 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Prepared Witness Testimony The House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Issues Relating to Ephedra-containing Dietary Supplements.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Cliff Stearns Yesterday's hearing focused on dietary supplements that contain ephedra and the manufacturing and distribution of these products, while today we will examine their regulation and also the policies pertaining to these products in major league sports. I appreciate my co-Chairman's leadership in holding hearings about products governed by the laws under the jurisdiction of this Committee. We want to promote healthy lifestyles, & ensure that Americans have good information and can promote their own wellness. At the same time, we do not want products on the market that pose a significant safety risk based on scientific information. Whether we like it or not, public figures are very often role models for society. While we in Congress might like to think we provide a positive role model for many younger Americans, any parent knows we have a very difficult time competing with high profile entertainment and sports celebrities that captivate youths. Unfortunately for many celebrities, the proliferation of media coverage devoted to many of these stars has made their lives an open book. Details of their every move are chronicled on the nightly news or in the morning paper and their personal lives become directly linked to their professional lives. An unwelcome loss of privacy may not be by choice and has my sympathy, but a position of visibility nonetheless brings certain rewards. The benefit of having the podium, bully pulpit, or the daily press coverage afforded provides an incalculable influence that translates into endorsements and drives entire industries. We have to look no further than the billion-dollar sneaker industry for proof that today's sports idols influence American culture enormously. Yet the danger in emulation is always determining where to draw the line. Copying fashion trends set by celebrities may be harmless, but following their lifestyle could be inappropriate and unwise. And that is why we are here today with a distinguished panel of witnesses representing American sports at the professional and collegiate level. The discussion and debate surrounding ephedra has become largely focused on its safety because of the unfortunate deaths of a professional and a high school athlete that have been linked to the use of ephedra products. I do not believe it is productive to debate the policies each sports organization has regarding the product, but rather to examine the factors and information available that have led to the decisions and actions taken by each regarding ephedra. Sports organizations have taken it upon themselves to ban certain substances from their competitors even when they are perfectly legal to the American public. Their policies are usually determined by two factors. First, substances are banned for either real or perceived performance enhancing qualities that could be detrimental to fair competition, and secondly because they may pose health and safety concerns in some consumers. I might remark that we learned at yesterday's hearing that the two ephedra manufacturers who were witnesses, while they did not conjecture the reasons behind the leagues' decisions, both testified that they support the ban, as that is not the audience to whom they are marketing their product. It is important to keep these points in mind - the real or perceived performance enhancing qualities that would undermine the idea of a level playing field and the health and safety concerns in some consumes - as Congress re-examines the manner in which supplements are regulated and marketed. I am pleased that we have the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration testifying on that topic. Regarding the FDA, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, also known as DSHEA, passed the Congress with no dissenting votes. It created a reasonable balance: dietary supplement products may make a claim about general uses, but not make unsubstantiated claims. Nor can they market dietary supplements with unapproved disease claims. The labeling I have read on products containing ephedra clearly affirms "that FDA has not evaluated" their statements, nor are "the products intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease". The American public should and does have access to safe supplements with accurate information. The law regulating dietary supplements provides FDA with the authority and framework to balance consumer access to and choice with the need to ensure the marketing of safe products and accurate information. Unfortunately, the FDA has not fully implemented DSHEA. An important step that the FDA can take to ensure safe and quality products enter the marketplace would be to issue the good manufacturing practice guidelines that were part of DSHEA. These guidelines will establish basic standards so that FDA inspectors can ensure supplements are being manufactured in a sanitary and pure fashion, with appropriate labeling. I support the FDA enforcing existing law rather than trying to create duplicative or expansive law, or ban ephedra products without FDA meeting its burden of proving it presents a "significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury." The consequences of any over-reaching actions would be detrimental to American consumers by unjustifiably limiting access to information and products intended to help consumers make wise and educated choices.
|
|||||||||||
|
