Do you mean that ALL vitamins and supplements will be ILLEGAL ... Your question is too vague ..needs more of an explanation ... Please.

Of course not. Everyone should have the right to decide for him/her self whether or not to take vitamin and mineral supplements.

No that's ridiculous I mean why not ban Tylenol and Advil? Taking vitamins is good for everyone, keeps the body functioning properly. Anything taken too much will be bad

1) "Regulation Pursuant to the DSHEA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates dietary supplements as foods, and not as drugs. While pharmaceutical companies are required to obtain FDA approval proving the safety or effectiveness of their products prior to their entry into the market, dietary supplements, like food, do not need to be pre-approved by FDA before they can enter the market. The DSHEA gave the FDA the express responsibility to regulate the manufacturing processes of dietary supplements, and the FDA issued its first proposed rule in 2003.[6] In June 2007 it issued its final rule, which requires all dietary supplement manufacturers to ensure by June 2010 that production of dietary supplements complies with current good manufacturing practices, and be manufactured with "controls that result in a consistent product free of contamination, with accurate labeling." In addition, the industry is now required to report to the FDA "all serious dietary supplement related adverse events." The new rules have been criticized, however, with skeptics arguing lack of FDA resources, loopholes, and an exception on quality assurance for raw material suppliers (with the burden placed on manufacturers) will lead to continued quality problems. There's also concern that supplement manufacturers and retailers will hide behind the new regulations. Prior to the rule supplements have had major quality problems, and the number of FDA investigators has declined. The DSHEA, passed in 1994, was the subject of lobbying efforts by the manufacturers of dietary supplements. At the time of its passage DSHEA received strong support from consumer grassroots organizations, and Members of Congress. In recognition of this, President Bill Clinton, on signing DSHEA into law, stated that "After several years of intense efforts, manufacturers, experts in nutrition, and legislators, acting in a conscientious alliance with consumers at the grassroots level, have moved successfully to bring common sense to the treatment of dietary supplements under regulation and law." He also noted that the passage of DSHEA "speaks to the diligence with which an unofficial army of nutritionally conscious people worked democratically to change the laws in an area deeply important to them" and that "In an era of greater consciousness among people about the impact of what they eat on how they live, indeed, how long they live, it is appropriate that we have finally reformed the way Government treats consumers and these supplements in a way that encourages good health." Popular support may have been based on a misunderstanding of the situation after the deregulation of the supplement industry. A large survey by the AARP, for example, found that 77% of respondents (including both users and non-users of supplements) believed that the federal government should review the safety of dietary supplements and approve them before they can be marketed to consumers. In an October 2002 nationwide Harris poll, 59% of respondents believed that supplements had to be approved by a government agency before they could be marketed; 68% believed that supplements had to list potential side effects on their labels; and 55% believed that supplement labels could not make claims of safety without scientific evidence. All of these beliefs were incorrect as a result of provisions of the DSHEA. A 2001 study, published in Archives of Internal Medicine, found broad public support for greater governmental regulation of dietary supplements than was currently permitted by DSHEA. The researchers found that a majority of Americans supported pre-marketing approval by the FDA, increased oversight of harmful supplements, and greater scrutiny of the truthfulness of supplement label claims. Quality: Under the FDA's final rule on good manufacturing practices, quality is defined as meaning "that the dietary supplement consistently meets the established specifications for identity, purity, strength, and composition and has been manufactured, packaged, labeled, and held under conditions to prevent adulteration under section 402(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act". The new regulations allow FDA inspectors to look at a company's records upon request. However, enforcement could be difficult given the number of supplement manufacturers and the 16% decline in FDA investigators from 2003 to 2006. Much of the contamination is due to poor raw ingredients. Suppliers provide certificates of analysis stating that they have tested the material, but as an old saying goes, anyone with a printer can create a certificate of analysis. Under the 2003 proposed rule, manufacturers would have been required to retest the supplied ingredients. Under the final rule, testing for identity is always required. Other retesting is not required if the manufacturer has verified the reliability of the ingredient supplier. In the U.S., contamination and false labeling are "not uncommon" " Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_supplement 2) "Myths and Facts: H.R. 875 – The Food Safety Modernization Act MYTH: H.R. 875 "makes it illegal to grow your own garden" and would result in the "criminalization of the backyard gardener." FACT: There is no language in the bill that would regulate, penalize, or shut down backyard gardens. This bill is focused on ensuring the safety of foods sold in supermarkets. MYTH: H.R. 875 would mean a "goodbye to farmers markets" because the bill would "require such a burdensome complexity of rules, inspections, licensing, fees, and penalties for each farmer who wishes to sell locally - a fruit stand, at a farmers market." FACT: There is no language in the bill that would result in farmers markets being regulated, penalized any fines, or shut down. Farmers markets would be able to continue to flourish under the bill. In fact, the bill would insist that imported foods meet strict safety standards to ensure that unsafe imported foods are not competing with locally-grown foods. MYTH: H.R. 875 would result in the "death of organic farming." FACT: There is no language in the bill that would stop organic farming. The National Organic Program (NOP) is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Food Safety Modernization Act only addresses food safety issues under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). MYTH: The bill would implement a national animal ID system. FACT: There is no language in the bill that would implement a national animal ID system. Animal identification issues are under the jurisdiction of the USDA. The Food Safety Modernization Act addresses issues under the jurisdiction of the FDA. MYTH: The bill is supported by the large agribusiness industry. FACT: No large agribusiness companies have expressed support for this bill. This bill is being supported by several Members of Congress who have strong progressive records on issues involving farmers markets, organic farming, and locally-grown foods (Barbara Lee, etc.). Also, H.R. 875 is the only food safety legislation that has been supported by all the major consumer and food safety groups, including: Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention Center for Science in the Public Interest Consumer Federation of America Consumers Union Food & Water Watch The Pew Charitable Trusts Safe Tables Our Priority Trust for America’s Health MYTH: The bill will pass the Congress next week without amendments or debate. FACT: Food safety legislation has yet to be considered by any Congressional committee." Source and further information: http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/blogs/healthy-food/organic-farming-440320604

------ (ADDED: explanation at the beginning) ----- I wrote this answer to clear some particular issues that were discussed in the comment thread to this answer: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/6457829 ------ (after this line starts the original answer) ------- 1) "Claim: The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 would eliminate home gardens and put organic farmers out of business." "MOSTLY FALSE" "The announcement of HR 875 spawned a number of Internet-circulated pieces warning about the dire results citizens would face should be the bill pass, most of them repeating exaggerated claims unwarranted by anything stated within the text of the bill itself. One oft-repeated claim is that Rep. DeLauro's husband, Stanley Greenberg, works for the agricultural giant Monsanto corporation, and therefore Rep. DeLauro has a substantial financial interest in the passage of HR 875, a substantial conflict of interest. This information is false. Stanley Greenberg is not a Monsanto employee; he's the chairman and CEO of Greenberg-Quinlan Research Inc., a public issues research and polling firm which, as the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted in a clarification, hasn't had any business dealings with Monsanto for over a decade" "Many of these same points are addressed in Rep. DeLauro's Myths and Facts sheet for HR 875" "Certainly the provisions of HR 875 are subject to legitimate debate over how effective the bill would be at improving and ensuring the safety of America's food supply and whether they would place undue financial and regulatory burdens on smaller farms and businesses that primarily engage in the local production and sale of food items, but those concerns aren't being effectively addressed through the circulation of unwarranted claims similar to those cited above. Sources such as the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund are better starting points for grasping some of the issues regarding how HR 875 might affect small farmers." Source and further information: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/organic.asp Further information: http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=914988 2) "Personally, I think most of the fears behind this bill are misplaced. (home gardens are not farms and would not fall under this bill at all, farms are commercial entities) It's also important to remember the difference between the definitions of a "food establishment" (plant and warehouses) and "food production facility" (farms, ranches, orchards, etc) throughout reading the bill. I also don't fear that organic methods will be banned as organic methods have plenty of positive science behind them and would be in agreement with this bill for clauses like: "(4) establish and enforce science-based standards for--" I think the biggest hurdle will be how new regulations for minimum standards effect small businesses. However, there is a clause for tech assistance to small businesses: "(12) provide technical assistance to farmers and food establishments that are small business concerns (meeting the requirements of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder) to assist with compliance with the requirements of this Act." If anything, I see this bill as a potential threat to Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" crops as there are credible scientific studies that show that minute amounts of Roundup pesticide are indeed dangerous and would not be favored under this bill: "(A) the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) related to and requiring the safety, quality, nutritional composition, labeling, and inspection of food, infant formulas, food additives, pesticide residues, and other substances present in food;" The scientific study that details possible danger from Roundup: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum So be informed, if you feel there are not enough protections for small businesses and/or organic methods . . . then express your concerns to your representative. But as it stands, I don't think this bill will have an adverse effect for organic farming." Source and further information: http://current.com/items/89978902_hr-875-monsantos-dream-bill.htm 3) Reply from Monsanto: "HR 875: Monsanto's Dream Bill – Or Just an Internet Rumor? A recent blog post entitled Monsanto’s Dream Bill – HR 875 has created some ripples in the blogosphere and beyond. Several newspapers and even a radio station have picked up on it, and Monsanto has gotten a number of emails and phone calls. The author claims that Monsanto is behind the food safety Bill HR 875. The article explains that the bill is sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and claims that her husband Stanley Greenberg “works for Monsanto”. It goes on to describe how the bill would give incredible power to Monsanto by criminalizing seed banking, requiring 24 hour GPS tracking of animals, stripping away of property rights, and forcing industrialized farming on America. The trouble with this article is most of what is stated within is untrue. The most notable inaccuracy is the allegation that Monsanto is behind this bill. The reality is that Monsanto does not have a position on the bill. As far as Stanley Greenberg working for Monsanto – he did some contract work for Monsanto more than ten years ago. Nowhere in HR 875 is there any mention of seed banks, loss of property rights, or GPS tracking of animals. The bill seems to be nothing more than a well-intentioned effort to improve food safety laws and processes. It was no doubt written in response to public concerns with relatively recent incidents with peanut butter, ground beef, spinach, etc. The likely root of the offending blog post is a concern that food laws will make it more difficult to sell and process food that is grown locally. That is a legitimate concern—especially for small enterprises that would be hurt disproportionately by the fixed costs of regulation that larger businesses can spread across more revenue. It is uncertain whether HR 875 would be effective at improving food safety, or whether it would create unreasonable burdens on local production and sale. This is the discussion that needs to take place in both the blogosphere and in Washington. Wild and unsupported allegations do nothing to further the policy goals of improving food safety or supporting local food production and sale." Source and further information: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/hr875_monsanto_dream_bill.asp 4) "Background on H.R. 875 The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesn’t wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved. And as almost constant food safety problems reveals the dirty truth about the way much of our food is produced, processed, and distributed, it’s a dilemma we need to have serious discussion about. Most consumers never thought they had to worry about peanut butter and this latest food safety scandal has captured public attention for good reason – a CEO who knowingly shipped contaminated food, a plant with holes in the roof and serious pest problems, and years of state and federal regulators failing to intervene. It’s no surprise that Congress is under pressure to act and multiple food safety bills have been introduced. Two of the bills are about traceability for food (S.425 and H.R. 814). These present real issues for small producers who could be forced to bear the cost of expensive tracking technology and recordkeeping. The other bills address what FDA can do to regulate food. A lot of attention has been focused on a bill introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 875), the Food Safety Modernization Act. And a lot of what is being said about the bill is misleading. Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do: - It addresses the most critical flaw in the structure of FDA by splitting it into 2 new agencies –one devoted to food safety and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices. - It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced – but it does NOT make plants pay any registration fees or user fees. - It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur. - It requires imported food to meet the same standards as food produced in the U.S. And just as importantly, here are a few things that H.R. 875 does NOT do: - It does not cover foods regulated by the USDA (beef, pork, poultry, lamb, catfish.) - It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system. - It does not regulate backyard gardens. - It does not regulate seed. - It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements. - It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines). - It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that recordkeeping can be done electronically or on paper). Several of the things not found in the DeLauro can be found in other bills – like H.R. 814, the Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act, which calls for a mandatory animal identification system, or H.R. 759, the Food And Drug Administration Globalization Act, which overhauls the entire structure of FDA. H.R. 759 is more likely to move through Congress than H.R. 875. And H.R. 759 contains several provisions that could cause problems for small farms and food processors: - It extends traceability recordkeeping requirements that currently apply only to food processors to farms and restaurants – and requires that recordkeeping be done electronically. - It calls for standard lot numbers to be used in food production. - It requires food processing plants to pay a registration fee to FDA to fund the agency’s inspection efforts. - It instructs FDA to establish production standards for fruits and vegetables and to establish Good Agricultural Practices for produce. There is plenty of evidence that one-size-fits-all regulation only tends to work for one size of agriculture – the largest industrialized operations. That’s why it is important to let members of Congress know how food safety proposals will impact the conservation, organic, and sustainable practices that make diversified, organic, and direct market producers different from agribusiness. And the work doesn’t stop there – if Congress passes any of these bills, the FDA will have to develop rules and regulations to implement the law, a process that we can’t afford to ignore. But simply shooting down any attempt to fix our broken food safety system is not an approach that works for consumers, who are faced with a food supply that is putting them at risk and regulators who lack the authority to do much about it." Source and further information: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/background-on-h-r-875 Further information: - "Will H.R. 875 Kill Organic Farming? Nope.": http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/04/will-hr-875-kill-organic-farming-nope - "Food safety reform likely": http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=11818 5) Further information: - "Rosa L. DeLauro": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_DeLauro - "Stanley Bernard Greenberg": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Greenberg - "Monsanto": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Criticism