S722 aka. Anti-Prohormone Bill FYI
FYI, the Anti-Prohormone Bill everyone is worrying about is the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003 also known as S722, may be viewed at the following site: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm
Under "By Number" type S722 and select "Go". From there you may read the proposed bill for yourself. For instance, although the bill has been introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin it is also sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Charles Schumer.
In regard to PH's, Section 4 Steroid Precursors (a) Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) to exclude a product that bears or contains an anabolic steroid from the definition of a dietary supplement. More specifically: (a) FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT- Section 201(ff)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(1)) is amended by striking `(other than tobacco)' and inserting `(other than tobacco or a product that bears or contains an anabolic steroid (including a substance that is chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone but not including an estrogen, progestin, or corticosteroid))'.
Part (b) of Section 4 is the ammendment catch all for PH's under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802). It states: DEFINITION OF ANABOLIC STEROID- Section 102(41)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(41)(A)) is amended--by striking `that promotes muscle growth, and includes--' and inserting `that promotes muscle growth or is advertised or used to promote muscle growth.
It gets better yet......Section 5 Agency Expertise and Authority, eliminates a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.342) requiring the United States to bear the burden of proof to show a supplement or an ingredient in a supplement is adulterated due to a safety violation. It states: Section 402(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)(1)) is amended by striking the matter following subparagraph (D). What follows subparagraph (D) states: In any proceeding under this subparagraph, the United States shall bear the burden of proof on each element to show that a dietary supplement is adulterated. The court shall decide any issue under this paragraph on a de novo basis. S722 will earase this and the FDA's burden of proof requirement. You can draw your own conclusions about the FDA operating without a burden of proof requirement for supplement manufacturers.
If your up for another field trip you can visit the following site and read the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321), (21 U.S.C. 342) and Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) for yourself and note the changes proposed by S722: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/. Select "Search", then enter the Title and Section. For example Title 21 Section 321 is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and Title 21 Section 802 is the Controlled Substances Act.
If you read the Controlled Substances Act you'll note that the PH catch all will be specific to substances chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone. Currently Section (41)(A) states: The term ''anabolic steroid'' means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids) that promotes muscle growth, and includes -. Under S722 that will change to state: The term ''anabolic steroid'' means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids) that promotes muscle growth or is advertised or used to promote muscle growth, and includes -.
Don't get caught up in the rumors, industry hype and scare tactics. Find out for yourself what S722 means and how it will impact you, good luck.

Under "By Number" type S722 and select "Go". From there you may read the proposed bill for yourself. For instance, although the bill has been introduced by Sen. Richard Durbin it is also sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Charles Schumer.
In regard to PH's, Section 4 Steroid Precursors (a) Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) to exclude a product that bears or contains an anabolic steroid from the definition of a dietary supplement. More specifically: (a) FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT- Section 201(ff)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(1)) is amended by striking `(other than tobacco)' and inserting `(other than tobacco or a product that bears or contains an anabolic steroid (including a substance that is chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone but not including an estrogen, progestin, or corticosteroid))'.
Part (b) of Section 4 is the ammendment catch all for PH's under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802). It states: DEFINITION OF ANABOLIC STEROID- Section 102(41)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(41)(A)) is amended--by striking `that promotes muscle growth, and includes--' and inserting `that promotes muscle growth or is advertised or used to promote muscle growth.
It gets better yet......Section 5 Agency Expertise and Authority, eliminates a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.342) requiring the United States to bear the burden of proof to show a supplement or an ingredient in a supplement is adulterated due to a safety violation. It states: Section 402(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)(1)) is amended by striking the matter following subparagraph (D). What follows subparagraph (D) states: In any proceeding under this subparagraph, the United States shall bear the burden of proof on each element to show that a dietary supplement is adulterated. The court shall decide any issue under this paragraph on a de novo basis. S722 will earase this and the FDA's burden of proof requirement. You can draw your own conclusions about the FDA operating without a burden of proof requirement for supplement manufacturers.
If your up for another field trip you can visit the following site and read the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321), (21 U.S.C. 342) and Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) for yourself and note the changes proposed by S722: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/. Select "Search", then enter the Title and Section. For example Title 21 Section 321 is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and Title 21 Section 802 is the Controlled Substances Act.
If you read the Controlled Substances Act you'll note that the PH catch all will be specific to substances chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone. Currently Section (41)(A) states: The term ''anabolic steroid'' means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids) that promotes muscle growth, and includes -. Under S722 that will change to state: The term ''anabolic steroid'' means any drug or hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids) that promotes muscle growth or is advertised or used to promote muscle growth, and includes -.
Don't get caught up in the rumors, industry hype and scare tactics. Find out for yourself what S722 means and how it will impact you, good luck.
Last edited: