It is way past time we reevaluate our drug policies. The manner
in which the Federal Drug Administration decides how to classify
and regulate drugs is incomprehensible. Risk is ostensibly the
basis for classification, but upon close examination, this does not
seem to be true.
Take, for example, ephedra. Currently, the FDA plans to ban the
controversial dietary supplement.
Though the ephedra market is worth a reported $1.4 billion
according to the Los Angeles Times, the FDA announced on Dec. 31
that the herbal supplement poses an “unreasonable risk”
to consumers, citing 155 ephedra-related deaths over the last
decade.
As a result, the FDA plans to phase all products containing
ephedra off the market over the next 60 days.
This ban comes despite the fact that the herb has gained
tremendous popularity as a weight loss agent and energy enhancer,
present in such popular products as Hydroxycut, Ripped Fuel and
Stacker 2.
Ephedra is derived from the Chinese herb ma huang and affects
the metabolism through its alkaloids, ephedrine and
pseudo-ephedrine (used as a decongestant in over-the-counter drugs
like Sudafed). These alkaloids affect the brain by stimulating
heart rate and blood pressure through capillary dilation, while
also suppressing appetite. This provides users with a natural,
amphetamine-like rush, coveted by body builders and athletes alike.
However, obviously, the substance is not without its risks.
Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Belcher died last February of a
sudden heat stroke while training, after having taken the herbal
supplement. Still, Belcher’s and the 154 other
ephedra-related deaths do not warrant a nationwide ban ““ not
when there are far more dangerous products still available for mass
consumption.
Take cigarettes. While ephedra is allegedly responsible for 155
deaths over the past decade, tobacco kills 430,000 Americans each
year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
As an herbally-derived stimulant with no medicinal or nutritional
value, cigarettes could technically be classified as an herbal
supplement. Yet, while the federal government has taken monumental
steps in regulating the tobacco industry, we’ve heard nothing
of a nationwide ban despite a preponderance of the evidence that
tobacco kills.
That’s not to say that such a ban should necessarily be
instituted. The point is, responsible adults should be given
self-determination concerning what does and does not enter their
bodies.
However, considering the risks involved with smoking compared to
the risks of ephedra, the FDA’s actions seem somewhat
hypocritical. I suppose this may have something to do with the fact
that the United States is the world’s largest tobacco
exporter, whereas ephedra is “merely” a $1.4 billion
market.
Even the risks involved in consuming alcohol far outweigh those
of taking ephedra. As HealthDay reports, in 2002 alone, there were
17,419 alcohol-related traffic deaths.
Furthermore, why the controversy over a dietary supplement when
the FDA approves far more dangerous pharmaceutical drugs for mass
consumption? The well-known drug Viagra can cause bleeding of the
eye, seizures, temporary vision loss or, if taken in conjunction
with the very common drug nitroglycerin, it can even result in
death.
Certainly there are health risks involved in ephedra’s use
““ but there isn’t anything that doesn’t somehow
raise the risk of cancer or heart disease. Will the FDA someday ban
Big Macs?
I don’t consider myself a libertarian, but consumers
should be allowed to consume what they wish, when they wish. And
this issue in particular crosses party lines. Liberals should
oppose the ban because it undermines individual liberty.
Conservatives should oppose it because of the tremendous federal
regulatory power over big business suggested by the ban.
More than that, however, the hypocrisy of this particular
situation serves to underscore the massive incoherence of the
system. We must take a serious look at the FDA and revise federal
regulatory procedures and powers. Our lives, literally, are at
stake here. There needs to be real logic in the system if it is to
be truly effective.
Dang is a third-year political science student. E-mail him
at ndang@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.