Another rare occurrence, a bipartisan bill sponsored by four brave legislators: Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT], Jaime Herrera Beutler [R-WA3], Zoe Lofgren [D-CA16], Jared Polis [D-CO2].
The human body is marvelous at healing itself—most of the time. Give it the proper nutrients, sleep, don’t overload it with toxins or excesses, and it will happily adjust to almost anything.
In this hyper-information age, there has been amassed an extraordinary amount of peer reviewed third-party research, in the US and around the world, with consensus built about many important aspects of health. It does, however, require a tremendous amount of time and energy and caffeine to plow through some of the most boring papers you would ever have to read.
But, the FDA has threatened cherry growers and walnut farmers with jail time and fines for making health claims about their foods. Huh?!
Bringing down health care costs through the dissemination of summarized peer-reviewed, transparent, scientific information about healthy eating should be the base of our wellness pyramid. It shouldn’t be illegal. Here are the main points…
The bill would allow food and supplement manufacturers to make health claims about their products as long as it is based on reasoned, legitimate scientific research in the context of an overall balanced diet. There must be a disclosure made of who funded the research. Also, proper disclaimers must be made that the FDA has not evaluated the statements, and it “places the burden of proof on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish that the literature being disseminated is not legitimate scientific research.” If you would like to read the entire bill it is available on govtrack.us.
Most Americans do not have the time to be their own nutritionists and naturopaths. But many Americans read the labels of the products they buy. Having freedom of scientific speech about the efficacy of the products we use is a giant step forward in a smarter, healthier America. Nothing in this act would prevent the FDA from pursuing those unscrupulous companies who are lying about their wares. And a better-educated populace wouldn’t be so likely to fall for those lies, either.
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).