The History & Future of the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act

9/21/2009 8:01:00 AM
ARTICLE TOOLS

by Peter Barton Hutt

We celebrate this year the 15th anniversary of the enactment of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). But landmark legislation like DSHEA does not spring full blown from the fertile imagination of members of Congress, nor does the enactment of such legislation follow a preordained result. The history that led to the enactment of the statute, and its subsequent implementation, are therefore worthy of full consideration.

Legislative History

The earliest dietary supplements marketed as such in the United States were cod liver oil products promoted in the 1920s for their vitamin A and D content. FDA soon discovered some were providing less of the promised vitamins than the label stated. FDA began a series of seizure actions in the courts that lasted a full decade. In part, this regulatory response was fueled by the conclusion of many in FDA that dietary supplements are unnecessary for any person who eats properly—a feeling that has continued to persist within the agency up to this very day.

When the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 was replaced with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FD&C Act), Congress included Section 403(j) to authorize regulations governing the labeling of food “for special dietary uses.” FDA promptly exercised this authority to require the labeling of both fortified food and dietary supplements. As dietary supplements expanded, however, and their claims became more aggressive, FDA reverted to the enforcement approach used in the 1920s. During the 1950s, FDA, with the assistance of FTC, launched the most intensive enforcement campaign in agency history. FDA brought hundreds of seizures, injunctions and criminal actions in the courts against what the agency concluded were misbranded dietary supplements.

When this failed to slow the steady expansion of the dietary supplement industry, FDA abandoned court enforcement and proposed new regulations designed to limit both the specific nutrients and their levels in dietary supplements. These regulations became the subject of the infamous evidentiary trial-type hearing before an Administrative Law Judge in 1968 and 1969, where FDA and the industry proffered testimony of 162 witnesses and introduced into evidence more than 2,000 documents.

FDA pushed ahead following those hearings, publishing final regulations in 1972 that mirrored the 1962 proposal. But in 1974, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overruled parts of the regulations and stayed the remainder. Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) spearheaded enactment of the Vitamin-Mineral Amendments of 1976, which further reduced FDA flexibility in regulating dietary supplements. Recognizing momentum had been lost, in 1979 FDA revoked all of the regulations it had promulgated in 1972, including those that had been upheld in the courts.

The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990

In 1990, Congress enacted the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which gave FDA authority to approve disease prevention claims for all food, including dietary supplements. From the beginning, FDA Commissioner David Kessler, M.D., saw this as a way to win back the ground FDA had previously lost to the dietary supplement industry. Rejecting advice to be cautious on this matter, he announced in 1993 that FDA would not approve any proposed disease prevention claims for dietary supplements, even when they were approved for conventional food, and would attack dietary ingredients other than essential vitamins and minerals on the ground that they are illegal food additives and therefore must be removed from the market. It was one of the worst decisions by an FDA commissioner in the agency’s entire history.

DSHEA: The Kessler Act

The dietary supplement industry mobilized a grassroots campaign that is widely regarded as one of the most successful political movements in American history. Every health food store in the country campaigned for congressional action to stop FDA from carrying out Kessler’s policy. Outraged citizens showed up at speeches made by candidates seeking votes in the congressional election of 1994, when the Republicans eventually gained control of the House and Senate for the first time in more than 40 years, and harangued the candidates about FDA taking away their freedom to consume dietary supplements. Just weeks before the election, recognizing that dietary supplements were becoming one of the largest issues in the campaign, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)—the strongest opponent in Congress of the dietary supplement industry—informed the industry he was prepared to negotiate a dietary supplement law. The industry had been drafting a bill, but few expected that it could be passed. The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) was so surprised at Waxman’s capitulation that at first it did not believe it was true. But a final bill was quickly put together and enacted in October 1994, just before the election.

« Previous123Next »

Comments

1

Carole 11/09/2009 11:39

This article was truly enlightening. It would be a relief to all of us to get the witch doctors out of here. What I don't understand is why the FDA is so opposed to supplements when it could bring the cost of health care down significantly. Or is it true that the FDA is a back pocket partner to Big Pharma?

2

Dan 10/01/2009 08:13

Wow - that was one of the best articles on the industry I have read all year. Just did a blog post on Supplement Secrets Exposed with a link to this article. This is eye-opening material that everyone should read.

3

Michael D Levin 09/25/2009 09:06

Kudos to Mr. Hutt for publishing these important and extremely disturbing insights. The actions (and inactions) of Mr. Kessler scream for thorough investigation and, if evidence can be proven, prosecution under the fullest extent of the law. Such willful violation of the public trust should not go unpunished.

Thank you, Mr. Hutt.

4

Mike Richard 09/22/2009 12:20

I read with genuine interest the article by Peter Barton Hutt on the history of FDA’s relationship with the dietary supplements industry. Undoubtedly I’m not the only industry member particularly gratified, and yet horrified, to read confirmation of what we had all long suspected: the calculated decision by David Kessler to disallow FDA enforcement of DSHEA so that unabated renegade companies would move beyond the pale and thus sabotage our whole industry. We all noticed a difference under the leadership of Mark McClellan, and were sorry to see him go.

Understanding the history, and tentativeness of our freedoms so well documented by Mr. Barton Hutt, I’m a bit perplexed by the closing statement of the article: “But because DSHEA is a very sound statute that balances industry flexibility with strong enforcement power in FDA, the dietary supplement industry should have little to fear in the future.” Does Mr. Barton Hutt mean that DSHEA is not currently threatened specifically from the FDA … or not threatened at all?

At the trade show I attended in July, it was clear that many in our industry are very concerned about the attitude towards DSHEA, and our industry, by members of Congress. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Barton Hutt and believe many would be very interested if he could clarify his point here.

Given that some bad actors ran wild for a decade, the media, Congress and main stream medical community have painted our entire industry with one foul broad brush – ramifications of David Kessler’s decision are still being felt today. We have seen attempts to bring about significantly more stringent legislation in Congress. In response, our industry has had to step up it’s lobbying efforts; something that needs to increase.

Mr. Kessler’s intentional decision to not enable FDA enforcement of DSHEA created an environment where we as an industry will never be viewed accurately, and may be under constant threat of increased regulation that could ultimately restrict consumer access to safe and beneficial products. We would be interested in any thoughts Mr. Barton Hutt has on this issue as well.

5

Michael Gorman 09/22/2009 11:44

Interesting to hear that Kessler's grudge took such a self-destructive form. It wouldn't be the first time that a public official pursued their own personal vendetta regardless of the damage they caused to the public. The Vitamin Hearings in the 60s came within a hair of destroying the industry before Proxmire came to our rescue with some legislative sanity. Legend had it that Commissioner Goodrich's rabid hatred was fueled by his personal embarrassment at the hands of Nutrilite's legal defense against his attacks. The lesson? Always fear your enemy when somebody gives him a badge.

6

C. Hadden 09/22/2009 11:35

Looks like business as usual to me. More witch hunts to snare honest health food store owners like, Wilderness Family Naturals, for carrying "forbidden products."
Anyone who has studied herbalism knows that all foods are active chemicals, it's what makes food nourish the body! Food comes from natural sources before it gets processed into supermarket goods.
The vast majority of prescribed drugs come or came from natural sources. Digitalis, nitroglycerin, aspirin, quinine, penicillin and all derivative antibiotics, does this make all foods drugs?
You eat it has an effect on the body, in some cases, a drug like effect.
Water is part of many drugs, should it be a controlled substance too?
My point is the FDA doesn't have any independent sources to judge or set standards for holistic and alternative health care, products or devices. It's spent the last century trying to destroy and discredit any and all of the trained experts and successful practitioners of any and all health alternative undertakings.
Those qualified to judge won't be asked to help set standards, they will instead be dictated to by those who opposed them from the beginning.
How bright a future do you see for the alternative health and supplement industry can you see?
I see business as usual.
Persecution, fraud, deception, kickbacks, and a growing black market that will fill the needs of the people.

"As some of her first actions, she has singled out dietary supplement products that contain active pharmaceutical ingredients or that act like illegal steroid products."
And so the war continues.

7

Dan Richard 09/22/2009 06:13

This was an excellent, well documented article. Very inspiring as well for the next generation to work to keep our health freedoms.

8

Jonathan W. Emord 09/21/2009 15:51

Many thanks to Peter Barton Hutt for his excellent history and, in particular, for explaining well how then FDA Commissioner David Kessler chose to violate the DSHEA by not enforcing it. Law violation of this sort is not the exception for FDA. Indeed, FDA has repeatedly interpreted the DSHEA contrary to the plain and intended meaning of that statute (it does so to this day). Its offenses against the governing law rise to constitutional levels. In repeated actions that are in contumacious disregard of direct federal court orders, FDA has refused to comply with First Amendment limits on its power. Regardless of administration, the agency's leaders seem inevitably to become intoxicated with power and to presume their authority beyond legal limits. Delegated by Congress combined legislative, executive, and judicial powers, FDA Commissioners have all too often ruled in their own self-interest, replacing the rule of law prescribed by our Constitution with the arbitrary rule of agency governors who remain largely unanswerable and unaccountable for their actions. We were founded on an opposite premise, indispensable to the survival and success of liberty. Ours was to be a nation of laws, not of men. The rule of law means nothing if those entrusted to enforce it are free to ignore it and do as they please. The FDA is symptomatic of the worst abuses wrought by the regulatory state. The republic designed by our Constitution is being replaced by a bureaucratic oligarchy. Just as surely as liberty cannot co-exist with tyranny, so too our constitutional republic cannot co-exist with a bureaucratic oligarchy.

9

Wayne Wasserman 09/21/2009 12:00

Aside from Mr. Kessler unwittingly helping to pass the very legislation he depised (how's that for irony?), the new FDA will certainly help make the supplement industry even better and safer for the American people.

It appears that the future of the U.S. nutritional supplement industry is very bright indeed!

10

Marc Ullman 09/21/2009 11:48

This is a very important article for anyone who cares about the dietary supplement industry and DSHEA. It confirms what many of us who try to work with FDA within the confines of the law have suspected. Finally an authoritative voice with inside knowledge has come forward.

11

Beth Clay 09/21/2009 11:41

Because Dr. Kessler's actions were malicious and may be seen as part of a cover up, one wonders if the family's of those who truly did die from adulterated products will
sue him personally for their loss.

This is a great and timely article.

12

Sarah Clachar 09/21/2009 10:37

Great overview article, Peter.

As a copywriter who often struggles to work within DSHEA, it's good to understand the context of this legislation. And I certainly agree that if the FDA uses its authority to help weed out improperly labeled, non-dietary supplements as well as "significant violations" and other outrageous claims and it can only benefit the industry as a whole.

13

matt pearson 09/21/2009 10:32

Since Mr. Kessler is, in effect, admitting that he refused to perform his compensated duties I wonder if he can be personally sued and forced to return his salary to the american taxpayers?

Post a Comment

 

announcements