*** In the last email I sent, I didn't proof read carefully enough and made reference a couple of times to "NAHS/ANH" when I meant to say "NAHS/HFMA" Sorry for this mistake. I have corrected it in the message below: IAHF webmaster- please only post this corrected version. IAHF List: Please only forward this corrected version.
The Lou Gentile show went smoothly, hope some of you were able to tune in.
IAHF Webmaster: Breaking News, Whats New, Codex, EU FSD, All Countries, What to Do
IAHF List: Lou Gentile will be interviewing John Hammell of IAHF on the air tonight from 9-10 PM West Coast US time. The show can be heard world wide at http://www.lougentile.com and will be archived.
In case you miss the show- Here is an outline of what I will be discussing:
PATTERN REVEALED OF HOW THE PHARMA CARTEL PLUS CORRUPT VITAMIN COMPANIES ARE TAKING OVER THE DIETARY SUPPLEMENT INDUSTRY
On January 30th in London, I witnessed the following revealing spectacle:
After the Judge had given both NAHS/HFMA and ANH/Nutri-Link the referral necessary to take both cases on to the EU Court of Justice, where BOTH groups (presumably) genuinely hope to overturn the EU Food Supplements Directive, Ralph Pike, Director of NAHS, was clearly feeling very DEPRESSED, and ANGRY.
In other words, he was not happy, or brimming over with joy as you might EXPECT a man to be in those circumstances......
WHY was Ralph depressed?
WHY has NAHS/HFMA been sending out press releases claiming credit for this court victory, (when it clearly was not theirs), and why have they been giving NO MENTION of ANH in their press releases about the court victory?
Since the court victory on January 30th, why has NAHS/HFMA been pulling out all the stops to try to maginalize ANH, to get them BANNED from both upcoming vitamin trade shows in the UK, and why are they trying to have ANH blacklisted by the vitamin industry trade press so that no mention of the victory that was rightfully theirs will reach the public?
Could it be that NAHS/HFMA are actually a controlled opposition group that doesn't WANT ANH to win in court?
Could it be that NAHS/HFMA are only going through the MOTIONS of defending this industry?
Look at the following email sent by Scott Tips, JD, Legal Director of the US based National Health Federation to Peter Aldis, chair of HFMA, and ceo of Holland and Barrett (largest chain of health food stores in the UK which is owned by Nature's Bounty, the largest vitamin company in the world):
From: SCT
To: hfma@hfma.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:26 PM
Subject: Lawsuit in UK Against FSD
Dear Mr. Aldis:
I recently read on your website that your organization is taking credit for the recent January 30th legal victory in London against the Food Supplements Directive. Sadly, no mention is made anywhere in your article of the vital leadership and participation of the Alliance for Natural Health and the fact that its solicitors were responsible for that victory.
As legal counsel for an American-based international health-freedom organization, The National Health Federation, and as the legal columnist for Whole Foods Magazine since 1984, I would appreciate an explanation.
In my view, stealing credit for an achievement is on par with stealing money. I would like to think that your organization is not a thief of achievement and would give proper credit for this victory to the ANH, where it properly belongs and would do it promptly. My column and the organization for which I work will not fail to take note of your actions in this regard.
Thank you for your immediate attention to my query and request.
Sincerely yours,
Scott C. Tips
General Counsel
National Health Federation
(Aldis sent a pile of GARBAGE in response to this which will be easily refuted the moment we have access to the transcript of the case which shows exactly what happened in the courtroom. The transcript will prove that ANH won the day, that the Judge and UK attorney were only able to attack NAHS/HFMA's case.)
Given that Nature's Bounty (member of HFMA and NAHS) is the wealthiest vitamin company in the world, (annual revenues in excess of one billion dollars), why, if they REALLY want to overturn the EU FSD, would they hire only a top second tier law firm with no experience in overturning EU Directives?
Why would their lawfirm use the same argument in the FSD case that caused them to LOSE the Kava Case? (Proportionality)
Why would they not want to use the #1 lawfirm in Europe (Brick Court Chambers) given their track record of overturning EU Directives, including the Tobacco Directive, where they established the case law that must be followed in a similar attempt vis a vis the Food Supplement Directive?
(ANH hired Brick Court Chambers, while NAHS/HFMA not only did NOT hire them, but show every sign of trying to SABOTAGE ANH's efforts to go on to the EU Court of Justice....
Clearly, vitamin consumers world wide are up against a group of large vitamin companies in this industry that don't WANT the EU Food Supplement Directive overturned.
These large companies only care about PROFITS, not about consumers. They view the EU FSD as a way of expanding their markets throughout most of Europe, and it doesn't matter to them that they'd have to reformulate product in England, Ireland, Sweden, and Holland, the PROFITS that they'd make in the REST of Europe would more than make up for losses in those four countries, even though those four countries currently are the most lucrative countries for the sale of their products.
Similarly, they don't CARE if that EU FSD adversely hammers the rest of the world due to its impact at CODEX, because these big companies feel that they're big enough to weather ANY STORM, and they welcome regulatory hurdle raising that would drive smaller competitors out of the market...
IADSA has announced a special meeting to be held in May in Prague, Czech Republic titled "The Future of Food Supplements in Europe" http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:sCdkS5lvNKUJ:www.ahpa.org/Prague2004Conference.pdf+IADSA,Prague&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
To this meeting they have invited such perpeTRAITORS as John Hathcock of pharma dominated CRN (formerly of FDA) who will be discussing so called "scientific risk asessment" as a means of imposing so called "safe Upper Levels" to cap allowable vitamin potencies.
The scientific fraudulence of what Hathcock, CRN, IADSA, HFMA, and all other pharma dominated vitamin trade associations are trying to do via the EU FSD and Codex is exposed via Alan Gaby, MD's article titled "Safe Upper Levels" for Nutritional Supplements- One Giant Step BACKWARD http://www.iahf.com/20040127.html
HFMA is a member of IADSA.
HFMA's Chair is Peter Aldis, who is ceo of Nature's Bounty Company Holland and Barrett.
Nature's Bounty obviously doesn't care about consumers.
If they did, they wouldn't be backing a second tier lawfirm which is attempting to employ a losing argument ostensibly to "try to overturn" the EU Food Supplement Directive.
If they did care, they would be backing ANH's GENUINE legal effort to overturn the FSD, the THMPD, and the PD.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Get this to every vitamin company you buy product from and DEMAND to know what they are doing to support the ANH lawsuit?
Donations can be made via http://www.alliance-natural-health.org ANH needs around $350,000 US to go on to the EU Court of Justice, and your donations are badly needed, especially if ANH is unable to get past the effort to shut them out of the upcoming vitamin trade shows in the UK and to marginalize them in the trade press.
For Health Freedom, 