|Received:||7/4/2006 11:06:53 AM|
|Organization:||USANA Health Science|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:I am a new distributor to USANA. I became a distributor because I believed in the product and found that their practices are very honest and open. They offered to purchase back product, if I changed my mind, but I have been taking the products 6 months prior to my decision to becoming a distributor and I have found great benefits from USANA's products. I want to make sure others have the same opportunity I have to becoming not only healthier, but to help their limited incomes by becoming USANA distributors, also. Since identity theft is so wide spread these days, I would not feel comfortable disclosing any other distributor’s information to a prospective, at all. Even more so, I do not want my information given out to others, without my direct and specific situation permission. I think if USANA has done anything wrong, is guilty of being fraudulent in anyway, I would agree that these proposed rules be applied to USANA and USANA distributors. As far as I know and have experienced, USANA is far from being fraudulent or secretive. I have always understood that the guilty was to be punished, not the innocent. I want to protect others from being deceived and of being taken advantaged. This company has taught me a lot about business, helped build my confidence and self worth by showing me how the network marketing by direct sales can not only help other individuals personally with USANA's products, but how it also helps our economy. Such regulations requiring reporting every contact and information disclosed to a prospective, then turning that into the company, is not only infringement of my perspective’s privacy, but mine, as well. When I go to purchase a car, no one writes down those conversations and turns them in to anyone. (I wish they would) I have been deceived by many used car dealers. They make promises, propose deals and then, when it comes right down to signing the papers, they got what they originally asked for and all I got was a used car that has more problems than what was originally disclosed. Why are they not under such scrutiny? I think if you could apply these rulings to companies that have had complaints about fraudulent business practices, then that would be very fair (punish the guilty). If USANA has had any complaints and it has been found to be true, which I know there are some networking businesses that are not honest, then I would withdraw my comment that we should not be included in the proposed rules. Thank you for your time to consider my comments and for wanting to protect the public and their interests. I do not think you have anything to worry about USANA's practices.