator Dick Durbin. I just don't think that some of the claims about the
effects of this bill's passage my fellow opponents make hold much water.
Furthermore I feel that some of these claims are damaging to our case
against S 722.
   I see nothing in this bill that will require a doctor's prescription for
any meaningful dosage of any nutritional supplement. The need for a
prescription isn't how this bill could raise the price of nutritional
supplements. The cost to supplement companies of the additional record
keeping S 722  forces upon them would be the way this bill would raise
supplement prices.
   That said; I have no doubt that S 722 will help pave the way for
selective enforcement against nutritional supplements, dosage restrictions,
prescription requirements, price hikes and outright bans. In and of itself S
722 is quite a propaganda piece against nutrional supplements. Even if it's
never passed the idea that that nutritional supplements cause such
signifigant and dire effects breeds fear of and prejudice against them.
   I think that more needs to be done about all the deaths, injuries and
illnesses prescription drugs cause before we worry about nutritional
supplements. When a baseball player dies who happens to have taken
ephedra it's all over the media. When prescription drugs kill, injure or
sicken someone it's an everyday event.
   I was thinking about mentioning the "drug " accutane, a
pharmaceutical form of vitamin A,  in my letter to Senator Durbin. I
guess I'll compare all the problems accutane has caused with the
relatively few problems with the normal form of vitamin A. Does
anyone out there have an opinion about whether this will help or
hinder the opposition to S 722?