Illinois bans ephedra

[Talon]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/05/25/ephedra.ban.illinois.ap/index.html

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the nation's first statewide ban on ephedra Sunday, flanked by the parents of a 16-year-old football player who died of a heart attack after using the diet supplement.

"It's a good first step but it's not enough," Blagojevich said. He and other lawmakers urged other states and the federal government to adopt similar bans.

Ephedra, blamed for nearly 120 deaths, drew national attention after officials investigating the February heat stroke death of Baltimore Orioles pitching prospect Steve Bechler linked it to a diet pill containing ephedrine, ephedra's active ingredient.

The herbal supplement is sometimes marketed as an athletic performance enhancer.

The drive for a ban in Illinois began last September with the death of 16-year-old Sean Riggins of Lincoln, whose father said he was taking the supplement to help make the first-string football team.

"We have to make sure that (young athletes) can no longer go to the store and buy ephedra as easily as they can chewing gum," Blagojevich said Sunday. The ban took effect immediately.

Earlier this month, nutritional supplement retailer General Nutrition Centers said it would stop selling products containing ephedra. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law last week banning the sale of all diet supplements to children under 18.

The American Heart Association has urged a ban on ephedra sales, and the NFL, NCAA and International Olympic Committee have banned its use by athletes. Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher stood with Blagojevich on Sunday to support the ban.

Riggins' parents, Debbie and Kevin Riggins, are working with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, in seeking a nationwide ban from the Food and Drug Administration.

"With the signing of this bill today, we are the benchmark," Kevin Riggins said.

[wbahn]

While you can't tell for sure from this article, it sounds like the kid's father knew that he was taking the drug. After all, he seems to know the specific reason why his son was taking it and it's unlikely he asked him after the fact - though he could have found out after the fact from his son's peers. But, if he did know, then where is his responsibility in all of this? The dark side of ephedra has been known and touted for years. It just seems like far too many people are comfortable with the attitude that unless the government bans something that it must be okay to take - which of course leads to the drive to have government protect us from ourselves in every aspect of our lives.

[wbahn]

I've gone out and done a real brief search and it appears (not conclusive, but seems to be the case) that his parents didn't know he was taking it and that the coroner's investigation uncovered the fact that he - and many of his peers - took the pills that were purchased at a local convenience store.

What I said before still applies. In fact, as I review what I wrote it strikes me as ironic - given the point I was trying to make - that it does still apply given that it is making a considerably different point. My original point was that, in general, we don't need government stepping in to protect us from ourselves. But, one thing that is generally accepted, is that children DO need to be protected from themselves - at least to a significantly greater degree than an adult. While I am of two minds about whether the government should ban ephedra sales to adults - hey, evolution in action - I have no problem with banning it and many other substances from sale to minors. Will they still get it? Yes - just as they still get all the other things that are illegal for them to purchase whether adults can purchase them legally or not.

What I find particularly troubling is the crazy double standard we have set up - thanks to a 1994 law passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton. The drug companies in this country have to go to great expense to prove the safety and efficacy of any drug they hope to market. Whereas "diet supplements" don't have to have any proof that they do what is claimed and they don't have to prove that they are safe - the burden is on the government to prove that they are unsafe.

This flies in the face of any rational trade-off between risk and reward. Consider that if I come up with a drug that I can show cures colon cancer that I can't market it and let the people with colon cancer decide if they are willing to take the risk. Before I can offer it to them the burden is on me to prove that it is "safe". But if I grind up some leaves from some plant growing next to the toxic waste dump and claim that it improves your sex drive, helps you sleep at night, and detoxifies your liver then I can start selling it to anyone and everyone right away and no one can stop me until THEY can prove that the PCB level is killing half the people that take it.

Consider the advertising differences. For a long time prescription drugs couldn't be advertised on TV and in magazines. Once they got past that, they couldn't tell you what the drug was supposed to do FOR you but they had to tell you all the bad things that the drug could do TO you. Now, I think pushing prescription drugs on TV is disgusting to begin with. I just picture in my mind all of these people speed-dailing their doctors asking, "Hey doc, I just saw a neat commercial for XenoPhenoClariTopomine. I have NO idea what it's for, but the butterflies were SO pretty. Can I take that!?!?" But my point is that legitimate, test drugs have huge hurdles thrown in front of them while untested "supplements" can make WILD claims in the very next commercial without having to disclose whether anyone has ever had any problems at all.

[Lisa N]

I just picture in my mind all of these people speed-dailing their doctors asking, "Hey doc, I just saw a neat commercial for XenoPhenoClariTopomine. I have NO idea what it's for, but the butterflies were SO pretty. Can I take that!?!?"

As funny as this sounds, it happens far too often. When he was a practicing physician, my dad HATED those drug commercials because he knew it would bring a steady stream of requests from patients for the "latest and greatest" drug even though most of them had no idea what it was supposed to be used for. After all...most of these commercials end with the words, "Ask your doctor is this drug might be right for you." so that's exactly what people do.
Believe it or not, he had a man ask for estrogen pills because he saw an ad for it. My dad very calmly asked if there was a reason that he wanted to grow breasts, raise his voice and start lactating. :daze:

[Angeline]

Excellent points Wbah. It occurs to me however, that if manufacturers had to prove their natural product was effective in order to be allowed to sell it, it would probably eradicate 90% of all the supplements available out there. Now, that would probably be a good thing in the case of the the more obvious snake oil potions out there, but it would be a shame for many others fine products. For example I swear by Echinacea. I am absolutely convinced it boost your immune system and helps you fight off a cold if you take it early enough. Yet, there is no real conclusive evidence that it does, except for one single study (that I know of). Now, I'd be real upset if they were to forbid the sale of this wonderful herb, due to insufficient evidence. Another example is Stevia. Presently it's sold as a dietary supplement because they aren't allowed to say it's a sugar replacement. That would disappear as well, since as a supplement it does well...nothing.

My third and last point is that there is a huge difference between drugs and dietary supplements. One can be patented and the other cannot. Drug companies incurs huge cost trying to develop a particular drug, but they stand to reap huge profits as well. That more often than not works to our disavantage. Since dietary supplements can't be patented, no drug company would invest the necessary research money to be able to market them. So that would pretty much make dietary supplements disappear from the market.

So, as flawed as the system is, I think I prefer it the way it is. It gives us freedom of choice. But with freedoom comes responsibility It's up to the buyer to use his or her brain and be at least somewhat informed about what they are getting.

Most dietery supplement need to be "generally regarded as safe" to be sold. I believe it means that it can't kill off a large portion of its user base. So I am fairly certain that you would not be able to market your toxic dump herb mix all that easily, but then I could be wrong :)