Editors’ note: The recent FDA ban on ephedra has sparked a debate about natural remedies and how they are regulated. But the FDA and the vitamin and food supplement industries have been at odds for many years over regulation.

1966 — Recently the Food and Drug Administration issued a series of regulations which affect vitamin and mineral food supplements. Basically these regulations would limit the ingredients of food supplement products to those which the department determines they wish, and at specific potencies which they would set. The regulations therefore arbitrarily dictate what amounts to a single formula, to which all manufacturers and users would be restricted.

In the light of current scientific knowledge, this type of restriction is neither logical nor intelligent. From the aspect of regulatory limitation, it goes even further, in that it specifies, to a certain extent, what can and cannot be taken nutritionally, whether in food or in supplementation by the American public, and further what can and cannot be recommended by health practitioners, throughout the United States. This type of regulation can have immediate consequences and its far reaching effect is extremely serious in view of the patient’s right and the doctor’s wishes in the professional nutritional management of health problems.

The segments of industries which are directly affected by these regulations are numerous — they encompass food processing, pharmaceutical companies, food supplement formulators and nutritional consultants at all levels. They are of immediate concern to these people and, just as when a similar regularity attempt was made four years ago, all of these industries and all of these people will again be filing objections to them.

On a legal and scientific basis these regulations are questionable. Their basic concept does not seem to be rooted in public health, but more in departmental opinion.

Understandably, these problems are of vital concern to many doctors of chiropractic, since they utilize food supplements in their practice as part of their health program. But it should be underlined here, at least at this time, that the problem of combating these regulations is an industry problem.

When a situation of this type arises, just as in Aesop’s Fables, many times the call of “wolf” is heard. Individuals, groups and societies spring up to take advantage of lack of understanding and a feat of the situation to “raise funds to combat it.” These many times well-meaning, but ill-informed and ill-equipped groups seldom succeed in combating a situation, but generally succeed in obtaining funds. Funds which are depreciated without usefulness and which, indeed, hamper the effectiveness of well orientated intelligent opposition to regulatory imposition.

So beware of the group or individuals who cry “wolf” and ask for funds. Don’t be misled by any statements that the affected industries are not vigorously opposing this program. This problem must be met initially with highly qualified clinical data, and experienced, astute legal opposition. These are seldom a part and parcel of the men who cry “wolf”. Theirs is an emotional appeal and the effect of emotion instead of facts and figures against regulatory action is totally useless and wasteful.

The time may well come when the profession and the public may be able to add their opinion meaningfully, through their legislative representatives to combat these regulatory tactics, but that time is not yet here. Indeed, premature action of this nature invariably results in a worsening of a situation. Your recognized professional associations and those industries who have engendered your respect over the years are your best source of information as to when you should add the weight of your opinion and your patients’, if it should be required. Until then, your concern should be in turning away from the door, the man who cries “wolf”.