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!
