|
[ CODEX Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Thanks, Misty.
Apathy in this country is going to ruin it for all of us.
Walt
In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:
Yikes, if this is the case people need to know! I'll
I need my MSM!
As an aside (and sarcastic commentary), it would just
In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:
I've gone to the Thomas website where all the Congressional bills and resolutions can be searched, and the bill numbers given here are not valid. I then conducted a search for the text of bills with the words "codex," and "supplements," and "vitamins" and also found nothing.
Which leaves this whole Codex article suspect. If someone has further information and can actually produce resolution numbers that are valid, please advise.
Otherwise, this is a scam and intended to defraud those who send in donations.
In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:
just wondering about the stuff already in our houses-would possession become illegal? Most multi-vitamins have more than the RDA in them and my B-12 pills are really high dose (I think most of the ones on the market are).
In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 09:02:45:
Hi Alexandria:
I posted something in another post that may help you get more information.
Session 26 - 05/28/26
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 09:56:30:
Thanks. There is just so much on that site with so little actual content compared to the whole, it's hard to go through (wonder if that was the idea?).
It's a UN construct, though, right? From what I saw in my very quick perusal, it seems benign, like a global body that wants to set standards (please don't get the impression I personally believe it's benign). I saw something about establishing standards for additives in food. Sounds good, doesn't it? (I'm being sarcastic.)
In any event, why would "Misty" be sending out emails to Dr. Stoll with congressional bill numbers/resolutions that are not valid? We must be on guard to internet scams and we certainly don't need to waste our energies on something that is bogus.
And, finally, insofar as I know, the UN isn't allowed to make laws for our country.....yet.
We really need to hear from people from other countries and their experiences in buying supplements and the cost and the labeling.
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 10:36:04:
Hi Alexandria:
The bill is not bogus. See link.
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 10:47:40:
Hi PhillyLady,
I think the latest on S. 722 is that it was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in March of 2003 -- nothing since. The concern now is the review of the DSHEA Act by the FDA. They're proposing regulations for products that weren't on the market in 1994 when DSHEA was passed. I got this from newmediaexplorer.org:
January 2005: An action alert received from Citizens for Health
URGENT HEALTH ALERT! DEADLINE FEBRUARY 1st
FDA is reviewing portions of DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. The agency may propose new and overly burdensome regulations that could restrict your access to new dietary ingredients and dietary supplements that were not on the market prior to 1994 when DSHEA was passed.
Recall that 2.5 million concerned consumers contacted Congress between 1992 and 1994 to support DSHEA and assure access to their supplements. In response to the overwhelming consumer support, Congress passed DSHEA and deliberately created new and different regulations for dietary supplements. Congress enacted DSHEA to stop the FDA from treating dietary supplements like food additives or drugs and to protect consumer's rights to purchase these products.
We need to make our voices heard once again!
Tell the FDA to uphold DSHEA and your continued access to beneficial dietary supplements today!
At risk are many innovative and particularly effective dietary supplements. FDA needs to hear from you to preserve your hard-won access to the most innovative and important health products. Any new guidelines that require onerous food additive and drug like notifications, excessive testing and documentation will make the introduction of new products unnecessarily expensive.
This disincentive for companies to develop new health promoting products will assuredly lead to the reduction of many products that can benefit the health of Americans It could block consumer access to validated new and innovative products -- for good. American consumers have the right to these health enhancing products that are also shown, in many cases, to reduce the staggering public health burden, and reduce the cost of health care.
Washington, DC needs to hear from at least 25,000 consumers who care about their health rights. Urge the FDA to ensure that any new guidelines for New Dietary Ingredients reflect the intent of Congress and continue to provide complete access to the safe, affordable and innovative dietary supplements you rely on for your health.
Be well,
Donna
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 10:36:04:
Hi Alexandria:
CODEX has stated its objectives and priorities. It appears that the food and supplement guidelines are set with global agreement/approval in full force.
This is taken from the link below from their website:
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by DonnaW [302.465] on January 25, 2005 at 11:17:38:
Hi Donna:
Thanks for the info. They can still get around to restricting supplements that were in use prior to 1994 by claiming that the product is "unsafe". That's how they were able to ban ephedra.
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 10:47:40:
Thanks, found it, finally. Funny how it didn't show up in all my searches on Thomas. Did you read the text? Here's the summary in case anyone's interested:
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require each manufacturer of a dietary supplement (supplement), and each packer or distributor of a supplement the name of which appears on the labeling, to report serious adverse experiences to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to investigate such occurrences. Defines a serious adverse experience as an adverse event associated with the use of a supplement in a human that involves death or one of other serious calamities. Directs the Secretary to conduct a clinical evaluation of each such reported experience.
Requires the manufacturer of a dietary supplement to report periodically on other adverse experiences and to review such occurrences.
Allows the Secretary to grant a waiver from the above reporting, reviewing, and investigating requirements with respect to a dietary supplement upon determination that compliance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Authorizes the Secretary to require a manufacturer to conduct postmarket surveillance for a supplement under specified circumstances.
Permits the Secretary to require a manufacturer of a supplement or of an ingredient in a supplement to demonstrate that its product is safe under specified circumstances. Directs the Secretary to approve the continued marketing of such a supplement or ingredient or to disapprove it.
Prohibits any introduction into interstate commerce of a supplement containing a stimulant unless it is approved by the Secretary under this Act.
Amends the Act to exclude a product that bears or contains an anabolic steroid from the definition of a dietary supplement for a specified chapter of the Act.
Eliminates a provision of the Act requiring the United States to bear the burden of proof to show a supplement or an ingredient in a supplement is adulterated due to a safety violation.
***NONE*** ***NONE***
***NONE*** ***NONE***
In Reply to: would this make supplies we already have illegal? posted by ANN [1003.516] on January 25, 2005 at 09:21:40:
No, Ann.
So, it might be wise to stock up and freeze stuff to make it last longer.
Walt
In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:
Hi Walt,
I just sent an email to '60 Minutes" with a copy of this post, and also a reference to CODEX archives. Maybe they will get interested enough in this to do an investigative report on CODEX.
Sapphire
In Reply to: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 06:35:10:
I am posting this to all the forums I go to. Here is a good link:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=6799531&content_dir=ua_congressorg
Marian
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 14:22:29:
Hi Alexandria:
The problem with reporting "adverse conditions" when taking supplements is that this reporting is NOT scientific and cannot correctly identify the culprit responsible for those hypothetical adverse reactions.
The finger-pointing will ultimately be pointed at the supplement and not take into account the many other factors responsible for adverse reactions.
Example: Man takes harmless supplement with several gulps of Diet Coke (aspartame). Man suffers light-headedness and vision problems and suspects the supplement is responsible. Man does not suspect the poisonous Diet Coke. Man incorrectly reports an adverse reaction to the supplement, not to the Diet Coke (the real culprit).
Result: The supplement is deemed harmful, while the criminal Diet Coke goes free.
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by PhillyLady [2051.1599] on January 25, 2005 at 20:25:06:
Exactly. Just like Epidrine. Harmless (and helpful to some) unless abused. So we get the baseball player who is out of shape and takes it (along with who knows what else), and voila! Perfect excuse to ban it in this oh so free country.
You know, one thing about that whole situation with the baseball player that I've always wondered about. Government moves oh so slowly most of the time. But for some reason in that instance, it took them no time at all to ban that particular substance. Big Pharma must have had it in the works, just waiting for the right set of circumstances. People walking in off the street purchasing an inexpensive bottle from their local health food store must have really been cutting in on Big Pharma's profits.
We are all children you know, and must be protected from ourselves.
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Sapphire [422.1366] on January 25, 2005 at 15:25:25:
Very good idea Sapphire! Let us know what they say. If
dd
In Reply to: Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive. posted by Marian [15.1641] on January 25, 2005 at 18:32:22:
Thanks, Marian.
I hope everyone who cares contacts everyone they know. If this is not stopped (possibly too late already) it will set back self-help 100 years.
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Misty L. Trepke"
To:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:38 PM
Subject: [S-A] Bills to Oppose+Support for Health Freedom
>
>
> Comments?
> Misty L. Trepke
> http://www.searching-alternatives.com
>
> Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may
> end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be
> defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the
> World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code)
> is setting the supplement standards for all countries in the WTO.
> They will be enforced by the WTO and will over ride U.S. laws. The
> U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO
> Treaty was signed. Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions.
> CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other
> supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized
> "Step 8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June, 2005.
>
>
> The CODE includes:
>
> (1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.
>
> (2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a "drug"
> requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies.
> Over 5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned,
> terminating health stores as we now know them.
>
> (3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.
>
> (4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX
> testing and approval.
>
>
> CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc
> tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient immune-
> enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now
> allowed by prescription only). They are now "drugs". Vitamin C above
> 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg-all are banned
> over-the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine, lysine,
> carnitine, et c. = essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids
> (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential supplements
> such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed.
>
>
> The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a
> few people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily
> scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all
> supplements under restriction and prescription. But over 4 million
> Americans told Congress and the President to protect their freedom
> of choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994,
> which does so. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World
> Trade Organization.
>
>
> Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug
> corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by
> sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. What can
> be done at this late hour?
>
>
> (1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at
>
> www.ahha.org, www.iahf.com, and www.alliance-natural-health.org.
>
> (2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX
> restrictions with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.
>
> (3) Support H. R.1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the U.S.
> Constitution over CODEX, etc.
>
> (4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and
> Representatives
>
> (They got us into this!) ASAP.
>
> (5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their
> members to inform the government.
>
> (6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for
> Natural Health (see web site above). It has succeeded in challenging
> the CODEX directives in World Court later this month or next. They
> need help financially, having carried the fight effectively for
> everyone. CODEX and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling
> supplements in the same way they do prescription drugs. A study of
> the latter by three medical scientists was reported in the Journal
> of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998-Vol. 279, No.
> 15, p. 1200 ".Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR's) was found
> to be extremely high." Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found
> that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients
> per year (290 per day)! die from ADR's and 2,200,000 need more
> hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs,
> properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals--none
> were considered malpractice. This is the number four cause of death
> in the U.S. When combined, these account for 7% of all hospitalized
> patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11 attack every ten days. There
> are very few fatalities from supplements or the news would be on
> every front page. There is no need for more FDA control of
> supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead
> of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't the FDA better
> control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs
> which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per
> day?
>
> Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.
>
> 1145 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225
>
> www.pulseplus@e...
>
>
>
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by Eric d'cleric [3011.129] on January 25, 2005 at 08:09:39:
forward a link to this thread to a couple of minor and
major publications devoted to this kind of stuff.
be more difficult to purchase supplements, after all,
even narcotics can be bought online, and as 60
minutes reported, they weren't knock offs, but the real
thing. But it would certainly be unsavory.
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 09:02:45:
Follow Ups:
would this make supplies we already have illegal?
Posted by ANN [1003.516] on January 25, 2005 at 09:21:40:
Follow Ups:
non-US posters-what's the vitamin situation there?nmi
Posted by ANN [1003.516] on January 25, 2005 at 09:23:30:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 09:56:30:
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/reports.jsp?lang=en
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 10:36:04:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 10:47:40:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by DonnaW [302.465] on January 25, 2005 at 11:17:38:
Dietary Supplements are Important to YOUR Health
Tell the FDA to RESPECT your HEALTH RIGHTS
Take Action Today! It only takes one minute to send an email message to the FDA. Click here.
The deadline is February 1, 2005. Send YOUR Letter NOW
Click here.
We only have a few short weeks to send a strong message. The FDA is considering comments until February 1,2005. Make sure your voice is heard.
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 12:32:20:
6. The fundamental objective of the Codex Alimentarius Commission is to establish sound internationally agreed guidelines for national food control systems based on the criteria of consumer health protection and fair practices in trade and taking into account the needs and special concerns of all countries. All of the objectives listed below are considered to be equally important to the overall achievement of the strategic vision.
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on January 25, 2005 at 12:38:14:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 14:22:29:
Bill Summary & Status for the 108th Congress
NEW SEARCH
| HOME
| HELP
S.722
Title: A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that manufacturers of dietary supplements submit to the Food and Drug Administration reports on adverse experiences with dietary supplements, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard J. [IL]
(introduced 3/26/2003)
Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 3/26/2003
Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/26/2003--Introduced.
MAJOR ACTIONS: (color indicates Senate actions)
ALL ACTIONS: (color indicates Senate actions)
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort:
by date)Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]
- 7/10/2003Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA]
- 7/10/2003
Sen McCain, John [AZ]
- 11/4/2003Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY]
- 4/2/2003
COMMITTEE(S):
Committee/Subcommittee:
Activity:
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Referral, In Committee
RELATED BILL DETAILS:
AMENDMENT(S):
Follow Ups:
Re: would this make supplies we already have illegal?
Posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 25, 2005 at 14:30:59:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by Sapphire [422.1366] on January 25, 2005 at 15:25:25:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by Marian [15.1641] on January 25, 2005 at 18:32:22:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by PhillyLady [2051.1599] on January 25, 2005 at 20:25:06:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by Alexandria Dumas [2848.20] on January 25, 2005 at 20:46:46:
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by dd [1706.26] on January 26, 2005 at 00:54:51:
they ignore it, we could ALL bombard them with similar
emails!! Thanks!
Follow Ups:
Re: Slipping CODEX in the back door! Archive.
Posted by Walt Stoll [9.1465] on January 26, 2005 at 07:08:54:
Follow Ups:
[ CODEX Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ]
[ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ]
[ Recommended Books ]
[ Bulletin Board ]
Search this site!