Find out why we need to oppose Sen Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) bill that would strip the FDA of its responsibility for food and supplements, handing them to a new agency, the Federal Food Agency (FFA). While you may not like the FDA today, an FFA would be a catastrophe for freedom of choice and health sovereignty. Action Alert!
THE TOPLINE
- A new bill, introduced by Senator Dick Durbin, supported by a ‘Get the F Out of the FDA’ campaign, would create a Federal Food Administration (FFA), which would give exclusive, centralized and unbridled control over foods and dietary supplements to the new agency, potentially limiting consumer choice and innovation.
- The FFA’s vague criteria for classifying product risk—without defined metrics—could result in inconsistent and biased decisions. This uncertainty may lead to the exclusion of certain supplements and foods from the market based on subjective judgments rather than solid evidence.
- The establishment of the FFA could lead to further bureaucratic expansion and regulatory capture, where powerful corporations influence regulations to their advantage. This would likely stifle competition and limit access to innovative and natural health products.
Imagine a world where your favorite natural supplements and health foods are suddenly restricted or removed from store shelves, not because they’re unsafe, but because a distant federal bureaucrat decided they pose an undefined “risk.” The proposed creation of a Federal Food Administration (FFA) in a bill sponsored by supplement opponent Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), threatens to strip consumers of the freedom to make informed choices about their own health.
Under the guise of protecting public safety, this proposed new multi-billion-dollar federal agency would seize exclusive control over foods and dietary supplements, leaving drugs under a re-named FDA, the Federal Drug Administration. With a single Commissioner wielding unchecked power to categorize products and enforce regulations, the FFA would create a new layer of government oversight that would likely stifle innovation and limit access to natural health options. The idea of having separate food and drug agencies isn’t new: it’s what they’ve done in Europe and it spells more red tape, more enforcement, and more restriction. For those who cherish the freedom to choose natural and alternative health solutions, Durbin’s proposal should be seen as a threat to choice, autonomy, and affordability, and must be opposed.
A threat to freedom and choice
In a country founded on the principles of liberty and personal responsibility, the idea of an unelected official having the authority to decide what we can and cannot consume is deeply unsettling. The FFA’s ability to classify products and facilities as “high risk,” “intermediate risk,” or “low risk” without clear standards invites arbitrary decision-making. You can bet they won’t rate junk foods that are at America’s chronic disease epidemic as high risk, reserving that for high dose supplements and herbals that compete against drugs.
The use of an arbitrary risk classification would likely lead to the exclusion of key health-promoting products from the market, based on spurious or irrelevant evidence and manufactured notions of potential harm. Remember the feds’ attacks on raw milk and raw milk cheese? Under the FFA, the feds would have more power than ever to ban those health foods once and for all. And those bans would just be the appetizer.
US Constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Emord, recently appointed as ANH’s General Counsel, having assessed all the possible implications of the bill, proposes that the bill would place literally no limitation on the powers to be wielded over foods and dietary supplements by the new Commissioner of the FFA.
Emord said,
With no standard, we are unable to discern what will be deemed by the Commissioner a product of “high risk.” Will risk be determined in a manner analogous to Proposition 65 in California where a product containing an ingredient known to cause injury at some level of ingestion is automatically one of high risk? Will risk be based on the Paracelsian principle that dose determines toxicity? The statute is silent, and the Commissioner is empowered to decide. We do not know what metric will be employed and what level, degree, quantity, or quality of evidence will be required.
For health-conscious consumers, the bill would undoubtedly lead to fewer choices and less access to the supplements and foods that support their well-being.
Risk of bias
Arbitrary risk classification isn’t Jonathan Emord’s only concern. The lack of clarity with regard to what constitutes “risk” means the FFA’s decisions could be influenced by political and cultural biases, favoring certain industries over others. If history is any instructor, we can safely surmise that dietary supplements will be a target. Remember, Senator Durbin is the main proponent behind the push for mandatory products listing for supplements, a regulation intended to help the FDA eliminate supplements you care about from the marketplace. Federal officials have time and time again demonstrated their distrust of and antipathy towards dietary supplements and truthful statements about their benefits.
The law of bureaucratic expansion
Bureaucracies of all kinds follow some basic patterns. For one, bureaucracies have a natural tendency to expand their reach to justify their existence and secure continued funding and relevance. If you want to know more about expanded bureaucracies, check out those of the European Union. The creation of any new government agency invariably leads to a proliferation of regulations. The FFA would have every incentive to expand its scope, creating new rules and categories of “concern” that justify its existence and growth. The result? More red tape, more inspections, and more enforcement actions against foods and supplements. This may help, in limited circumstances, protect against contaminated products made or sold by cowboy operators, but it could also be used to target products the FDA and FTC have been attacking for a long time. A dedicated agency that does not have to divide its focus between food and drugs will have more funding, a higher capacity, and a greater incentive to restrict and eliminate natural supplements you rely on.
Jonathan Emord also reminds us of the inevitability of regulatory capture, where large corporations wield influence via revolving doors over the agencies that are meant to regulate them. We see it very clearly in the current FDA, where dangerous drugs with little benefit are routinely given the FDA’s seal of approval because drug companies fund a substantial portion of the FDA’s budget.
Major food and supplement companies (many of which are owned by drug companies), could leverage their power to shape regulations in their favor, shutting out smaller, more innovative companies. As we’ve indicated elsewhere, some of the big players actually want these additional regulations so more innovative competition can be eliminated, leaving the monopolists alone to sell their simple, cookie-cutter products across a globally harmonized system.
On this point, Jonathan Emord says,
As a practical matter, no agency of the federal government has been created that has not been consumed by industry capture from the most powerful and influential regulatees. Therefore, it can be expected that the major food companies will wield influence over decision making just as the major drug companies do over drugs at the FDA and that they will push for regulatory strictures that limit competition in their favor.
Preserving consumer freedom
At its core, the creation of the FFA is a step toward greater federal control over our personal choices. It threatens to limit our access to the natural health products that many of us rely on for maintaining our well-being. Rather than adding another layer of government oversight, we should advocate for greater transparency and accountability within existing structures.
Jonathan Emord confirms that there are no provisions in the FFA bill that are designed to prevent bias or conflicts of interest of any kind. Emord continued,
The very same departments on the food and supplement side now extant in FDA will become part of the new Federal Food Administration. Thus, with that move from FDA to FFA will come the very people with the same biases who have a vested political stake in protecting drug and big food company interests against competition and innovation. We should therefore expect old favoritism and bias to persist in the new entity.
We must resist this move towards centralized control and stand up for our right to make informed choices about our health. This is especially important as there are many supplement advocates, companies, and associations who are getting behind the ‘Get the F Out of the FDA’ campaign that supports Durbin’s bill—apparently failing to recognize its many problems.
The proposed Federal Food Administration is not just a bureaucratic reshuffle; it’s an expansion of administrative powers and a fundamental shift towards more federal control at the expense of consumer freedom. Let’s not allow this expansion of power to dictate our health choices. Now, more than ever, we must defend our right to choose the natural health options that work best for us.
Action Alert! Write to Congress opposing the creation of a Federal Food Administration. Please send your message immediately.
>>Feel free to republish – just follow our Alliance for Natural Health USA Re-publishing Guidelines.
