BAN ON EPHEDRA: RUSH TO JUDGEMENT

The beginning of the end for naturally produced ephedra was probably
the death last spring of a baseball player who was 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 choice