California is at it again! This time they are considering a law that would effectively ban supplements as “cancer-causing agents” if their legislation passes! California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is proposing language to add to proposition 65 that “would essentially classify all vitamin-and-mineral dietary supplements with above-RDA potencies as cancer-causing agents unless proven otherwise.”
Now, first of all, we have to understanding that the RDA is what it says it is… the MINIMUM Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for an average individual. We also need to ask, “Who is doing the ‘recommending?'” The FDA, of course. And, we always trust them, right? (I am, of course, being facetious!) I would recommend reading the works of such luminaries as Dr. Linus Pauling for more information on what is, and is not, “safe” as a recommended daily allowance of certain vitamins and minerals.
Now, to say that anything over these minimal amounts is dangerous, or cancer causing is absurd! But, they are saying it! And, sadly, the law may pass! Unless you folks in California stand up and make your voices heard!
California Targeting Safe Supplements – Don’t Let Them Succeed – ACT NOW!
“California – ever known for its luscious beauty, endless energy, and general wackiness – is on the verge of stepping off the edge of the cliff yet again. A trial balloon is being floated by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to limit the potency of vitamin-and-mineral supplements under California’s Proposition 65 as cancer-causing agents. Proposition 65’s history is well-known within the State. In November 1986, voters in the State of California approved Proposition 65, in the belief that its passage would help protect them from toxic chemicals in the environment. Officially known as the ‘Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,’ almost everyone these days just calls it Prop 65. Prop 65 requires the State to publish a list of those chemicals ‘known’ to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list is updated at least annually and has ballooned to include some 775 chemicals. Although Prop 65 uses the term ‘known,’ in the real world substances on the list are not necessarily known to cause cancer but are only those that could, under certain circumstances, pose a risk of cancer based upon the interpretation of existing scientific data, such as animal studies. Prop 65 also requires businesses with 10 or more employees to notify Californians about the presence of listed chemicals in their products, in consumers’ and employees’ homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. The law further prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into drinking-water sources. OEHHA administers this program. Scott Tips, the President and General Counsel of the National Health Federation, notes that, ‘Without the warnings on listed products, private legal bounty hunters can sue those companies in violation of Prop 65, even though no harm from the products is ever demonstrated, and exact enormous legal and other costs. While some (not much) good has resulted from Prop 65, like all government programs the good intentions quickly lead to enormously bad consequences that far outstrip any possible good. One easy example of this is the Prop 65 listing of natural progesterone as a cancer-causing agent when in fact it helps counteract the carcinogenic effects of estrogen. Natural, bio-identical progesterone is an important hormone-replacement therapy for women, many of whom have been unfortunately scared away from its health benefits by the Prop 65 warnings that are mandated on the product.’ ‘Without such warnings,’ Mr. Tips continues, ‘the products and their manufacturers and distributors are sitting ducks. In fact, one growth industry spawned by Prop 65 consists of numerous private law firms dedicated to shooting first and asking questions later in a ‘no prisoners taken’ attempt to earn huge legal fees while doing a bare-minimum of public good. The State and County governments may also bring legal action, but often it is these vulture firms that are first out of the gate to win the jackpot. After all, BMWs and exotic vacations must be paid for somehow.’ OEHHA, it says, is proposing regulatory language – in concept only and not as a formal regulatory proposal, mind you – that would essentially classify all vitamin-and-mineral dietary supplements with above-RDA potencies (note they still use the old Recommended Daily Allowance term instead of the correct RDI, or Recommended Dietary Intake) as cancer-causing agents unless proven otherwise. Because California’s Prop 65 has nationwide impact due to the size of the market, consumers can easily imagine the harm this will do with substances that have a long history of being incredibly safe and effective.”