1) New China Export Laws (most immediate issue)
On Nov. 18 2019, China introduced new laws banning production and export of SARMs (as well as steroids, peptides, nootropics, and more). These laws go into effect Jan, 1, 2020. No SARMs will be exported out of China as of Dec. 25, 2019. China is the only source that produces at scale.
- Global shortages within the next few months (including us)
- Significant price increases across the industry as supplies decrease (including us)
- Lesser quality/”watering down” of product from some sellers (NOT including us)
- Non-Chinese labs will begin producing SARMs … however read #2 …
(view in Chrome to get English translation)
2) U.S. 2019 SARMs Control Act (most important issue)
One day later, on Nov. 19 2019, the U.S. Senate reintroduced the SARMs Control Act, this time fixing issues with the 2018 version. If the bill passes SARMs will join steroids as Schedule III controlled substances, making their sale illegal.
- Debate and voting on the bill sometime during the 2020 Senate sessions
- If it passes acquiring SARMs will become very difficult for US buyers and sellers
- When stock runs out or when the bill becomes law, whichever comes first:
- US-based sellers will discontinue selling SARMs
- Non-US-based sellers will lose a primary market
What does it all mean?
We are probably nearing the end of an era of readily-available, inexpensive SARMs, especially for US buyers.
We hope to see raw material suppliers in other countries increase production to a scale that allows reasonable pricing. And with luck — and your help — the SARMs Control Act will be a dud (again).
In any case, don’t panic. But also don’t be alarmed if/when you start to see outages on our site and others. Also be very careful where and when you buy, now more than ever.
New and related Q & A’s added to our FAQ:
Q) What are your current stock levels?
Based on a very large last order, our stock level on primary sellers remains strong. However, we are out of S-4 and S-23, and low on SR-9009 and YK-11. We ware working diligently on new suppliers. Please note the ”in stock qty” displayed on product pages represents the number of bottled, sealed, prepared units we have ready and available to sell at any given time, not necessarily our total available stock level.
Q) What is the shelf life of SARMs?
Technically, the ”shelf life” of SARMs is unknown.
A lot of other companies stamp a 2 year sell-buy date on their products. Perhaps they’re following practices from the supplement industry, or trying to make products appear more legitimate. We don’t date-stamp our products.
It’s not that we think it’s necessarily a bad practice. Our products are in capsules and our bottles are also double-sealed (triple if you count the mylar), and include a silica pack moisture inhibitor. But a lot of other companies sell a liquid form, or bag of powder that’s not vacuum-sealed. It doesn’t take a scientist to know these forms can lose efficacy — and liquids lose consistency — over the course of a year or two.
Air, heat, light, and moisture are the enemies. We’ll offer our informed opinion that a capsulized product in powder form could last quite a long time if not overly exposed to these elements. And if one took extra measures, say placing bottles in a brown bag in a refrigerator (not a freezer), one could be looking at a very long, zombie-apocolyptic, timeframe indeed.
Q) What can I do about the SARMs Control Act?
A) See below… keep scrolling.
Updates – SARMs Control Act of 2019 (S.2895)
AKA – the “US SARMs Ban”
AKA – #SARMBAN
AKA – #SARMGATE
Just as we did with the SARMs Contol Act of 2018, we will do our best to keep you up-to-date on the 2019 version, S.2895.
S.2895 – Overview
S.2895 – Text as of 11/18/2019
11/19/2019 — Read twice and referred to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Action By: US Senate
Primary: Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] – (introduced 11/19/2019)
A US Senator from Iowa (especially needs to hear from residents of his own state)
Web contact form: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/constituents/questions-and-comments
Phone: (202) 224-3744
Address: 135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
Co-sponsor: Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] — (cosponsored 11/19/2019)
A US Senator from Rhode Island (especially needs to hear from residents of his own state)
Web contact form: https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/email-sheldon
Phone: (202) 224-2921
Address: 530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
The SARMs Control Act of 2019 has received letters of support from:
Special Interest Groups:
Letter from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency:
Letter from combined special interest groups from supplement industry:
American Herbal Products Association – http://www.ahpa.org/
United Natural Products Alliance – https://www.unpa.com/
Consumer Healthcare Products Association – https://www.chpa.org/
Council for Responsible Nutrition – https://www.crnusa.org/
What Can I Do?
You have a voice – make it heard!
Pressed by special interest groups and the ill-educated, S.2895, the SARMs Control Act of 2019 was presented to the U.S. Senate by Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] and co-sponsored by Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI], where it was “read twice and referred to the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary.”
The “SARMs ban bill” is currently in step 3 of the process as shown below.
The next step would be for S.2895, the SARMs Contol Act of 2020, to be asigned to the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism within the Committee on the Judiciary. Here the subcommittee members will “research, talk about, and make changes to the bill”, and either accept, reject, or table for further research.
Today the most impactful thing you can do to make a difference is to:
1) Contact Senator Chuck Grassley [R-IA], the bill’s sponsor
2) Contact subcommittee members to prepare them for the upcoming review by giving them your thoughts on your experience with SARMs.
Send your well-written message to the members of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism:
If you’re a resident of South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, Louisiana, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Deleware, New Jersey your voice carries extra weight with your own Senator (see state abbreviations above) and you can be firmer in your tone since they work for you.
What to Say:
Be polite, respectful, and intelligent in your correspondence. Include your full name, address, phone, and email address. Anonymous or fake names won’t work.
Remember, although not approved by the FDA for sales or use as dietary supplements for everyday human consumption, SARMs are legal (today) to sell, own, and administer as research chemicals. Sharing the results of your research subject(s) from your clinical research study is completely appropriate (and needed!) for the purposes of educating our senators who are most likely totally uneducated on the subject.
**** UPDATE – Dec 2 2019 ****
On a related note, we received an email from a site member today requesting we share his thoughts, below:
Senator Grassley says “By placing SARMs on the same schedule as other anabolic steroids, we’re ensuring a safer and more transparent marketplace” (source) when in fact the opposite is much more likely to happen.
Statistics show that effective, inexpenseive, and needed drugs, once outlawed, enter the black market where dangers of contamination run high and oversight is nonexistent. Incarceration costs go up and freedom goes down. State and federal tax revenue is also lost. Prohibition comes to mind as the classic example, while cannabis may be the best recent comparison. Have we learned nothing?
Senator Whitehouse says “The DEA needs to have the ability to control synthetic steroids that … are often marketed deceptively. Our legislation would expand DEA’s authority to crack down on bad actors peddling synthetic steroids… .” But these admirable goals could easily be accomplished by invoking the last part of S.2895, requiring proper and factual labeling, without the need to classify SARMs as Schedule III drugs where millions of citizens would, overnight, become felons for simple possession.
We’ve read endless peer-reviewed studies and anecdotal stories, spanning at least a decade, on the benefits of SARMs and almost complete lack of side-effects. Testosterone suppression, generally mild to very-mild (and sometimes nonexistent), is the only “side” effect we’ve seen consistently documented. You’ll see occassional comments from researchers who’ve ascribed an elevation in HDL to SARMs use, but this happens at overly-high doses with prolonged use that nobody recommends. But the benefits of SARMs compared to the very well documented and disasterous effects of the alternative, traditional steroids, make the risk-to-reward profile of SARMs is very acceptable. Even without the comparison the ratio is very good — probably better than ibuprofen.
However the 2019 SARMs ban announcement regurgitates the same undocumented mantra as the 2018 version: “SARMs are associated with serious safety concerns, including the potential to increase the risk of heart attack or stroke and life-threatening reactions like liver damage” — unsourced, again. But SARMs are, by definition, non-steroidal (source). The C-17 alpha-alkylated molecular structure of steroids (17 carbon atoms bonded in four fused rings), responsible for hepatoxicity with oral steroids, is nothing like the chemical structure of SARMs. Even a quick search on Wikipedia reveals peer-reviewed studies showing SARMs are “orally active without causing liver damage” (source).
Looking at SARMs use over the past two decades, or just their mainstream use over the past decade, one would think the hundreds of employees within the five organizations behind the endorsement letters above would be able to dig up and reference just one legitimate study showing negative effects of the “dangerous” and “illegal” drugs they reference in their wholly unscientific scare letters to our senators.
This is a classic story of big industry and special interests compelling — or, at best, tricking — our congressional representatives to push through legislation without due dilligence, legitimate testing, robust discussion, or providing a mechanism to give a voice to the millions of people who depend on these compounds.
**** UPDATE – Dec 11 2019 ****
This article, discussing the criminalization of drugs and black markets (PDF ) was submitted by a site member today with a request to post it here, along with the suggestion that subcomitte members above should be sent a copy, or several copies, along with other thoughts on the subject.
**** UPDATE – Dec 19 2019 ****
The U.S. House of Representatives voted today to impeach President Trump. This will undoubtedly tie-up the Senate for a good portion of 2020 and could be good news for opponents of the SARMs Control Act of 2019.
Last year at this time many were applauding the death of the 2018 version of S.2829 as the government shut-down prevented some bills (including the SARMs Control Act) from reaching the floor for debate or vote. We’re hoping for a similar act of unwittingly helpful beuracracy in the months to come: that the Senate will be too busy chasing its tail with impeachment proceedings to focus on S.2895, a bill that never should have been sponsored in the first place.
**** UPDATE – Dec 26 2019 ****
Today we heard from a site member who has a family member who lives in D.C. and worked as a staffer for a congress-person. He shared some interesting thoughts related to S.2895.
- There are thousands of bills introduced every year, but few become law. One reason is gridlock.
- A bill must make it out of committee to be voted on by the House or Senate (wherever it is introduced), and then it goes to the other side and must be voted on again.
- Success factors include:
- Amount of public support (or push-back)
- Amount of power/pull of sponsor
- Whether or not it’s bundled with something big and important
Op believes Senators Grasley and Whitehouse have a reasonable amount of pull.
Op seemed concerned about timing of China’s new, strict drug export laws, relative to introduction of U.S. S.2895 (one day apart), and a discomforting potential correlation to broader US-China tariff negotiations. Could S.2895 and other small bills be bundled in with an agreement on new rules and laws the President and Congress would eagerly sign to end the trade-war?
However, op applauds SARMTECH in our efforts to lead the resistance, and believes a good number of readers will take our advice to provide subcommitte members the push-back they’re looking for to get this bill off their over-booked agendas.
**** UPDATE – Dec 31 2019 ****
We were informed today from a member from Iowa that Senator Chuck Grassley [R-IA] posted a ‘2019 Accomplishments’ page, of sorts, to his website: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-marks-policy-oversight-accomplishments-2019.
Grassley cites his introduction of the SARMs Control Act of 2019 as a chief accomplishment, but our site member expresses much frustration in the apparent disingenuous wording of this “accomplishment” and shared with us not only Grassley’s quote, but his reaction to it:
Grassley partnered with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in introducing the bipartisan SARMs Control Act of 2019. The bill’s purpose is to crack down on synthetic variations of performance enhancing drugs that are illegally marketed as dietary supplements. Selective androgen receptor modulators, or SARMs, are synthetic drugs designed to mimic controlled substances and are often used as performance enhancers. SARMs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for human use. (Source)
I guess it’s all about the spin.
First, it’s not “bipartisan” just because you find one guy on the other side to put their name on a bill you think won’t have any opposition (you’re wrong, and I am, by the way, from Iowa).
Second, Mr. Grassley, your wording portrays SARMs as deliberately-engineered “mimics of controlled substances” that are always mislabeled and sneakily sold as dietary supplements. The reality is SARMs are a unique class of drugs that bear no chemical similarity (or bad side-effects) to steroids.
SARMs were developed by large U.S. pharmaceutical companies to treat diseases such as osteoporisis, fight against muscle-wasting in aids patients, etc. In the past 10 years, give or take, millions have discovered their often near-miraculous effects on injury recovery and preventing age-related muscle catabolism, and yes, performace enhancement (also known as “quality of life”) without resorting to steroids.
You’ve painted this bill as a salvation to the poor misled masses who are just wanting to buy an innocuous (arguably useless) supplement like multivitamins, but are knowingly being slipped something more powerful by dirty basement labs or evil marketing millionaires. Senator, nobody reading this — nobody buying SARMs — thinks they’re buying creatine or vitamin B, or anything except SARMs.
But perhaps you didn’t know this.
Surely, however you know this: Those who brought this bill to you, the makers of Horny Goat Weed and Dandelion Extract, make less money when truly effective drugs are selling instead. So if this bill isn’t about saving an unsuspecting public from some existing danger, is it really about special interests loading your accounts with campaign donations?
Senator, as long as the bottle is labeled as such, SARMs should be legal to buy, sell, and own. We don’t need to create a black market, we don’t want to resort to powerful and sometimes dangerous steroids to live a decent, healthy, pain-free life, and we don’t want to become felons simply because we own and use these compounds, which have been proven safe in over a decade of use.