THE EPHEDRA BAN

The ban of herbal ephedra seems more a consequence of anecdote than of
scientific assessment.

The beginning of the end for naturally produced ephedra was probably the
death last spring of a baseball player who was grossly overweight, had
liver disease and high blood pressure and was practicing in hot weather.
And, oh yes, reports about all of this tell us, he had taken a dietary
supplement that included ephedra.

It's a fault of democracy that a dramatic incident can be more compelling
to the public mood and political instincts than carefully weighed
scientific data or a rational assessment of comparative risks, and it is
therefore no surprise that the Bush administration has announced a ban on
the product when it is derived from herbs.

Do not suppose, however, that it is thereby a given that public health will
improve. Ephedra products really do help people lose the fat that
diminishes their well-being to the tune of thousands of premature deaths
each year. And, some commentators have pointed out, the demonstrated
dangers of these products are less than the dangers of any number of other
commonly consumed drugs and chemicals, including aspirin and the caffeine
you swallow with your coffee.

Especially if you disregard the directions for use, the stimulation from
ephedra products can contribute to such scary afflictions as strokes. Care
is needed, as is the case with virtually all activities in this life, and
federal requirements for warning labels would have made great, good sense.
Instead, the government is acting to ban the products within months,
denying people the right to make some judgments on their own.

If consumers had that right, they might note that millions of people have
consumed billions of ephedra-containing pills each year to no ill effect
and, in at least some cases, to beneficial effect. They might also come to
the elementary conclusion that the coincidence of the taking of the pills
with illness or death is no more a proof in itself of cause and effect than
a rooster's crowing can be assumed to prompt a sunrise.

Perhaps, if challenged in court, the administration will show that it has
more reliable data of unacceptable risk than various publicized studies
have so far put on the table. The suspicion of the moment has to be, first,
that the action is driven more by politically unacceptable headlines, and,
second, that there's not a whole lot of hand-wringing in the administration
about still another failure to treat Americans as responsible, free adults
at least as intelligent as those who would dictate their choices.