IAHF Webmaster: Breaking News, Whats New What to Do, All Countries, Codex, EU FSD
IAHF List: Please read the questions I am asking David Adams, Director of HFMA in the UK.
I am asking these questions because Peter Aldis, Chair of HFMA declined to respond to my previous questions (except to say he had read them, but would not respond.)
Its really not hard to see whats going on here.
I'll be very suprised if HFMA responds to these questions either.
One thing contained in these questions that I'd really like to focus your attention on is SONAs "Suggested Optimal Nutrition Allowances" These are what consumers, innovative practitioners, and health food stores MUST INSIST be used in any development of a global vitamin standard. Unfortunately though, they're NOT being used- what IS being used are so called "Safe Upper Levels" that aren't much better than RDAs- SUL's have been condemned by Alan Gaby MD- see complete info about this and about SONAs below, and be sure to demand that your government rep push for SONAs at CODEX, because the "SUL"s are not an option.
Through the questions below, you can clearly see the game which HFMA are playing. They're only going through the MOTIONS of "trying to overturn the EU Food Supplement Directive" while simultaneously trying to divert industry funds from ANH's GENUINE effort to do so.
If you value your ongoing access to supplements, you MUST continue to donate to ANH's genuine efforts via http://www.alliance-natural-health.org ANH has gotten the nod to go on to the EU Court of Justice in Luxemborg, and they badly need your support!
Mr.David Adams, Director
Health Food Manufacturers Assn
63 Hampton Court Way
Thames Ditton
Surrey KT7 0LT
Mr. Adams:
In light of Mr.Aldis refusal to answer questions asked by International Advocates for Health Freedom and by myself (as a licensed, credentialled member of the press), I have some questions I would like YOU to answer (any non response will be very conspicuosly noted by millions of consumers, innovative supplement companies, and practitioners world wide who are beginning to ask these SAME questions with increasing frequency):
First: Some statements that go with my questions, which I will ask last.
1. HFMA are co-claimants in a lawsuit along with NAHS. Your ostensible "purpose" with this lawsuit is to "overturn" the EU Food Supplement Directive.
2. HFMA are members of IADSA (International Alliance of Dietary Supplement Associations). IADSA has been exposed as a controlled opposition group at http://www.iahf.com/iadsa There you will find gif files of correspondence between the Board of NNFA New Zealand, and IADSA, which exposed its true intentions by kicking NNFA New Zealand out of the trade association for DEMANDING that IADSA help the New Zealand industry protect itself from massive harmonization pressure coming from much larger, neighboring Australia. You will find copies of emails between NNFA New Zealand and IADSA in which NNFA New Zealand complained that despite numerous efforts to implore Simon Petman, IADSA lobbyist in Brussels, to issue a press release under IADSA's auspices to defend KAVA when KAVA came under increasing media attack world wide, Petman refused, and was backed up in his refusal by Randy Dennin, who is still Chair of IADSA, and who at that time was still an employee of Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company.
3. In May, IADSA (which HFMA is a member of) is cohosting a conference in Prague, Czech Republic titled "The Future of Nutritional Supplements in Europe" http://www.ahpa.org/Prague2004Conference.pdf The brochure indicates that this conference is being cohosted by IADSA, ERNA, EHPM, and by the Czech vitamin trade association. Given that the EU Food Supplements Directive liberalizes what can be LEGALLY sold in any country in Europe (EXCEPT FOR ENGLAND, IRELAND, HOLLAND and SWEDEN) and given that the FSD would slam the DOOR on black market products coming through England, it is not surprising that there is NOTHING in the brocure about this conference about ANY effort to overturn the EU Food Supplement Directive. The brochure discusses passage of the FSD as if it were a "done deal." While it is clear that the FSD is NOT in the best interests of consumers, innovative manufacturers or alternative practitioners ANYWHERE in Europe (due to the closing of the English gateway for black market products), it is ALSO clear that it is DEFINITELY in the best interests of any supplement company that doesn't manufacture innovative products because it will help them to expand marketshare throughout Europe.
This conference is focusing on developing so called "Safe Upper Levels" for dietary supplements, even though there is nothing at all "scientific" about this, and even though the idea has been condemned by Alan Gaby, MD, an orthomolecular clinician with over 20 years experience in treating patients with nutrients. "SUL"s are only slightly better than the equally unscientific RDAs, but they don't come even CLOSE to what consumers need, which is SONAs (Suggested Optimal Nutrient Allowances)
For information on SONAs, see http://www.enerex.ca/articles SONA's were recommended to the US Senate on a basis of a 15 year study conducted by Dr.s Emanual Cheraskin and WM Ringdorf at the University of Alabama where they evaluated the nutritional needs of 13,500 male and female subjects living in six different geographical regions of the USA correlating intakes of essential nutrients with signs and symptoms of disease. Based on the logical assumption that those who are free of symptoms are healthier than those showing clinical signs and symptoms of disease, the ideal daily intake of each essential nutrient was taken to be that level consumed by people who were free from symptoms and signs of disease. Cheraskin and Ringdorff found optimum intakes of essential nutrients to increase with age.
Alan Gaby, MD has condemned the so called "Safe Upper Levels" which HFMA is advocating via its membership in IADSA. He has condemned them in an article titled "Safe Upper Levels for Nutritional Supplements" One Giant Step Backward which was published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol. 18, Third and 4th Quarters, 2003 see http://www.iahf.com/codex/20031206.html
4. CRN (dominated by Wyeth, Bayer, BASF, Monsanto, Pfizer) and IADSA plan on holding a Summit Meeting two days before the next meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses http://www.crnusa.org/CRNAC.html Despite the information provided above (Gaby's pronouncement that so called "Safe Upper Levels" are unscientific, and biased in favor of pharmaceutical interests, and the information about SONAs (which is what consumers, innovative manufacturers, and alternative practitioners NEED to have advocated, IADSA, ERNA, EHPM and the Czech vitamin trade association are pushing in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION because it is in their financial best interests to allign themselves with the EU FSD, NOT to try to overturn it in court.
QUESTIONS
In light of Statement 1
( HFMA are co-claimants in a lawsuit along with NAHS. Your ostensible "purpose" with this lawsuit is to "overturn" the EU Food Supplement Directive.)
If you REALLY want to overturn the EU FSD, why are you a member of IADSA which is clearly pushing in the direction of so called "Safe Upper Levels" which have been condemned by imminent orthomolecular MD Alan Gaby as "unscientific" and as "biased in favor of pharmaceutical interests" when you COULD be seizing the moral high ground and advocating SONAs?
In light of Statement 2:
HFMA are members of IADSA (International Alliance of Dietary Supplement Associations). IADSA has been exposed as a controlled opposition group at http://www.iahf.com/iadsa There you will find gif files of correspondence between the Board of NNFA New Zealand, and IADSA, which exposed its true intentions by kicking NNFA New Zealand out of the trade association for DEMANDING that IADSA help the New Zealand industry protect itself from massive harmonization pressure coming from much larger, neighboring Australia. You will find copies of emails between NNFA New Zealand and IADSA in which NNFA New Zealand complained that despite numerous efforts to implore Simon Petman, IADSA lobbyist in Brussels, to issue a press release under IADSA's auspices to defend KAVA when KAVA came under increasing media attack world wide, Petman refused, and was backed up in his refusal by Randy Dennin, who is still Chair of IADSA, and who at that time was still an employee of Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company.
Will HFMA now be QUITTING IADSA, and condemning the Prague Conference as clearly not in the best interests of consumers, innovative manufacturers, health food stores or alternative practitioners- and if not, WHY NOT?
In light of Statement 3:
In May, IADSA (which HFMA is a member of) is cohosting a conference in Prague, Czech Republic titled "The Future of Nutritional Supplements in Europe" http://www.ahpa.org/Prague2004Conference.pdf The brochure indicates that this conference is being cohosted by IADSA, ERNA, EHPM, and by the Czech vitamin trade association. Given that the EU Food Supplements Directive liberalizes what can be LEGALLY sold in any country in Europe (EXCEPT FOR ENGLAND, IRELAND, HOLLAND and SWEDEN) and given that the FSD would slam the DOOR on black market products coming through England, it is not surprising that there is NOTHING in the brocure about this conference about ANY effort to overturn the EU Food Supplement Directive. The brochure discusses passage of the FSD as if it were a "done deal." While it is clear that the FSD is NOT in the best interests of consumers, innovative manufacturers or alternative practitioners ANYWHERE in Europe (due to the closing of the English gateway for black market products), it is ALSO clear that it is DEFINITELY in the best interests of any supplement company that doesn't manufacture innovative products because it will help them to expand marketshare throughout Europe.
This conference is focusing on developing so called "Safe Upper Levels" for dietary supplements, even though there is nothing at all "scientific" about this, and even though the idea has been condemned by Alan Gaby, MD, an orthomolecular clinician with over 20 years experience in treating patients with nutrients. "SUL"s are only slightly better than the equally unscientific RDAs, but they don't come even CLOSE to what consumers need, which is SONAs (Suggested Optimal Nutrient Allowances)
For information on SONAs, see http://www.enerex.ca/articles SONA's were recommended to the US Senate on a basis of a 15 year study conducted by Dr.s Emanual Cheraskin and WM Ringdorf at the University of Alabama where they evaluated the nutritional needs of 13,500 male and female subjects living in six different geographical regions of the USA correlating intakes of essential nutrients with signs and symptoms of disease. Based on the logical assumption that those who are free of symptoms are healthier than those showing clinical signs and symptoms of disease, the ideal daily intake of each essential nutrient was taken to be that level consumed by people who were free from symptoms and signs of disease. Cheraskin and Ringdorff found optimum intakes of essential nutrients to increase with age.
Alan Gaby, MD has condemned the so called "Safe Upper Levels" which HFMA is advocating via its membership in IADSA. He has condemned them in an article titled "Safe Upper Levels for Nutritional Supplements" One Giant Step Backward which was published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol. 18, Third and 4th Quarters, 2003 see http://www.iahf.com/codex/20031206.html
Will HFMA now be quitting IADSA, condemning the Prague conference, and citing as its reasons the information I am providing regarding Gaby's article, and the information on SONAs, and if not, why not?
In light of Question 4:
CRN (dominated by Wyeth, Bayer, BASF, Monsanto, Pfizer) and IADSA plan on holding a Summit Meeting two days before the next meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses http://www.crnusa.org/CRNAC.html Despite the information provided above (Gaby's pronouncement that so called "Safe Upper Levels" are unscientific, and biased in favor of pharmaceutical interests, and the information about SONAs (which is what consumers, innovative manufacturers, and alternative practitioners NEED to have advocated, IADSA, ERNA, EHPM and the Czech vitamin trade association are pushing in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION because it is in their financial best interests to allign themselves with the EU FSD, NOT to try to overturn it in court.
Will HFMA now be quitting IADSA, and condemning them for all of the above, along with joining forces with CRN, especially in light of the fact that CRN's statement that a "victory" was achieved at Codex (See http://www.crnusa.org/shellnr110403.html ) is false and misleading? It is obvious to IAHF what is going on here: CRN announced at http://www.crnusa.org/shellnr112000.html their intention to harmonize the US to the EU. CRN is heavily involved with the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogues efforts to harmonize the laws pertaining to dietary supplements between the EU and US.
Does HFMA really think its in the best interests of ALL of its members to back a harmonization campaign via which the US would be harmonized to the EU? Have you discussed all of this with your innovative manufacturers, and health food stores? Or are you really just going through the MOTIONS of "defending English law" via your legal action? With Nature's Bounty's help you COULD have hired Brick Court Chambers, the only lawfirm in Europe that has ever succeeded in overturning an EU Directive, but you didn't do that, did you? Why NOT??? Why didn't Thompson attempt to use the same legal argument which Brick Court Chambers used to overturn the EU Tobacco Directive?
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 