Practitioner Call to Action on Ephedra Ban

March 22, 2004

Emmanuel Segmen wrote :

> I believe that Pete's points here are correct for the time being in the U.S.

> When I questioned Michael McGuffin of the American Herbal Products Association

> in Washington on this point, he said that the federal rules were intended to

> follow the state's rules on this. I'm mainly aware of the rules in

> California, and Michael indicated that these rules and those of other states

> would be the precedent. So practitioners can use ma huang and ban xia as

> crude herbs or in finished formulas.

For the time being may be a rather short time. There is current legislation

in both the US House (H.R,435) and Senate (S.R.260) subcommittees that would

permanently ban any herb with any trace amount of ephedrine alkaloid. That

includes Ma Huang, Ban Xia and any herb that may at any point in the future

to be found to contain ephedrine alkaloids in any amount. There is no

exemption whatsoever for the use of these herbs in either raw form or for

Traditional Medicine practitioner use.

The current FDA ruling is just that - a ruling. It is open for challange

and debate. If these 2 bills currently being considered by our legislators

pass into law, we will lose both Ma Huang _and_ Ban Xia from our pharmacopia

for good, and will open the door for other herbs to be summarily banned in

the future. Please look at the information regarding H.S.435 and S.R.260.

Please follow the links to read the full text of these bills. Please

contact our legislators in the subcommittes that are considering these

bills. We may be able to live without Ma Huang, But to lose Ban Xia and to

have the potential to easily lose many more herbs is just unacceptable.

The time to act is now. Contact your legislators while this issue is still

being debated in subcommittee. Don't wait until this makes it to the House

and Senate floor. By then it will be too late.

see http://tinyurl.com/yw4qr for info on H.R.435

and

http://tinyurl.com/38sb8 for info on S.R.260.

Thank You,

Judy Saxe, L.Ac.

Qing Ting Acupuncture LLC

Denver, Colorado

(303) 964-1996

http://www.QingTingAcupuncture.com

March 22, 2004

Hi Judy!

I emailed Congresswoman Harris' office to this effect:

H.R. 435

" Here is something that seems innocuous that is actually too broad. There

are legitimate uses for these herbs (any herb with any trace amount of

ephedrine alkaloid) that are the immediate subject of the ban, notably Ma

Huang and Ban Xia, in Traditional . This bill needs to

address these legitimate uses for these herbs in the professional practice

of Traditional by amendment before this bill is passed.

" In addition, it is a dangerous precedent to allow the FDA the power to

regulate Traditional when there are a great number of

State Boards set up for this purpose. If the FDA is to have such power it

must have equal number of representatives from our profession on its

governing bodies. "

In addition, I will be in ongoing contact with Congresswoman Harris office,

and I am active in her re-election campaign. I really don't think we will

be ignored.

At 01:08 AM 3/22/2004, you wrote:

><snip>For the time being may be a rather short time. There is current

>legislation

>in both the US House (H.R,435)

Regards,

Pete

March 22, 2004

Thank you, Judy,

Yes, I've had copies of those bills for some time, and I hope everyone takes a

moment to read them. I've read them and then discussed them with my federal

representatives in the House and Senate, the AHPA director and with the F.D.A.'s

head of dietary supplements. That's why I made my comments to which you refer

below. The bills restrict the dietary supplements act regarding any amount of

ephedrine ... to include ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and associated molecules.

The same wording is used here in California. Many people who write legal code

tend to copy existing legal code.

My company and other California companies both import and sell ma huang and ban

xia under that legal code at this time. I am registered with the FDA both as an

importer and as an agent for the agronomists in China from whom I import. The

FDA and I are getting along quite well with ma huang and ban xia at this time.

I am not in any way an advocate for the FDA ... nor do I have a hostile nor an

adversarial relationship with them. They are in the executive branch of

government. I am in the business part of Chinese herbal medicine. I know very

well they were created by the political actions of the A.M.A. I know that the

F.D.A. is mandated to look out for the interests of " big pharm " , so to speak.

Nevertheless, I have to communicate with the F.D.A. quite regularly in my

everyday work. I also communicate by email directly with the head of the

dietary supplements division, Robert Moore. We discuss our issues. Sometimes

we even agree. Often we don't. Occasionally he tells me things months later

that I told him months earlier. I try not to appear overly pleased when that

happens ... but it is gratifying. I do my very best to help Mr. Moore see the

views of people in Chinese herbal medicine. From what I can tell, you're

interests, Judy, and my interests are fairly parallel and congruent. I am

strongly engaged in this issue both with my federal representatives as well as

directly with the F.D.A. I hope that others work closely with their

representatives as well.

Respectfully,

Emmanuel Segmen

-

Judy Saxe

Chinese Medicine

Sunday, March 21, 2004 10:08 PM

Re: Practitioner Call to Action on Ephedra Ban

Emmanuel Segmen wrote :

> I believe that Pete's points here are correct for the time being in the U.S.

> When I questioned Michael McGuffin of the American Herbal Products

Association