California Bans Ephedra

California Bans Ephedra

SACRAMENTOCalifornia hasbecome one of three states to ban ephedra sales. Departing Governor Gray Davissigned SB 582 Oct. 12, adding California to the ephedra-free ranks of New Yorkand Illinois.

Its been four long years, but Im extremely pleasedthat this modern day snake oil is finally off of store shelves, said JackieSpeier (D-San Francisco), the bills sponsor. Simply put, this bill willsave lives and enhance public health and safety in California. ... California is doing the job that the federal government wontactingto save lives and protect consumers.

The bill prohibits sale or distribution of any dietarysupplement product containing ephedrine group alkaloids. It does not apply toCalifornia-licensed health care practitioners who prescribe or dispense dietarysupplement products containing ephedrine group alkaloids, except for reasonssuch as weight loss, bodybuilding or athletic performance enhancement. Thisarticle would also not apply to ephedra-containing supplements sold ordistributed directly via a licensed health care practitioner or pharmacist whenthe dietary supplement product containing ephedrine group alkaloids is usedsolely for the purpose of treating patients.

According to the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA),the legislation places a statutory restriction on the scope of a practitionerspractice by criminalizing the act of dispensing ephedrine-containing supplementsfor some of the most popular reasons people use ephedra products.

The exception that is probably of the most interest toCalifornia-based manufacturers such as San Diegos Metabolife is that dietarysupplement products containing ephedrine group alkaloids are exempt if they arenot for resale in California or sold or distributed directly to businesseslocated in California.

Speiers office reported this bill was introduced as theFood and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to drag its feet regarding ephedra.For example, FDA has not followed up on a 30-day comment periodissued inAprilin regard to putting warning labels on ephedra products.

This was not Speiers first time sponsoring ephedralegislation. Speier introduced a similar bill in 2001, but it was shot down bythe California Assembly Health Committee. At the time, Speier was asking forbetter regulation rather than a ban of ephedra-containing supplements. Therequests outlined in the 2001 bill included mandatory advertising and labelwarnings about possible adverse effects and guidelines on in-storeaccessibility.

In 2002, Davis signed another Speier/ephedra bill into law,which followed the 2001 proposal. At the time he signed the bill, Davis stated,While regulation of dietary supplements and interstate commerce is theresponsibility of the federal government, Californians cant wait for federalaction that is too long overdue.

SB 582 was supported by the California Medical Association,Consumers Union and other public health advocates. It was opposed by the EphedraEducation Council and Metabolife. The legislation becomes effective on Jan. 1,2004.