U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | FDA |
FDA
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 100:3
But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our side of the aisle that champions limited government and States’ rights, that they use the FDA’s ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in 1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with only local control.
FDA
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998 1998 Ron Paul 103:10
The harmonization language in last year’s FDA reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates or corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multilateral pharmaceutical corporations.
FDA
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my Consumer Protection Package — consisting of two pieces of legislation which will benefit consumers by repealing federal regulations. The first piece of legislation, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act, stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers’ access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health. The second bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal regulations which interfere with a consumers ability to avail themselves of desired television programming.
FDA
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:2
The Consumer Health Free Speech Act accomplishes its goal by making two simple changes in the Food and Drug Act. First, it adds the six words “other than foods, including dietary supplements” to the statutory definition of “drug,” thus allowing food and dietary supplement producers to provide consumers with more information regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. This bill does not affect the FDA’s jurisdiction over those who make false claims about their products.
FDA
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:3
Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. Just last year, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!
FDA
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:4
The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation’s number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease! The Consumer Health Free Speech Act ends this breakfast table censorship.
FDA
Consumer Protection Legislation
11 March 1999 1999 Ron Paul 19:5
The bill’s second provision prevents the FDA’s arbitrary removal of a product from the marketplace, absent finding a dietary supplement “presents a significant and unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” Current law allows the FDA to remove a supplement if it prevents a “significant or unreasonable” risk of disease. This standard has allowed the FDA to easily remove a targeted herb or dietary supplement since every food, herb, or dietary supplement contains some risk to at least a few sensitive or allergic persons. Under this bill, the FDA will maintain its ability to remove products from the marketplace under an expedited process if they determine the product causes an “imminent danger.”
FDA
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 103:23
The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
FDA
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999 1999 Ron Paul 104:19
The ERISA laws requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that were available and affordable in other parts of the world!
FDA
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 6:4
* In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
FDA
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000
February 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 6:5
* The Pharmaceutical Freedom Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable prescription drugs by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
FDA
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:135
Today if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness, and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA- and only after much begging and pleading. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk. The government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make these decisions. People in government think that’s what they are supposed to do for the good of the people .
FDA
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:79
Today, if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA and only after much begging. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk.
FDA
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:4
Despite DSHEA, officials of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. However, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999) , the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ first amendment right to learn about how using dietary supplements can improve their health without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The FDA has been forced to revise its regulations in order to comply with Pearson. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court’s order. Clearly Congress must continue to monitor the FDA’s action in this area.
FDA
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:6
Codex is the vehicle through which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is working to “harmonize” (e.g. conform) food and safety regulations of WTO member countries. Codex is currently creating a guideline on the proper regulations for dietary supplements with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We are concerned that the end result of this process will force the United States to adopt the same strict regulations of dietary supplements common in European countries such as Germany, where consumers’ cannot even examine a bottle of dietary supplements without a pharmacists permission. By participating in this process, the FDA is ignoring the will of Congress as expressed in DSHEA and in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, which expressly forbid the FDA from participating in the harmonization process, as well as the will of the American people.
FDA
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:9
In conclusion, we once again thank Chairman Burton for holding this hearing and for all his efforts to protect the freedom of American dietary supplement customers and for the opportunity to express our concerns regarding the threat to American consumers posed by the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius process. We also express our hope that Congress will act to protect the freedom of American consumers from overregulation of dietary supplements whether imposed by the FDA or through the back door by an international organization such as the WTO.
FDA
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Foods are not Drugs Act, a constitutional and common sense piece of legislation. This bill stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers’ access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health.
FDA
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:2
* The Foods are not Drugs Act accomplishes its goal by simply adding the six words “other than foods, including dietary supplements” to the statutory definition of “drug.” This allows food and dietary supplement producers to provide consumers with more information regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. This bill does not affect the FDA’s jurisdiction over those who make false claims about their products.
FDA
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:3
* Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. For example, in 1998, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpul product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!
FDA
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:4
* The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation’s number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease! The Foods are not Drugs Act ends this breakfast table censorship.
FDA
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 46:5
* The FDA is so fanatical about censoring truthful information regarding dietary supplements it even defies federal courts! For example, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), rehg denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court ruled that the FDA violated consumers’ first amendment rights by denying certain health claims. However, the FDA has dragged its feet for over two years in complying with the Pearson decision while wasting taxpayer money on frivolous appeals. It is clear that even after Pearson the FDA will continue to deny legitimate health claims and force dietary supplement manufacturers to waste money on litigation unless Congress acts to rein in this rogue agency.
FDA
REIMPORTATION OF FDA-APPROVED PHARMACEUTICALS -- HON. RON PAUL
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 51:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter I was unable to be present for roll-call votes last week. I particularly regret not being in attendance for the votes on the amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bills offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Roll Call no. 216) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Roll Call no. 217) dealing with the reimportation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. I would have enthusiastically supported both amendments had I been able to be here last week and I was quite disappointed to see the gentleman from Vermont’s amendment rejected and pleased to see the gentleman from Minnesota’s amendment accepted by this body.
FDA
PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 72:6
* In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the US or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
FDA
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:14
In addition to the Medicare regulations, doctors must contend with FDA regulations (which delay the arrival and raise the costs of new drugs), insurance company paperwork, and the increasing criminalization of medicine through legislation such as the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPPA) and the medical privacy regulations which could criminalize conversations between doctors and nurses.
FDA
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 74:17
Congress should also remove all federallyimposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!
FDA
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act of 2002. This act takes a major step toward restoring the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Health Information Independence Act repeals the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to approve health claims of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:2
Instead, that authority is vested in an independent review board. The board is comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. However, anyone who is, or has ever been, on the FDA’s payroll is disqualified from serving on the commission. The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim then the FDA must approve the claim.
FDA
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:3
The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting a disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds that the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer then the board must approve the claim provided the claim is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that “scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive” and/or “these claims are not approved by the FDA.” Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society.
FDA
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements.
FDA
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson court anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.
FDA
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 11:7
In the more than two years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.” Therefore, if Congress is serious about respecting the First Amendment rights of the people, we must remove FDA authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and those claims which can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer, by passing my Health Information Independence Act.
FDA
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 63:5
I must express my disappointment that this legislation does nothing to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a government- granted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress could do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.
FDA
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:31
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.
FDA
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation
September 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 90:6
I am also disturbed by the language that limits liability for those harmed by FDA-approved products. This language, in effect, establishes FDA approval as the gold standard for measuring the safety and soundness of medical devices. However, if FDA approval guaranteed safety, then the FDA would not regularly issue recalls of approved products later found to endanger human health and/or safety.
FDA
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 17:3
Mr. Speaker, I do wish to clarify that this tax credit is intended to supplement the efforts to reform and strengthen the Medicare system to ensure seniors have the ability to use Medicare funds to purchase prescription drugs. I am a strong supporter of strengthening the Medicare system to allow for more choice and consumer control, including structural reforms that will allow seniors to use Medicare funds to cover the costs of prescription drugs. In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the US or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
FDA
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 17:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
FDA
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 34:5
I am also disturbed by the language that limits liability for those harmed by FDA-approved products. This language, in effect, establishes FDA approval as the gold standard for measuring the safety and soundness of medical devices. However, if FDA approval guaranteed safety, then the FDA would not regularly issue recalls of approved products later found to endanger human health and/or safety.
FDA
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 71:10
Congress further exacerbates the fiscal problems created by this bill by failing to take any steps to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies, which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a governmentgranted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress can do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA-Approved pharmaceuticals.
FDA
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:15
FDA and Legal Drugs—For Our Own Protection : Our laws and attitudes regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful. The FDA supposedly exists to protect the consumer and patients. This conclusion is based on an assumption that consumers are idiots and all physicians and drug manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also assumes that bureaucrats and politicians, motivated by good intentions, can efficiently bring drugs onto the market in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. These same naïve dreamers are the ones who say that in order to protect the people from themselves, we must prohibit them from being allowed to re-import drugs from Canada or Mexico at great savings. The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come online slower and cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the legal expenses, and don’t get the friendly treatment that politically connected big drug companies receive. If a drug seems to offer promise, especially for a life-threatening disease, why is it not available, with full disclosure, to anyone who wants to try it? No, our protectors say that no one gets to use it, or make their own decisions, until the FDA guarantees that each drug has been proven safe and effective. And believe me, the FDA is quite capable of making mistakes, even after years of testing. It seems criminal when cancer patients come to our congressional offices begging and pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call this a free society! For those who can’t get a potentially helpful drug but might receive a little comfort from some marijuana, raised in their own back yard legally in their home state, the heavy hand of the DEA comes down hard, actually arresting and imprisoning ill patients. Federal drug laws blatantly preempt state laws, adding insult to injury.
FDA
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act. This Act restores the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Act restricts the Food and Drug Administration’s power to impede consumers access to truthful claims regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements to those cases where the FDA has evidence that a product poses a threat to safety and well-being, or that a product does not have a disclaimer informing consumers that the claims are not FDA-approved.
FDA
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:2
Claims that could threaten public safety, or that are marketed without a disclaimer, would have to be reviewed by an independent review board, comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. Anyone who is (or has been) on the FDA’s payroll is disqualified from serving on the board. The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim, then the FDA must approve the claim.
FDA
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:3
The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting a disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer, then the board must approve the claim- provided it is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that “scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive” and/or “these claims are not approved by the FDA.” Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society.
FDA
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access.
FDA
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson decision anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.
FDA
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:7
In the years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.”
FDA
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:8
The FDA’s “grocery store censorship” not only violates consumers’ First Amendment rights- by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements, the FDA’s policies are preventing consumers from taking easy steps to improve their own health!
FDA
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 20:9
If Congress is serious about respecting First Amendment rights, and the people’s right to improve their own health, we must remove the FDA’s authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer.
FDA
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 18:3
In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the United States or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
FDA
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005 2005 Ron Paul 18:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by State-licensed pharmacists.
FDA
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:2
In 1990, responding to the demands of the American people that the federal government respect consumers’ right to receive information about the ways foods and dietary supplements can improve their health, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The intent of that act was to allow the manufacturers of foods and dietary supplements to provide consumers with accurate and specific information regarding the curative and preventive effects of foods and dietary supplements. However, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, ignored repeated efforts by Congress to protect consumers’ First Amendment rights to receive truthful information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:3
Incredibly, in the case of Whitaker v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 947 (2004), rehearing den. 2004 U.S.D. App. LEXIS 4617 (D.C. Cir. March 9, 2004) the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit supported the FDA’s interpretation of Congress’s intent and rejected the clear restraints of the First Amendment by ruling that the FDA had the authority to censor information regarding the specific benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:4
Mr. Speaker, under the D.C. Circuit’s absurd interpretation of federal law, the only way food and drug manufacturers can transmit information about the health benefits of their products is by going through the lengthy and expensive FDA drug approval process. Because of this court decision, manufacturers are reluctant to provide all but the most general health information, thus ensuring that consumers remain ignorant about how they can cure or avoid diseases by making simple changes in their diet.
FDA
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:5
There are numerous examples of how the FDA’s grocery store censorship negatively impacts Americans’ health. Several years ago, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin. Instead, the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturer did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process.
FDA
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:6
The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturer of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation’s number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Thanks to the FDA, the American public is also prevented from learning about possible ways to prevent cancer, Alzheimer’s, high blood pressure, urinary tract infection, and numerous other diseases.
FDA
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 48:7
At a time when health care costs are rising it is absurd for the federal government to prevent Americans from learning about how they increase their chances of staying healthy by making simple changes in their diets. However, this bill is about more than physical health; it is about freedom. The First Amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech. The type of prior restraint the FDA exercises over these health claims has also been thought to be particularly repugnant to the First Amendment. In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not they will use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Consumer Access to Health Information Act.
FDA
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
FDA
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:3
FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.
FDA
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:4
Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects!
FDA
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:5
The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.
FDA
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS 2005 Ron Paul 118:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
FDA
Senior Citizens’ Improved Quality Of Life Act
19 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 79:9
H.R. 5211 also lowers the price of pharmaceuticals by making two changes in the law to create a free market in pharmaceuticals. First, H.R. 5211 allows anyone wishing to import a drug to submit an application to the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. Second, H.R. 5211 ensures that lawful internet pharmacies can continue to offer affordable prescription drugs free of Federal harassment.
FDA
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 5:3
In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Madam Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
FDA
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 5:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists.
FDA
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by Federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
FDA
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the Federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four Federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:3
FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.
FDA
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:4
Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for 4 years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects!
FDA
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:5
The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.
FDA
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 49:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the Federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the Federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
FDA
INTRODUCTION OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 3:3
In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Madam Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
FDA
INTRODUCTION OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT
January 6, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 3:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists.
FDA
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation restoring the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The first bill, the Health Freedom Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufacturers and marketers from making the claims.
FDA
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:3
FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in treating diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell an unapproved and unlawful drug.
FDA
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:4
Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects.
FDA
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:5
The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures; and that vitamin D may reduce the risk of osteoporosis, hypertension, and cancer.
FDA
INTRODUCING HEALTH FREEDOM LEGISLATION
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 87:6
The Health Freedom Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, numerous federal courts, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint. Specifically, the Health Freedom Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements. The Health Freedom Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. The FDA has proven that it cannot be trusted to protect consumers’ rights to make informed choices. It is time for Congress to stop the FDA from censoring truthful health information.
FDA
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 2 ... Cached
FDA bill was no reform
FDA
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 6 ... Cached
According to its supporters, this FDA-strengthening bill was more than three years in the making -- a so-called compromise between industry, the Clinton Administration, and a bipartisan coalition in Congress, we are told. Yet, despite the fact the legislation encompassed 177 pages of text, making broad changes to an administrative agency and its powers, the House leadership did not see fit to warn Members of Congress that this bill was coming to the House Floor for a vote.
FDA
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 9 ... Cached
This now-passed FDA bill requires that the US, through various international agreements, "harmonize regulation . . . and seek appropriate reciprocal arrangements" with foreign regulatory agencies. Opponents of this harmonization language correctly argue this "internationalizing" is very likely to limit the availability of food supplements by requiring prescriptions for dispensation as is the case in certain parts of Europe. Now remember, much of what the FDA does is already an unconstitutional usurpation of states rights, now this measure allows foreign governments to usurp the rights of American consumers.
FDA
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 11 ... Cached
Food supplement availability may be the least of concerns among those who still revere states' rights and acknowledge the continued existence of the tenth amendment, but one section of the legislation, "prohibits states and subdivisions from regulating food, drugs, or cosmetics . . ." The bill permits the FDA to set national standards for cosmetics but it does permit states to issue warning labels and take defective products of the shelves.
FDA
- FDA bill no reform: proves Congress still the same
13 October 1997 Texas Straight Talk 13 October 1997 verse 12 ... Cached
To the dismay of medical privacy advocates, the bill goes so far as to authorize the FDA to track patients who use certain medical devices for up to 36 months, and even to conduct post-market surveillance of these patients. Just think, a formerly overweight patient may be followed by an FDA agent to make sure they don't regain the weight a few years later.
FDA
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
And legislation like HR 2868, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act. This legislation would allow individuals the opportunity to decide for themselves what to believe about dietary supplements, health foods and herbs. Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years had demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers extensive regulation by the FDA, which is based more on protecting the interests of big pharmaceutical companies than sound science and good health. As a physician, I want to make sure individuals can examine the truthful claims of all sides about the positive and negative benefits of products sold over-the-counter in grocery and health food stores.
FDA
Government prescription for health is bad medicine
19 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 19 January 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
As individuals begin to consider ways to live healthier lives to be productive longer, it is imperative that they are able to provide for themselves and their families in the ways which best suit them. And if we have learned anything about federal involvement in just about everything - from education to crime to the environment - we know Washington is the last place we should be looking. Moreover, recent FDA reforms also challenge our national sovereignty by attempting to "harmonize" US regulations with the restrictive policies of other nation's. Fortunately we were able to remove the application of harmonization language to dietary supplements but we still have a long way to go to achieve health freedom.
FDA
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
Under the guise of "protecting" consumers, the FDA is moving to prevent sellers of natural vitamins and similar products from making claims of potential benefits. Even if one could constitutionally justify the FDA's ability to limit free speech in the name of "protection," it is clear that such restrictions only serve to harm consumers.
FDA
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
It is also foolish to think that the motives of the FDA are as pure as some would have us believe. As an entity run by politicians, the FDA is susceptible to the same political shenanigans as other government agencies. Friends of politicians get preferential treatment in military construction, tax-code revisions and highway projects.
FDA
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
In the same way, the large pharmaceutical companies are also big campaign donors to both parties. Their goal? Not highway projects, but FDA rules designed to ensure they maintain large profits and keep upstart companies out. Even though reliable scientific data indicates a particular naturally occurring substance can safely be of benefit to some consumers, there is little incentive for the large companies to manufacture those because the profit margin is so narrow, especially compared to that of synthetic drugs.
FDA
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
Opposition to the FDA's unilateral control of our nation's medicinal drug market is seen as heretical to the concept of government-knows-best.
FDA
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
Even assigning the most innocent of motives to the FDA's designs on free speech and commerce is disturbing, for it reflects the ever-growing Nanny State mentality of Washington, DC. Lawmakers and bureaucrats are convinced that they are smarter, better informed and care more about all Americans than do those Americans themselves.
FDA
Free speech is good medicine
07 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 December 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
After all, goes the pro-FDA reasoning, how can consumers be protected from dangerous products by anyone but the government? Given how often the FDA grants approval then later revokes their endorsement after the item is found unsafe, the better question might be how to protect consumers from FDA-approved products.
FDA
Long and Short Term Solutions to the Rising Cost of Prescription Drugs
07 August 2000 Texas Straight Talk 07 August 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
My bill also removes needless government barriers to the availability of pharmaceuticals. The key to controlling drug costs is to promote competition, with choices for consumers. However, FDA regulations make it nearly impossible for American consumers to obtain many medicines they need. My bill places the burden on the FDA to demonstrate why an individual should not be permitted to choose prescription drugs for personal use, thereby freeing American consumers to enjoy the benefits of price competition.
FDA
Drug Re-Importation Will Lower Prescription Drug Costs
09 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 09 October 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Legislation I introduced earlier this year would go farther in creating beneficial price competition for pharmaceuticals. The "Pharmaceutical Freedom Act" (H.R. 3636) eliminates needless FDA regulations which prevent Americans from buying low-cost drugs from foreign and Internet pharmacies. The Act also provides seniors with a tax credit of up to 80% of their prescription drug expenditures. My approach applies free-market principles to the problem: drugs become more affordable when we encourage price competition and provide tax relief to offset drug expenses. The free-market approach lets you and your doctor choose the prescription drugs that are appropriate for you.
FDA
Drug Re-Importation Will Lower Prescription Drug Costs
09 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 09 October 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
The administration’s plan would grant the FDA new investigative powers to monitor online drug sales. The administration also wants to impose massive penalties on non-complying online pharmacies and increase the FDA budget for the hiring of more online snoops. As usual, the government’s approach to the problem is more government; in this case increased FDA regulations to bring all online pharmacies under federal control (even those which comply with existing state laws). Of course, contrary to conventional wisdom, the FDA is not an independent agency working to "protect" you. Instead, government regulators have worked hand-in-glove with powerful pharmaceutical industry interests for more than a century. Is it any wonder that the FDA and its lobbyist-influenced regulations have done nothing but drive up the price of prescription drugs?
FDA
A Legislative Agenda for 2001
01 January 2001 Texas Straight Talk 01 January 2001 verse 6 ... Cached
Health care also will be a defining issue for Congress this year. Again, the answer to concerns about health care costs and quality is not a massive federal program. Schemes for "free" national health care will only result in shortages of drugs and doctors, waiting lists for procedures, and rationing of treatments and pharmaceuticals. Our emphasis should be on restoring market incentives to the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Our current FDA system reduces incentives for the development of new drugs and restricts competition for existing drugs, which results in the very high drug prices borne by consumers. Congress should undo the regulatory burdens that drive prices up, while providing tax credits and deductions for health care and prescription drug costs.
FDA
HillaryCare, Republican Style
30 June 2003 Texas Straight Talk 30 June 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
Pharmaceutical companies are the biggest winners under the new plan. Demand for drugs will rise, as our already overmedicated seniors will be happy to pass the cost off onto younger taxpayers. Large drug makers will become virtual partners with government, lobbying to make sure their drugs are part of the new system. Those drugs will continue to cost much more in the U.S. than foreign countries, despite efforts in the new bill to change federal rules prohibiting reimportation of drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services secretary already stated that he will never approve reimportation. Combine this lack of price competition with lengthy patents and protectionist FDA rules, and you have a perfect prescription for record pharmaceutical profits. The pharmaceutical industry reportedly spent $135 million dollars in recent months lobbying for the new Medicare bill. This speaks volumes about how seriously they viewed the stakes involved.
FDA
Paying Dearly for Free Prescription Drugs
06 October 2003 Texas Straight Talk 06 October 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
The Food and Drug Administration is also directly responsible for high drug costs. Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a single drug to market because of FDA rules. Often FDA approval is never obtained, no matter how much a company spends developing a drug. So pharmaceutical makers naturally try to recoup their huge investments by charging high prices and lobbying to keep exclusive drug patent periods as lengthy as possible. We need to understand that the FDA does far more harm than good, both in terms of drug prices and the incalculable chilling effect it has on needed drug research. With less FDA interference, patents could be shortened and drug development costs reduced. This would allow greater price competition between drug companies.
FDA
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 13 ... Cached
The health nannies insist that many dietary supplements are untested and unproven, and therefore dangerous. But the track record for FDA-approved drugs hardly inspires confidence. In fact, far more Americans have died using approved pharmaceuticals than supplements. Not every dietary supplement performs as claimed, but neither does every FDA drug.
FDA
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 14 ... Cached
The FDA simply gives people a false sense of security, while crowding out private watchdog groups that might provide truly disinterested consumer information. It fosters a complacent attitude and a lack of personal responsibility among people who assume a government stamp of approval means a drug must be safe, and that they need not study a drug before taking it.
FDA
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 15 ... Cached
The FDA, like all federal agencies, ultimately uses its regulatory powers in political ways. Certain industries and companies are rewarded, and others are punished. No regulatory agency is immune from politics, which is why the FDA should not be trusted with power over our intimate health care decisions.
FDA
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 16 ... Cached
The real issue is not whether supplements really work, or whether FDA drugs really are safe. The real issue is: Who decides, the individual or the state? This is the central question in almost every political issue. In free societies, individuals decide what medical treatments or health supplements are appropriate for them.
FDA
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 18 ... Cached
The FDA simply has thumbed its nose at Congress and ignored the new rules in many instances, by attempting to suppress information about health supplements. But in 1999 a federal appellate court affirmed that the American people have a First Amendment right to such information without interference from the FDA. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court order.
FDA
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 19 ... Cached
My regular listeners already know about another looming threat to dietary supplement freedom. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, an offshoot of the United Nations, is working to “harmonize” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals will require a doctor’s prescription. As Europe moves ever closer to adopting Codex standards, it becomes more likely that the World Trade Organization will attempt to force those standards on the United States. This is yet another example of how the WTO threatens American sovereignty. By cooperating with Codex, the FDA is blatantly ignoring the will of Congress and the American people.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.