|
[ CODEX Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
IAHF Webmaster: Breaking News, Whats New, Codex Emergency, All Countries,
What to Do
IAHF List: 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 addtional 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 Diectician 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 crap 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 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
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In Reply to: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on April 02, 2005 at 09:03:07:
Hi Walt,
It is not suprising that the world wants standards in supplements, just as industry did when they adopted the ISO 9000 regulations to standardize production and quality control. Without such regulations, there would be too many oars in the water and you might not be able to buy a
refrigerator which fit the space between your kitchen cupboards.
How would you feel if computers did not obey some standard
and you could not rely on an after-market sound card being compatible with your machine?
Codex seems to trying to assure the public that what is written on the label actually IS in the package.
The US manufacturers might be against this regulation since the senators Harkins and Hatch gave them "carte blanche"
in 1994 to ignore quality control regarding supplements by putting them on the same footing as a FOOD.
Here is a quote from that long article you posted..
"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. "
It might be in the best intrests of American manufacturers if they satisfy the demands of the rest of the world's
consumers and better contol the contents of US made products.
Here is an article from a Doctor's site which I often quote.. It may be better for all if there was more regulation and less reliance on intent and trust.
What big business can really be trusted today when profit is the major driver?
Would you want your "saw palmetto" to be made by Enron in 1999?
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1928.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 09:55:54:
Hi Ron:
Are you sure you understand what Dr. Stoll is trying to say? Codex's goal is not to assure the public that the contents match the label. Its goal is to RESTRICT the contents....to reduce them to such low dosages as to render them ineffective. By restricting their potency, supplements will NEVER be used for any sort of therapeutic purposes. That is the intent.
Have you read the proposed dosages? They're useless!
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by PhillyLady [192.1599] on April 02, 2005 at 10:13:20:
Hi Philly
I don't believe that Codex would prevent higer dosages from being made and sold solely within the US... just to other countries. Think of the black market that would spring up
when other countries citizens wanted the illegal high-dose
products.
I do agree that capping B12 at 9 mcgm is a joke, but I am sure that the 1000mcgm strength would still be available by prescription.
Are you in favour of people being able to take 10 grams of
Vitamin C a day because they want to?
As long as coffee is not regulated Steve should be happy.
Ooops! I didn't mean to let that enema cat out of the bag.
Now, if we could only include Chocolate in Codex, we would
be doing a lot of overdosers a big service.
Ron
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1928.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 10:24:48:
Hi Ron:
"...Are you in favour of people being able to take 10 grams of Vitamin C a day because they want to?"
Yes, I am in favor of people being able to take high dosages of Vitamin C if they want to. Are you against it? If yes, then why?
By the way, I've taken 8 to 10 grams of Vitamin C, along with zinc, to nip a cold in the bud, and it worked. The body needs Vitamin C. It does not need cigarettes. Yet, no attempts are being made to outlaw cigarettes. Think about it.
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1928.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 10:24:48:
who can afford prescriptions? Who can afford the doctor that writes the prescriptions? How many different doctor's visits do you have to pay for, looking for a doctor who agrees that you need the vitamins in the first place-do you have to pay for lab tests and prove you are deficient? Will you be accused of 'doctor shopping' and abuse of prescription drugs?
Doctors where I am charge $93 for a new patient visit, $80 for an established patient visit. Who can afford to search for a competent one? And will their competence be questioned if they start prescribing a bunch of vitamins? Will they lose their licenses?
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by ANN [1003.516] on April 02, 2005 at 10:55:12:
Hi ANN:
You bring up very good points. I always tackle minor physical problems on my own with supplements and herbs. I'd hate to think that in the future I'd have to let these minor problems turn into MAJOR problems in order to have my doctor prescribe the appropriate supplements. By then, he'll be more prone to prescribe a drug, since his teachings tells him to prescribe supplements for severe deficiencies, not for therapeutic reasons.
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1928.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 10:24:48:
"Are you in favour of people being able to take 10 grams of Vitamin C a day because they want to? My answer is a firm yes! I do not want to be regulated to the hilt nor sit idly by while our gov't takes a stronghold over what I eat, drink, wear, watch, etc.
C'mon, Ron. I think you are associated with either the government or the vitamin industry somehow, someway, and I've suspected this since the day you showed up here. Every since you've been on the boards, you have displayed a wealth of knowledge regarding medical issues, as well as medicines, that the average person simply does not have. Every so often you toss in a plug or two favoring regulations regarding the healthcare industry.
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by ~CT [3379.1287] on April 02, 2005 at 11:19:02:
Hi CT,
Thanks for the compliment... I think?
Just because you have an opinion that differs from mine, you
throw a wrench into the mix to discredit what you take offense to. It sort of reminds me of what those who disagree with gay marriage are called when they say what they believe...
How does one reply when the label of Biggot or Homophobe is
thrown at them?
I am not against the use of supplements but I am against the manufacturers not putting what they advertise in the package. If conventional medicine must obey rules about
strength and disclose their ingredients, why then, can
products which claim to have similar abilities escape
the magnifying glass and liability?
36 years with the Telephone company does not make me a shill
for any medical entity. Being retired makes me a concerned consumer with age added to the list of concerns.
I also have some knowledge of computers, but do not work in that field either. Did you also think that I was pushing
software when I threw in my $.02 worth about Spy-Bot or Ad-aware?
Ron
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by PhillyLady [192.1599] on April 02, 2005 at 10:31:39:
Hi Philly,
From what I have seen, cigarettes may be next, or they may cost as much as grass which will solve the problem indirectly.
Ron
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1928.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 09:55:54:
Ron, no one has a problem with "what is written on the label actually IS in the package".
Its the rest of it: eliminating or drastically reducing the dosages of some, and making others available by prescription only. Look at whats happened in other countries where supplements have increased in price 500% to 1000% when converted to prescription.
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by no Strawman here [3468.20] on April 02, 2005 at 13:44:57:
Hi Strawman,
Write your congressman and state your fears.. An election is
looming.... Did you ever think that Codex fears are being brought out to split the vote and let the left get more support?
Ron
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by PhillyLady [192.1599] on April 02, 2005 at 11:10:10:
I can't afford doctors for me-since getting my diet together at 30 , I think I've been 3 times- always to rule out an ectopic pregnancy (never turns out to be) when I had pain in the area of an ovary. The rest of the time, I just drasticaly change my diet to get past whatever the problem is. Will probably go back to macrobiotics at some point if I feel generally unhealthy. I don't actually use supplements much, but I like their availability. I started taking folic acid the year before I wanted to get pregnant and, of course, as vegans, the whole family takes b-12. I don't feel like we should each need a doctor's ok, for such common sense things.Our insurance has a deductible for each family member, so it would be a big chunk of out-of-pocket expense to all see a doctor to get vitamins.
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1013.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 14:23:56:
No Ron, this isn't the case. And if you had done your
homework over the last FEW YEARS, you wouldn't even
be making this comment. I really think you are
paranoid when it comes to the liberals. You are
constantly making negative comments towards them,
and stirring the crap pot. Nice.
dd
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1013.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 12:15:42:
Why are you against peoiple being able to make their
own choice to take large doses of vitamin C, Ron?
And while we are at it., besides cigarettes and
alcohol....why haven't they outlawed fast food since it is
killing millions of people slowly, and some not so
slowly? How about that Ron? And what about all the
killer foods on the grocery shelves that are causing
children diabetes? Don't you WONDER why that hasn't
come before the vitas??????????? Or is this just
more liberal jibberish to you?
Come on Ron!! Would you please shed some light
onto those choses that the government has no plan to
take away.......even though they SHOULD!!!
dd
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by dd [2174.26] on April 02, 2005 at 22:52:01:
Hi DD,
I am not against the choice, just at the lack of standards in the advertised content. Who tests to be sure that you are getting what you paid for? Is one batch double or half the strength of the next?
Since fast food is not being sold outside the country, there is no need to worry about what the rest of the world thinks
of it. No trade agreements, no worldwide standards, no
worry about anything that the other countries might complain about. If food were regulated just like prescription meds,
you might have better control over the junk we can eat...
Until then, be your own diet cop and eat healthy.
For all we know, junk food, alcohol and other vices may be allowed to assure that the huge population of baby boomers doesn't live too long and become a financial burden to the next generation.
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by dd [2174.26] on April 02, 2005 at 22:41:41:
Hi DD,
When they stop stepping in their own do-do I will give them more credit. They still can't believe they lost, so now they want Minority rule.. Just look at the Schiavo fiasco where the Constitution takes second place to the courts.
It is no wonder why they are opposed to Supreme court nominations of the wicked, uncaring right. The decisions of the few outweigh the rights of the Country.
In Reply to: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on April 02, 2005 at 09:03:07:
Here's a link to clarify the issue...
Happy reading!
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1013.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 12:10:46:
Hi Ron,
No "wrench" was thrown by me, I was not offended by what you said (prior post), and I wasn't rying to discredit you, as you seem to be doing just fine when lines are crossed.
I still stand firm in what I think you are doing here. Perhaps it is an accumulation of seemingly insignificant things you write, like saying "we", when you talk about CODEX.
Speak openly and proudly about things you believe in and changes you think need to be made. Toss the extra verbiage.
(p.s.No need to clarify your mention of gay marriage, homophobe, biggot, as the decoy was/is so noted.)
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by North*Star [1935.1379] on April 03, 2005 at 19:21:25:
Hi North,
I would like to clarify one part of that...
"Liberals know that the federal government was at its smallest size in the last 50 years during the Clinton and Kennedy administrations and that the current Republican leadership loves big government."
Liberals are negotiators and disband armies to save money.
The army, not more politicians is what gains world respect...
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1013.1671] on April 02, 2005 at 12:15:42:
Hi Ron:
Codex isn't interested in whether content matches labelling. That's NOT what Codex is about. Codex wants to do away with POTENTCY of contents. Do you see the difference between what Codex is and what you understand it to be?
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by Ron [1013.1671] on April 03, 2005 at 01:18:28:
Hi Ron:
But isn't the judge in the Schiavo case a conservative Republican?
In Reply to: Re: Those interested in CODEX: Note maximal legal dosages. Archive. posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on April 04, 2005 at 08:49:27:
my my my.... :-)
|
[ CODEX Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |