Breaking News, What's New, Codex Emergency, All
Countries, What to Do
The FDA has been generating spin against IAHF's
warnings about Codex since I first began making them in 1996, and
recently they cranked their spin machine back up again.
Outrageously, Mannatech, and some
other vitamin companies have bought in to FDA's spin.
Below you will find IAHF's POINT BY POINT refutation
of what FDA is saying.....
Please forward this widely, especially to
distributors in network marketing companies such as Mannatech, Shaklee,
Herbalife, GNLD, and Nuskin which are members of CRN which is spouting
this same garbage that the FDA is with regards to Codex.
WHAT TO DO:
We have zero political leverage with the
unelected bureaucrats from the world's FDA's at Codex. At the 28th
General Session of Codex in Rome Italy from July 4-9 they will ratify
the Codex vitamin standard, with the blanks on allowable potency levels
to be filled in after the fact (another tactic to avoid opposition).
We must view Codex in the context of globalization,
and in North America we must grasp that CAFTA (Central American Free
Trade Agreement) and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) would set
into motion the destruction of every country in our hemisphere, and the
rise of an EU styled dictatorship in our hemisphere (which the ruling
elite intend to call the WAU (Western Atlantic Union).
There will be a fast track vote on CAFTA in the Senate
this June and Senator Grassley will hold a hearing on April 6th See
http://www.stoptheftaa.org Please call your Senators via
202-225-3121 and voice opposition to CAFTA and the FTAA. Cite reasons
given on the website above and also tell them you oppose CODEX and will
not tolerate the harmonization of our vitamin laws to international
standards. This would come via FTAA.
WHAT FOLLOWS IS MY POINT BY POINT REFUTATION OF FDA's
SPIN ON CODEX
MANNATECH (AND OTHER VITAMIN COMPANIES) HAVE
FALLEN FOR THIS SPIN
PLEASE HELP IAHF ALERT THEM TO THE
TRUTH:
Dick from Mannatech:
The following is copied from a PDF file from the FDA
regarding Codex. Marcia Smith dug it out and Ken Anderson sent it to me.
It says the same thing that Sam Castor has been saying.
IAHF COMMENT:
So, Mannatech is so naive that they actually trust
the FDA as their source of information on the Codex issue?
(Brilliant, utterly brilliant, I'm saying this sarcastically of course.
Its amazing how some people will believe ANYTHING if they're told "what
they want to hear.")
Isn't that a bit like trusting a pickpocket with your
wallet or like handing a loaded gun to a convicted murderer who is also
heroin addict while you're in a blind alley and the junkie needs the
money in your wallet to get his next fix, and you are blocking his path
in the alley?
Given the
fact that I spent about an hour on the phone with Ken Anderson after
Clint Miller introduced me to him on a conference call, I am rather
astonished that Anderson would buy into this, but I guess this is what
happens when people are willing to put blind trust in Sam Caster just
because he's on the CRN Board,
and he's apparently quite willing to overlook
the fact that CRN's membership includes Wyeth, Pfizer, Monsanto, Bayer,
BASF, Cargill, etc. I'm stupified by the total inability to grasp
that this is a gross conflict of
interest,
but keep reading.....
Has it actually escaped
Mannatech's notice that Christine Lewis
Taylor from the FDA is in charge of the World Health Organization's
"International Committee on Chemical Safety"
http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientraproject/en/ and
that this entity is in charge of creating a framework via which the
MSPLs (Maximum Safe Permitted Levels) for dietary supplements are to be
determined for CODEX?
Has it escaped Mannatech's
notice that they've been LIED TO about
what the END POINT will be for this supposed "scientific risk
assessment" that they've bought into as our alleged "savior"
(See this CRN press release: "Consumers to Benefit as UN Body
Successfully Moves Scientifically Grounded Vitamin and Mineral Guideline
to Final Steps"
http://www.crnusa.org/PR04_110204jointCodex.html
CRN distributors are being
lied to on a grand scale by Sam Caster, or perhaps Sam has allowed
himself to be DUPED, but GET
THIS: The END POINT of this so called "scientific
risk assessment" is NOT the "Upper Safe Levels" the industry has been
told about, thats just the STARTING POINT of the risk assessment, its
only the FIRST TIER of the PROCESS, and there is no excuse for Caster to
not have read the FINE PRINT of both the EU Food Supplement Directive
AND Codex, because if he HAD read it, he'd realize that the "USL"s get
watered down much FURTHER til they arrive at numbers which in SOME CASES
are even LOWER than RDAs---- better look very closely at this TABLE
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_145.doc
Do you see that?
The German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment ("BfR")
is the only "scientific" body in the
world that has taken so called "nutrient risk assessment" to its final
conclusion- and they've come up with
THESE NUMBERS for Maximum Safe Permitted Levels:
Vitamin A: 800 mcg
Beta Carotene: 7 mg (0 mg for
smokers)
Vitamin C: 225 mg
Vitamin D: 5 mcg
Vitamin E: 15 mg
Vitamin K: 80 mcg
Vitamin B 1: 1.3 mg (!!)
Vitamin B2: 4.5 mg
Vitamin B3: 17 mg
Vitamin B6: 5.4 mg
Vitamin B-9 (Folic Acid) 400 mcg
Vitamin B12 9 mcg (!!)
Vitamin B 5 (Pantothenic Acid) 18
mg
Biotin 180 mcg
The list for minerals is almost as
bad, see the table on the website.
Has it escaped Caster's notice
that the Chair of the German Federal
Institute of Risk Assessment is Dr.Rolf Grossklaus (the Chair of the
Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses)
??? Has it escaped his notice that
Grossklaus has totally rigged the Codex meetings
of his committee such that the EU has always gotten everything they want
because Germany is the largest country in the EU?
http://www.thenhf.com/codex_25.htm
See additional comments to
FDA's drivel below.... and read my
comments in the context of this article by Suzanne Harris,JD
"Who Says Whatever Happens at
Codex Does Not Affect US Law, and Why Do They Say It?"
http://www.thelawloft.com/Freedom/050125_us_law.htm
See additional comments interspersed
below, I've put IAHF in front of my comments so you can distinguish them
from Mannatech's comments and from FDA's spin.....
===============================================
CODEX OVERVIEW
What is the current status on Codex?
Has it passed congress?
(MANNATECH COMMENT) This document from the US FDA,
seems to put all the concerns about CODEX behind us, as just a bad
dream. It is VERY well worth reading, as it seems to claim that there is
no way that CODEX can override DSHEA.
IAHF COMMENT:
Sam Caster actually TRUSTS the FDA????
see comments below....
FDA:
FDA US Food and Drug Administration
CFSAN/Office of Nutritional
Products, Labeling and Dietary
Supplements March 2005
Responses to Questions about Codex and
Dietary Supplements
Many U.S. consumers have expressed
concerns about the development of
the Codex Draft Guidelines for Vitamin
and Mineral Food Supplements.
Some are concerned that these
Guidelines, if adopted by Codex, will restrict
consumers' access to the wide
range of vitamin and mineral supplements of
varying potencies legally sold in the
United States.
IAHF: No, no one who
understands the issue is saying this.
What we ARE saying is that the WTO gives Codex
standards TEETH, and thats not John
Hammell saying this, its Jeanne J. Grimmett at the Congressional
Research Service saying it in a research article that she wrote for
members of Congress to help them understand that we are bound by our
membership in the WTO to harmonize our law to international standards.
It was on a basis of her report that Congressman Ron Paul introduced H J
Res 90 which would get us OUT of the WTO, and its due to her report that
he has just introduced the same sort of bill, now numbered as House
Joint Resolution 27.
What we are ALSO saying is
that no international trade attorneys have ever run a test case against
DSHEA to see how it might fare in the event of a WTO Trade Dispute
against it. Conventional wisdom within
the supplement industry is currently that our regulatory climate is more
flexible than other countries, therefor they think it is "unlikely" that
another country would bring a trade dispute against the USA because the
triggering mechanism would have to be US refusal to allow a foreign
manufacturer to export a product to the USA.
The problem with this line of
reasoning is that the Grandfather clause in DSHEA currently blocks US
manufacturers from being allowed to use NDIs (New Dietary Ingredients)
without prior FDA approval. NDIs are ingredients that weren't in use at
the time in '94 when DSHEA became law.
FDA has taken companies to court
for having products that contained NDIs that were never approved. It is
not outside the realm of possibility that the FDA might attempt to block
a foreign manufacturer from exporting a product to the USA on this
basis, and it is not outside the realm of possibility that a country
might launch a trade dispute against the USA over this.
Given that the
WTO's Dispute Settlement Body is a rigged court
that does not follow US rules of evidence,
given the fact that no private citizen (no matter how well qualified)
would normally have standing to appear before it (only if both
conflicting parties were to agree, and this has never happened), in
the event of a trade dispute against DSHEA, we'd be "represented" by the
same unelected FDA bureaucrats who've been "representing" us at Codex
meetings...... does THAT give Sam
Caster a nice warm feeling inside?
And even if this WASN'T the
vehicle used to usher in harmonization,
assertions that this could "never happen here" totally ignore the
reality of globalization.
It ignores the reality of CAFTA
and the FTAA which are intended to create a carbon copy of the EU in our
hemisphere
http://www.stoptheftaa.org
It ignores the fact that a
hearing on CAFTA will occur on April 6th in the Senate, and that CAFTA
is a stepping stone to FTAA, while FTAA would be a stepping stone to
creation of the Western Atlantic Union, which would be a carbon copy of
the EU Dictatorship in our hemisphere.
The long range intent is to create a hemispheric wide version of the EU,
and to call the common currency the "Amero".
This is in fact unfolding before our eyes, and
Mannatech should be mobilizing its distributors to
call their Senators in opposition to CAFTA and FTAA,
but they're doing NOTHING.
Distributors should consider suing Sam Caster and Mannatech.
The company is not properly
looking out for their interests at all. If Caster think's he's going
to survive in a game of swimming with sharks, his arrogance level is
simply off the charts. Codex and the
EU Directives which Codex is being overlayed with are intended to
DESTROY the dietary supplement industry. The
FDA has been
trying to do this for years,and
they've found a new angle. See this timeline for further historical
understanding:
http://www.iahf.citymaker.com/page/page/1818351.htm
FDA: Others are concerned that the Guidelines will
limit the amount and type of information on the
labels of dietary supplements sold in the United States.
Still others believe that the Guidelines will require
dietary supplements to be sold as drugs in the
United States.
IAHF: No one who understands this
issue has ever said this. The "Guidelines" as they refer to them are
given TEETH via the WTO, and also via the SPS and TBT language in NAFTA
which would be expanded, and enforced hemisphere wide via FTAA.
We hope the responses below help you
understand why the adoption of
Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral
Food Supplements by Codex will
not restrict U.S. consumers' access to
vitamin and mineral supplements or
impose any restrictions that go beyond
those established by U.S. law. We
also hope the responses help explain why
the U.S. participates in the Codex
process and how you can keep abreast of
Codex activities.
By the time you're done reading
this you will grasp that this assertion by FDA is nothing but SPIN:
FDA:
What is CODEX
?
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, or Codex, was
created in 1963 by two U.N. organizations, the Food and Agriculture
Organization and the World Health Organization.
IAHF: Actually,
this is false, it was created between 1961- 1962,
and thats straight out of the Codex Procedural Manual, 9th Edition, p.
4. The
fact that FDA can't even get such easily checked facts as this straight
is indicative of the fact that EVERYTHING they're saying here is SPIN,
but I'll prove that below so read on.....
FDA: Its main purpose is to protect the health of
consumers and to ensure fair practices in international
trade in food through the development of food
standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other
recommendations.
IAHF: Yeah, right, sure. This is why
the Codex process is so non transparent. This is why every single
applicant from our side who wanted to participate in the WHO's so called
"Risk Assessment Workshop" which will create the framework by which the
blanks will be filled in on allowable potency levels of dietary
supplements was EXCLUDED. This "workshop" is being chaired by
Christine Lewis Taylor, a Dietician who believes that we get all the
nutrients we need from our FOOD and that no one ever needs more than the
RDA of any given nutrient.
The people who she excluded from our
side included Richard Kunin, MD an esteemed orthomolecular physician in
San Francisco with years of clinical experience using vitamins to treat
patients. She also excluded Robert Verkerk, PhD, Exec Dir of the
Alliance for Natural Health despite the fact that his organization was
one of only 16 that submitted comments to WHO on this issue- see
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_120.pdf
ANH's submission has been endorsed by
a slew of imminent MDs and PhDs on our side, and Mannatech should be
endorsing it. It proves that what WHO is doing as they move to fill in
the blanks on allowable potencies at Codex is totally unscientific
because they're only looking at RISKS, making no attempt to balance them
by also looking at BENEFITS. In other words, they're not applying a fair
standard at all, its totally BIASED.
Also, they're drawing erroneous
conclusions from their data- they're looking at animal data in some
instances where far more accurate HUMAN data is available. They're also
making a very selective and biased assessment from the available
scientific literature and they're caught in a horrible conflict of
interest with who they are selecting, we know this because every single
solitary person from our side was excluded.
FDA:
Codex standards and guidelines are developed by
committees, which are open to all member countries.
Member countries review and provide comments on
Codex standards and related texts at several
stages in the development process. In the United States, public
meetings are held to receive comments on Codex drafts
and comments are invited from all interested
parties (See U.S. Codex Office web site).
IAHF:
This is highly illusory.
As a former member of the US Delegation to the Codex Committee on
Nutrition and Foods For Special Dietary Uses in '96 and in '98 (before
being kicked off as a whistleblower trying to put US Delegate Dr. Beth
Yetley from the FDA under congressional scrutiny), I can honestly tell
you that this is a sick JOKE, because
the unelected bureaucrats at FDA routinely IGNORE any input that doesn't
come from multinational pharmaceutical companies, and they routinely
ignore grass roots representatives on the US Delegation, listening only
to people from multinational drug companies on the delegation.
I know. I've seen this FIRST HAND.
Moreover, no videotaping, audio recording or photography is allowed at
Codex meetings which are highly non transparent. Final Reports from
meetings are often doctored by the Chair of the meeting such that they
seldom reflect what actually took place, especially when dissenting
views are aired- see
http://www.thenhf.com/codex_25.htm
FDA:
Codex standards and related texts are voluntary; member countries are
not bound by or required to adopt them. You can obtain more information
about Codex at the Rome Codex web site. You can also obtain information
about U.S. Codex activities at the U.S. Codex Office web site.
IAHF:
More spin:
See "Who Says Whatever Happens at Codex Does Not Affect US Law, and Why
Do They Say It?"
http://www.thelawloft.com/Freedom/050125_us_law.htm
Especially this section:
The real key to how things work at
Codex is contained in the phrase in Article 1 of the Statutes of the
Codex Alimentarius Commission where it says: the purpose is - "(b)
promoting the coordination of all food standards work undertaken by
international governmental and non governmental organizations;"
What is so significant about this
phrase are the words promoting the coordination of ... international
governmental and non governmental ... What that means in the real
world is taking the work of international industrial lobbying groups and
then cloaking that work with legitimacy and now real binding legal and
political force by feeding their agreements through Codex, an
international governmental entity.
The more jaded among you will say,
'Well, how is that any different from the way things have worked in
Washington for decades?' The answer is it is different because decisions
are made by bureaucrats and the actions are offshore. With a truly
domestic piece of legislation you have a chance of overcoming industrial
pressure with grassroots pressure on the people you elected. With an
international guideline, by the time it's done you have almost no chance
to win. You can't bring pressure to bear in all the right places. The
real damage was done long ago and long before you felt it.
FDA:
What work has Codex undertaken on vitamin and mineral
supplements?
In the early 1990's, the Codex Committee on Nutrition
and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) began discussions on
guidelines for vitamin and mineral supplements. This Committee is
responsible for studying nutritional issues referred by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission; drafting provisions, as appropriate, on the
nutritional aspects of all foods; and developing standards, guidelines,
or related texts for foods for special dietary uses.
Germany is the host government for the Committee,
which has met either every year or every other year since 1966. At its
most recent session (Bonn, November 1-5, 2004), the Committee completed
work on Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements and
submitted them for adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at the
Commission's July 2005 meeting.
IAHF:
Actually, this is misleading. What they did
complete was a FRAMEWORK with the BLANKS on allowable potency levels to
be filled in AFTER the FRAMEWORK is ratified in July. This is a bit
like putting the cart before the horse, and its being done intentionally
to sidestep opposition and to try to marginalize anyone who doesn't
understand fully what is going on, especially those misinformed people
who are saying the sky will fall this summer, it will not, Codex does
not move that quickly and it will take years for the affects to be fully
felt, but it IS happening in a very
methodical, very incremental way that is intended to not provoke a
public backlash.
FDA is trying to cover their
tracks with this sort of spin in the
hope that no one will pay attention to what Christine Lewis Taylor of
FDA is doing as she chairs the WHO Nutrient Risk Assessment Workshop
which meets in Europe, in May at an as yet undisclosed location.... Note
that everyone from our side has been SHUT OUT of these
deliberations...in FACT, not even John Hathcock from CRN which Mannatech
belongs to has been allowed to participate, so what makes Sam Caster so
incredibly trusting?
FDA:
What is the scope and content of these Guidelines?
The Guidelines apply only to supplements that contain
vitamins and/or minerals, where these products are regulated as foods.
IAHF:
For NOW this is true, but
the intention to expand the scope of codex to
include all OTHER supplement products is shown here in WHOs statements
about their intentions for doing "Nutrient Risk Assessments"--- they
intend to cover the full range of products sold in health food stores:
http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientraproject/en/
FDA:
The Guidelines address the composition of vitamin and
mineral supplements, including the safety, purity, and bioavailability
of the sources of vitamins and minerals. The Guidelines do not specify
upper limits for vitamins and minerals in supplements.
IAHF:
Not YET they don't, but they WILL
http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientraproject/en/ and
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_145.doc
both discussed in detail above....
FDA:
Instead, they provide criteria for establishing
maximum
amounts of vitamins and minerals per daily portion of supplement
consumed, as recommended by the manufacturer. The criteria specify that
maximum amounts should be established by scientific risk assessment
based on generally accepted scientific data and taking into
consideration, as appropriate, the varying degrees of sensitivity of
different consumer groups.
IAHF:
Misleading spin
intended to make what they're doing seem BENIGN, but look at these
numbers: THIS is the end result of their so called "scientific" risk
assessment which ignores BENEFITS and only takes a biased look at
supposed "risks":
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_145.doc
FDA:
The Guidelines also address the packaging and labeling
of vitamin and mineral supplements. We encourage you to read the
complete text of the Guidelines, which is found in Appendix II of the
report of the most recent session of the CCNFSDU. See ALINORM 05/28/26
on the page of Full Reports of Recent Sessions .
IAHF:
They're counting on no one
actually taking the time to read ANY of this fine print,
but upon reading it, we see its not NEARLY as benign as they try to make
it seem.
FDA:
What has been the U.S. position on these Guidelines?
The U.S. supports consumer choice and access to
dietary supplements that are safe and labeled in a truthful and
non-misleading manner. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act
of 1994 (DSHEA) ensures that a broad array of dietary supplements are
available to U.S. consumers. The Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and
Mineral Food Supplements will not, in any way, affect the availability
of supplement products to U.S. consumers. On the contrary, the absence
of science-based Codex guidelines could adversely affect the ability of
U.S. manufacturers to compete in the international marketplace.
IAHF:
This is the SPIN which the
FDA and the pharma dominated vitamin trade associations have been using
since '96 when I first called attention
to this issue. By THEMSELVES the "guidelines" can't impact US law, the
problem is how they can be USED by the WTO, and by an FTAA Tribunal set
up like the EU is now. We're seeing the writing on the wall through the
hell vitamin consumers in the UK are going through now over this issue
as ANH has sued the EU and are waiting for a verdict which they won't
have til June.
FDA:
Why won't these Guidelines restrict U.S. consumers'
access to vitamin
and mineral supplements?
Some consumers mistakenly believe that if Codex should
adopt guidelines on vitamin and mineral food supplements that are more
restrictive than DSHEA, the U.S. would be required to automatically
change its laws and regulations to comply with the international
standard.
IAHF:
No one who really understands
this issue has ever said this. See above
and see
http://www.thelawloft.com/Freedom/050125_us_law.htm
FDA:
Some consumers have expressed concerns that the World
Trade Organization (WTO) and its trade dispute settlement panels may
place pressure on the U.S. to change its laws because of international
trade agreements such as the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), which references Codex as
the international organization for food safety standards.
We see no basis for these concerns. First, the DSHEA
covers a much broader range of dietary supplements than the vitamin and
mineral
supplements that are the subject of the Codex Guidelines. Moreover, for
supplements covered by these Guidelines, we note the following:
· The SPS Agreement does not require a country to adopt any
international standard.
Rather, the SPS Agreement provides that members may
base their Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures either on international
standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist, or may
establish measures that result in a higher level of protection if there
is a scientific justification, or if a country determines it to be
appropriate in accord with provisions of the SPS Agreement (SPS
Agreement, Article 3(1) and (3)).
IAHF:
This is NOT the assessment of
Jeanne J. Grimmett, a lawyer and researcher at the US Library of
Congress who wrote a report on this issue which caused Congressman Ron
Paul to introduce legislation intended to get us OUT of the WTO.
Communicate with Ron Paul's office and also See
http://www.thelawloft.com/Freedom/050125_us_law.htm
FDA:
· WTO and WTO dispute panels do not have the power to
change
U.S. law. If a WTO decision in response to a dispute settlement panel is
adverse to the U.S., only Congress and the Administration can decide
whether to implement the panel recommendation, and, if so, how to
implement it.
IAHF:
Yes, but the
WTO can threaten to impose sanctions
against broad sectors of our economy if we fail to comply, and they've
already forced changes to US laws on several occassions such as
this example where WTO forced changes to US Tax Law
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst022805.htm
The fact is that the mechanisms are in place for the WTO to force
changes to ANY of our laws.
They were even able to force
Bush and congress to repeal a tarrif intended to protect our steel
industry from dumping of low cost foreign steel.
If they can force changes to laws intended to protect an industry as
powerful as our steel industry, they can force changes to ANY of our
laws.
This is very consistent with the
wishes of the people responsible for putting the unfinished pyramid with
the All Seeing Eye of Horus on the back of the US dollar bill along with
the words Novus Ordo Seclorum which mean "New World Order" in Latin.
FDA would have us believe none of this is going on, but what about the
push for FTAA?
http://www.stoptheftaa.org
FDA:
· For dietary supplements, it is unlikely that another
country will accuse the U.S. of imposing a trade barrier for the
importation of supplement products into the U.S. marketplace because the
U.S. laws and regulations are generally broader in scope and less
restrictive than the international standard.
IAHF:
Covered this above, see my discussion
of the Grandfather clause in DSHEA, and my discussion of how corrupt the
WTO's Dispute Settlement Body is.
See the book WTO- Whose Trade Organization? By
Lori Wallach, JD which documents that
every decision made by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body has gone
against the public health, against the environment, against labor
rights, against human rights, against every intangible that goes into
the make up of any democratic nation's laws.
http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/index.cfm
FDA:
· However, other countries with more restrictive laws
and regulations for
dietary supplement products than the U.S. may create trade barriers to
the importation of products manufactured by the U.S. dietary supplement
industry. Thus, the U.S. government's involvement in the setting of
international standards can help minimize the potential of trade
barriers to U.S. products in international trade.
IAHF:
This is all spin-
see
http://www.thelawloft.com/Freedom/050125_us_law.htm This
is what the pharma elements controlling the vitamin trade associations
such as CRN want companies like Mannatech to BELIEVE, but
its not TRUE.
Incredibly, Sam Caster is taking what he's being told at FACE VALUE and
he's making no effort to do do his own homework and to critically
examine what he's being TOLD. Given that
this is coming from the FDA which has a very long
history of ATTACKING the US supplement industry,
why is he so quick to just ACCEPT this uncritically? See this timeline:
http://www.iahf.citymaker.com/page/page/1818351.htm
It is shockiing and OUTRAGEOUS that Sam Castor has bought in to the
FDA's lies given their LONG HISTORY of attacking our industry.
FDA:
Further, there is no basis for the concern that the
Codex Guidelines on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements would require
dietary supplements be sold as prescription drugs in the United States.
First, there is nothing in the Guidelines that suggests that supplements
be sold as drugs requiring a prescription. Second, U.S. regulatory
agencies are bound by the laws established by Congress, not by Codex
standards. Third, because of our generally less restrictive standards,
it is unlikely that the trade dispute would be brought against the U.S.
IAHF:
All of this is empty spin
employing the use of "straw man" arguments where FDA has utilized bad
questions to set up strawmen that are easily knocked down.
See
http://www.thelawloft.com/Freedom/050125_us_law.htm See
the numbers they're pushing for at Codex for "Maximum Safe Permitted
Levels" right here
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_145.doc
Then GRASP that you WILL NOT
be able to get the products you want AT ALL, not EVEN from a doctor by
prescription because if Codex has its way, manufacturers won't even be
allowed to manufacture them. We see
this through the lens of whats happening with the EU Food Supplement
Directive which is being overlaid as a template atop Codex
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org
FDA:
In summary, U.S. consumers' access to a broad array of
dietary supplements under DSHEA would not be changed in any way by
Codex's adoption of guidelines on vitamin and mineral food supplements.
The Guidelines also include packaging and labeling provisions for
vitamin and mineral food supplement products. Would vitamin and mineral
supplements sold in the U.S. be required to comply with these?
All Codex standards and related texts are voluntary,
and vitamin and mineral food supplement products sold in the U.S. would
not be required to comply with provisions that are more restrictive than
U.S. law (i.e., DSHEA).
IAHF:
This is all empty spin,
see See
http://www.thelawloft.com/Freedom/050125_us_law.htm See
the numbers they're pushing for at Codex for "Maximum Safe Permitted
Levels" right here
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_145.doc
Then GRASP that you wouldn't be able to get the products you want
AT ALL, not EVEN from a doctor by prescription because if Codex has its
way, manufacturers won't even be allowed to manufacture them.
We see this through the lens of whats
happening with the EU Food Supplement Directive which is being overlaid
as a template atop Codex
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org and also grasp that this
totally ignores the reality of globalization- see
http://www.stoptheftaa.org
FDA:
If the U.S. is not trying to harmonize its regulatory
framework for
dietary supplements with Codex, what are the benefits of our country
participating in the process of developing these Codex Guidelines?
IAHF:
First of all the question
ITSELF is phony, the FDA IS trying
to harmonize us to Codex,
I've seen it with my own two eyes through their
actions at Codex meetings I attended in Germany in '96 and '98 and it
was due to my efforts as a whistleblower that I was kicked off the US
Codex Delegation prior to the meeting in Berlin in 2000. It was due to
pushing for oversight on this issue that I had death threats and it the
hearing held on March 20, 2001 was whitewashed.
The only person who was allowed to
testify was a shill for Pfizer Pharmaceutical company who was and
still is a co chair on NNFA's International Committee (his co chair at
the time was an employee of Pfizer, his name is Randy Dennin, see IADSA
EXPOSED
http://www.iahf.com/iadsa/index.html about the unholy
alliance between IADSA and the FDA......(IADSA is supposedly
representing "our" interests at Codex...
FDA:
Our participation in the Codex process is important to
encourage the
development of guidelines on vitamin and mineral supplements that are
based on sound science and not on arbitrary criteria. For example,
encouraging the use of science-based risk assessment for determining the
maximum levels of vitamins and minerals in supplements reduces the
chance that arbitrary standards will be used for determining maximum
levels.
IAHF:
Total LIE.
There is NOTHING "science based" about only examining risks, while
ignoring benefits. There is nothing "scientific" about examining skewed
data when assessing risks,
and all of this is exposed in ANH's submission to the WHO committee
which is doing this supposedly "scientific" work- see
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_120.pdf
FDA:
How can I keep abreast of the work of Codex?
To keep abreast of U.S. Codex activities, you may want
to periodically
access the U.S. Codex Office website. You can also obtain the agenda and
reference documents for Commission and committee meetings and final
reports from these meetings from the Rome Codex website. The appendices
to the committee reports provide the latest draft versions following a
committee meeting of some of the Codex standards that are being
developed or revised by the Committee.
You might want to check this link on :
Codex and dietary Supplements from FDA
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscodex.html
IAHF:
What a sick JOKE- What GARBAGE!!!
By now anyone who has taken the time to examine my documentation will
realize that both the FDA and the
pharma dominated vitamin trade associations are lying through their
TEETH on this issue!
For Health Freedom,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
556 Boundary Bay Road
Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA
http://www.iahf.com
jham@iahf.com
800-333-2553 N. America
360-945-0352 World
