From: "Edith Brown"
To:
Subject: RE: Questions to NAHS and HFMA Prior to My Scheduled Radio Show Tomorrow (Thursday) on the Lou Gentile Show- & Prior to Completion of Two Magazine Articles
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:31:46 -0000
Organization: HFMA
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: High
Dear Mr Hammell,
Peter Aldis has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your email dated 25th
February and send you the enclosed response to David Hinde;
Mr David C. Hinde LLB
Legal Director
Alliance For Natural Health
25th February 2004
Dear Mr Hinde,
Mr Peter Aldis, Chair of the HFMA, has asked me to acknowledge
receipt of your email of 24th February. Its contents have been noted.
Mr Aldis has nothing to add to his earlier comments on these matters.
Yours sincerely
David Adams
Director
Health Food Manufacturers' Association
63 Hampton Court Way
Thames Ditton
Surrey KT7 0LT
Tel: 020 8398 4066
Fax: 020 8398 5402
email: d.adams@hfma.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hammell [mailto:jham@iahf.com]
Sent: 25 February 2004 22:34
To: Ralph A Pike; office@hfma.co.uk
Cc: Ralph Fucetola JD
Subject: Questions to NAHS and HFMA Prior to My Scheduled Radio Show
Tomorrow (Thursday) on the Lou Gentile Show- & Prior to Completion of
Two Magazine Articles
Importance: High
Dear Mr.Pike and Mr.Aldis:
I have read Mr.Aldis's letter to Scott Tips, and have also read ANH's
response to it which was recently sent to you both.
So as to give NAHS and HFMA a chance to respond to ANH's letter, I
wanted to let you know that I will be on the Lou Gentile radio show tomorrow
(Thursday) Februrary 25th from 9PM to 10 PM Pactific time. This show is
web based http://www.lougentile.com and http://www.ibcradio.com and is also
aired via Short Wave, Satellite, as well as AM and FM affiliated
stations across the USA.
I also wanted to let you know that I am currently writing articles for
publication in two magazines about this situation.
Should you wish to have any input into either the radio show, or these
articles, I would welcome the chance to see your response to the letter
which you have just received from ANH. Additionally, I have some
questions for you below....
You should also know that although I have been sent a copy of ANH's
response to this letter from Aldis (below), I have refrained from mass
forwarding it (I have not sent it to my email distribution list) thus
far per the request of ANH, which has been giving you the past few days to
respond.
I would just like to tell you that I feel that ANH has been more than
generous in allowing you to have this time to respond to their letter.
When you spammed Aldis's letter all over the place, in marked contrast
to how ANH has responded to you, you failed to provide them the courtesy of
sending Aldis's letter directly to them. Moreover, you failed to make
any inquiry with ANH in an effort to determine if the things which Aldis
said in his email were even TRUE before you sent it out.
Please let me know if this letter was approved by either the NAHS Board
or by the HFMA Board before it was sent out.
If you wish to have any input into either the radio show I am doing
tomorrow, or the two articles I am in a process of writing now, I would
appreciate it very much if you would please provide me with a copy of
the response I am assuming NAHS and HFMA's attorneys are drafting to send to
ANH's letter to you in response to Aldis's letter (below.)
If your response is not completely ready, but you would like to provide
me with any even PARTIAL responses to ANH's letter, please do so
immediately.
Also, Peter, you did not file a witness statement with the NAHS/HFMA
lawsuit. Why not? That seems strange to me given that you are Chair of
HFMA, and ceo of the largest chain of health food stores in the UK. Your
lack of filing a witness statement stands in marked contrast with Rob
Verkerk, who filed a lengthy, detailed, carefully witnessed witness
statement.
Would you care to comment on this? I find this ommission to be deeply
disturbing in light of other concerns expressed herein.
Also, how much money has Nature's Bounty spent to reformulate products
to comply with the EU FSD? That must have been a sizable investment.
Question- if you actually have CONFIDENCE in your legal action, why did
Nature's Bounty reformulate its products to be EU compliant?
Isn't it true that if the FSD were NOT overturned, that Nature's Bounty
would benefit from it by its closing the English gateway to all the
black market countries, including Spain where Nature's Bounty is currently
engaging in aggressive loss leader (2 for the price of one) tactics in
an effort to get its watered down, reformulated products into all the
stores?
Isn't it true that the FSD would HELP any company that has reformulated
its products to block unwanted black market competition coming through
England?
Also, HFMA is a member of IADSA. IADSA is co-hosting a conference in
Prague in May called "The Future of Food Supplements in Europe" along with
EHPM, ERNA, and a Czech vitamin trade association.
http://www.ahpa.org/Prague2004Conference.pdf
Nowhere in the brochure about this conference is there ANY mention of
ANY legal effort to overturn the EU FSD. The FSD is discussed as if it were
a "done deal."
The brochure states that the conference Will address: "The changing
marketing and regulatory environment for food supplements in Europe,
including the interpretation and impact of the food supplement directive
in the area of vitamins and minerals."
Presumably, HFMA is actually TRYING to overturn the EU Food Supplements
Directive.
Months ago I asked you some questions about this which you never
answered, so I am asking them again:
You are an employee of Nature's Bounty, Peter.
Nature's Bounty is a huge publicly traded company answerable legally to
its shareholders, with a legal obligation to make as much money for them as
possible.
Given this fact, please explain to me how it is in any way in your best
interests to overturn the EU Food Supplement Directive, given that
Nature's Bounty stands to make far more money via one set of harmonized
regulations across Europe, than currently exists?
If Nature's Bounty's true intention via this NAHS/HFMA lawsuit is to
overturn the EU Food Supplement Directive, why did you not hire the best
lawfirm available for the task at hand? Why did you not hire Brick Court
Chambers, given their track record of overturning EU Directives? When
they overturned the EU Tobacco Directive, they pioneered the case law in this
area.
So, why did you hire only a top second tier lawfirm to represent HFMA?
At the meeting in Nuneaton, why did you attempt to get ANH to sign an
agreement which would have used them only for their money, while
disenfranchising them from all decision making pertaining to the lawsuit
given that they have been working with the most experienced lawfirm in
the world for the given task at hand?
Also, if you are serious about wanting to overturn the EU FSD, why is
HFMA a member of IADSA, a known controlled opposition group which is exposed
here http://www.iahf.com/iadsa ? The smoking gun which exposes IADSA is
that IADSA kicked NNFA New Zealand out, doing nothing to protect New
Zealand from harmonization to Australia. At this url, you can see full
documentation of the situation between NNFA New Zealand and IADSA- gif
files of correspondence between the two.
Judging from the brochure about the Prague Conference, nothing has
changed with IADSA.
So, if HFMA are actually serious about supposedly "wanting to overturn
the EU FSD" why is HFMA a member of IADSA?
The impression I have is that NAHS/HFMA attempted to sabotage ANH's
efforts at Nuneaton, which is why ANH chose not to go along.
I would appreciate if if you would please comment on all I am saying
here.
If no answer is forthcoming, I won't have any choice but to publicly
discuss any non response to these questions.
Thanking you in advance for your anticipated response.
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
cc Ralph Fucetola, JD http://www.vitaminlawyer.com
At 07:07 PM 2/6/04 +0000, you wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Please read below a response by Peter Aldis to allegations recently
>made about the Food Supplements Directive and the recent High Court
>hearing on the subject.
>
>As always, if you wish deletion from this list, just ask.
>
>=======================================================================
>==============================================
>
>To:
>Scott C Tips
>General Counsel
>National Health Federation
>
>From:
>Peter Aldis
>Chair, Health Food Manufacturers Association (UK)
>
>
>Dear Mr Tips,
>
>Thank you for your email of 6th February in which you ascribe
>responsibility for the successful outcome of the recent case in the
>London High Court to an organisation known as the Alliance for Natural
>Health (ANH).
>
>You should be aware that in fact there were two legal cases being heard
>simultaneously. The one in which we were involved was brought jointly
>by the Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA) and the National
>Association of Health Stores (NAHS) with the support of the main UK
>consumer advocacy organisation, Consumers for Health Choice (CHC). For
>reasons known only to themselves, the ANH chose to pursue their own
>case separately.
>
>We are content to let people judge for themselves once they know the
>facts. So, let us be clear of the sequence of events.
>
>The NAHS obtained an Opinion from Queen's Counsel specializing in
>European law in the FSD matter back in October 2002. The Opinion was
>delivered in December 2002. NAHS lawyers wrote to the relevant
>regulator in the UK in June 2003. The HFMA studied the information
>available, decided that the NAHS case had considerable merit and agreed
>to become involved actively in supporting it as co-claimants. The HFMA
>and NAHS then met with the ANH, who had been mounting a high profile
>fundraising appeal to fund their own activities, and agreed a method of
>co-operation at the end of September 2003. A Heads of Agreement
>establishing such cooperation were drawn up by lawyers, who had been
>present throughout the meeting, with the agreement of the ANH.
>
>Indeed, one of the concerns of the ANH representatives at the meeting
>seemed to be that they should be able in due course to pay themselves
>for their time commitment from the monies they raised.
>
>The ANH then subsequently failed to sign the Heads of Agreement and
>failed to commence co-operation. We were surprised and disappointed by
>this decision since it would inevitably lead to a duplication of work
>and an increase in costs for all concerned.
>
>However, because of time limits, we needed to proceed and the joint
>HFMA/NAHS application to the High Court was made prior to the ANH
>Application. Our Witness Statements in support (including supplemental
>statements) were constructed without reference to ANH evidence. Our
>witness statements were comprehensive and ran to more than a lever arch
>file, and were prepared carefully to demonstrate what we needed to
prove
>and no more.
>
>It was agreed before the hearing between lawyers for the HFMA/NAHS and
>ANH (with the agreement also of the clients) that we would work
>together. Consequently, at the hearing, our QC presented first and was
>able to bring in some of the ANH evidence for maximum impact. This also
>avoided unnecessary duplication, which risked irritating the court.
>
>We remain unclear why the ANH chose to mount its own separate case, how
>or by whom that decision was taken, how its budgets were calculated,
>and to whom monies have been paid or are owed by ANH. We leave others
>who contributed to their efforts to pursue such points if they wish.
>
>Finally, let me add that the legal case is just one small area of the
>work of the HFMA, CHC and NAHS. Together we were responsible for the
>lobby which led to the House of Lords last year voting by 2 to 1 to
>reject the the Food Supplements Regulations, we organised the petition
>of approaching 1 million signatures presented to the House of Commons
>on the issue, and are involved in detailed behind the scenes
>negotiations with the relevant UK and European bodies to take forward
>initiatives to find workable solutions to the real problems with this
>legislation. We will continue to lead from the front on these issues
>and hope that those who wish to see credit apportioned where it is due,
>will make themselves aware of these facts and promote our considerable
>commitment in this regard. That others may from time to time try to
>take credit for our work is regrettable, but lies beyond our control.
>
>I hope that this is helpful in explaining the truth of the matter.
>
>Best wishes.
>
>Peter Aldis
>Chair, HFMA
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Ralph A Pike
>Director
>National Association of Health Stores
>First Floor
>4 Abbeydale Road South
>Sheffield
>South Yorkshire
>England
>S7 2QN
>
>Tel & Fax - +44 (0)114 235 3478
>Mobile - +44 (0)7866 317760
 | Powered by YMLP.com | |
| | ||