[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 9655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       INTRODUCING THE CONSUMERS ACCESS TO HEALTH INFORMATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 12, 2005

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enhance the health and liberty of 
American citizens by introducing the Consumers Access to Health 
Information Act of 2005. This act ensures consumers can receive 
truthful information about how foods and dietary supplements can cure, 
mitigate, and prevent specific diseases. The act does this simply by 
correcting an erroneous court decision and thus restoring congressional 
intent to allow consumers to have access to information regarding the 
health benefits of dietary supplements without government interference.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.

                          ____________________