Guest guest Posted March 26, 2004 Report Share Posted March 26, 2004 , wrote: In fact, unprepared Ban > Xia has 0.00344% or 34 PPM of ephedrine alkaloids and prepared Ban Xia > has ND (non-detectable) at a testing limit of 3PPM. FDA cites > significant Adverse Event Reports for the herb Ephedra but none were > related to any product sold to or by professional practitioners. No > Adverse Event Reports at all have been associated with Pinellia (Ban > Xia). the inclusion of ban xia in the ban at all seems clearly illegal and not what congress intended when they passed DSHEA. congress did not give the FDA the right to ban naturally occuring molecules, but rather specific natural substances that had been show to be harmful. Not a single document was presented that implicated ban xia in anyway. No public testimony was made on ban xia. No notice was given to anyone that it was a matter of concern. Its like banning homeopathic arsenicum because arsenic can kill you. But even more to the point, the FDA rules bans substances that contain ephedrine alkaloids. Prepared ban xia, which is the form used in all patents, apparently does NOT contain ephedrines (see above). I will point out that just as the actual FDA rule does not exempt chinese remedies in patent form, the same rule also does not mention ban xia by name. the preamble mentions ban xia as an example of such ephedrine containing herbs. However, if your products do not actually contain ephedrines, I would submit the rule does not apply to you, even if ban xia is present in the product. Since the rule does not mention ban xia, it seems like the FDA would have to accept proof that the product contains no ephedrines and could not pursue the matter just because of ban xia being present. I don't think the rule as written allows them to ban ban xia that has no ephedrines. Just as the rule as written does not ban mormon tea, which is an ephedra species with undetectable levels of ephedrines. So product makers should test your products for ephedrines before proceeding further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 Your points are good ones. In theory, I agree with everything you say. As you know, the FDA's ruling was poorly thought-out and poorly written. Frankly, it is not clear exactly what they meant to do. But, according to spokespersons at the FDA, their intention is to disallow any dietary supplement which contains Ban Xia. This includes all of our products which are only sold legally under DSHEA. While the ruling is debatable, companies with lots and lots at stake cannot operate in such a poorly defined regulatory atmosphere. Are we supposed to wait until we are hit by a fine of thousands of dollars per day for every day we have not complied after April 12? What about our product liability insurance. If we continue selling these products after Apr. 12, they will not be covered by our insurance. That creates extreme potential legal libability. This is why it's so important to get the FDA to stay implementation of this ruling so this whole issue can be made absoultely clear to all the stakeholders. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2004 Report Share Posted March 29, 2004 , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > What about our product liability insurance. If we continue selling these products after Apr. 12, they will not be covered by our > insurance. That creates extreme potential legal libability. Not just for suppliers, but also practitioners. Malpractice insurance assumes that product liability insurers will take up some of the brunt of a suit. W/O that bulwark, coverage will be dropped. I wouldn't be surprised if coverage for all herb prescribing was soon dropped or incurred an additional rider. Oh, there I go again. While I agree that the FDA must be confronted head on, you suggested a few months back that someone who has the fortitude should publicly flout a similar law and create a test case to challenge it. Does anyone know what the penalties are? Finally, while we all seem to be in agreement now on how the rule affects patents, I haven't heard anything about raw herbs or granules recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.