posted October 06, 2004 12:07 PM            

The following is written by a colleague of GSMC's doctors, Jonathan V.
Wright, M. D., to inform the public of the organized threat to the
availability of nutritional supplements. If you value your right to make
your own healthcare decisions, we ask that you read it in its entirety,
forward it to any others you think may be concerned about this imminent loss
of freedom, and then, take action.

Sincerely, Dr. Wilson and Dr. Wright

Flash forward to the year 2007. You've taken supplements for years. You're
out of vitamins C and E. You go to your natural food store, but you can't
find the kind you want on the shelf. You ask a clerk to find them for you.
She says you can't get your vitamin E as mixed tocopherols (the best natural
form) anymore, and asks if you like your vitamin C in the 100 or
200-milligram size. The 1,000-milligram size, you say.

"Where have you been?" she asks. "Asleep since 2004? It's 2007 now! The
types and sizes of vitamins you just asked for have been declared illegal by
the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization!"

"Wait!" you reply. "This is America! Our President says we're fighting for
American freedom--and you're telling me that the World Trade Organization
can dictate what size vitamin C I can take, and forbid me from taking mixed
tocopherols?"

The sales clerk sighs, and reaches for a piece of paper. "It's a little
complicated," she says. "A few years back, the European Commission passed
the European Food Supplements Directive..."

You feel your blood pressure rising. "What does the European Commission and
its Directive have to do with me? If Europeans want bureaucrats to tell them
what to do, that's their business. I'm a free citizen of these United
States!"

"Now, now, dear, your blood pressure will go up, and you can't get calcium
citrate, magnesium aspartate, CoQ10 or L-arginine or anything else natural
to help regulate it anymore."

"What? This goes beyond the FDA's wildest dreams!"

"That's not a tenth of it, dear. While you were distracted by the war
overseas for American freedom, here at home we lost our right to buy any
amino acids at all-no arginine, no carnitine, no tryptophan, nothing. I
can't sell you any essential fatty acids either-no DHA or EPA. And no
beta-carotene, no mixed carotenoids, no MSM, no boron...The list goes on and
on."

"So what can I buy?" you ask.

"Let's see...those 100 and 200 milligram vitamin Cs. Vitamin B6 maximum 4.2
milligrams, vitamin B1, 2.4 milligrams. Oh, here's a better one: You can get
niacin at 32 milligrams."

"Enough! I'm getting sick! How did this ever happen in these United States?"

"As I was saying, the European Directive..."

"I heard you. But what about America's Congress, America's President?

"Oh, they signed us up for this in the 1990s, when they made us members of
the World Trade Organization. According to the Congressional Research
Service: 'As a member of the World Trade Organization, the United States
does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body.
The United States is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not
conflict with World Trade Organization rules.'"

"Our President and Congress send troops overseas to fight for freedom, but
let the WTO tell us what to do with our vitamins? There must be something we
can do."

"Actually, we did have a chance or two to reverse this in 2004, but it's
going to be incredibly difficult now."

"But I really need my mixed tocopherol vitamin E. And my mother with
congestive heart failure depends on CoQ10."

"I'm not unsympathetic, especially to your poor mother, dear." She looks all
around, and then lowers her voice. "I can give you some sources downtown."
She whispers a few names.

"But those people deal dangerous drugs! Now they're selling vitamins, too?"

"That's freedom in America in 2007, dear."

Think it can't happen? Think again.

The FDA's wildest dream-and our worst nightmare-is about to come true. Two
years ago, I told you about the passage of the European Union (EU) Directive
on Dietary Supplements. This directive, which is part of a larger form of
legislation called Codex Alimentarius, severely restricts access to natural
health products in Europe. At the time, it probably seemed a long way off:
After all, the law wasn't to go into effect for several years following the
initial passage.

Unfortunately, that several years is up, and the EU Directive is on track to
take full effect in August 2005-less than a year from now--and by 2007, the
scene described above will certainly be a reality for many, many people.
Obviously, this is devastating news for Europe. But thanks to some
pre-existing international agreements made by the U.S., the EU Directive
will be just as devastating for the natural health community here. The main
difference is that while the Directive has been big news in Europe for some
time, it's been virtually ignored by U.S. media, which means that the severe
restrictions it calls for will sneak up on most people and rob us all of our
freedom to choose natural alternatives before we even know what's happening.
That's why I and many of my colleagues in the health publishing world have
done our best to keep you informed of the Directive's developments-and their
consequences for the U.S.-over the years. And why we've decided to make a
big push in our September newsletters by covering it in-depth.

Simply put, we're down to the wire, and if we don't act immediately, we will
be facing the same fate as Europeans. There are steps you can take to get
the word out and, hopefully, to diffuse this ticking time bomb. But first,
let's take a few minutes and recount some of the specifics included in the
Directive so that you know exactly what it is we're fighting against.

5,000 products set to disappear

The EU Directive classifies vitamins and minerals in Europe as "medical
drugs" rather than dietary supplements, which means that they're subject to
government regulation in terms of dosage and availability. It gets worse:
There are many nutrients known to be vital to optimal health that are not on
the government's RDA nutrient list including chromium picolinate, lysine,
and selenium. Under the Directive, these types of supplements are banned
from over-the-counter sale. Put simply, it will be illegal to buy them
without a prescription.

The supplements that will be available will be restricted to multi-vitamins
containing no more than 100 percent of the established RDA amounts, which
are usually useless, trivial quantities--and they'll be far more expensive
than what we have now.

This Directive, for all intents and purposes, makes it illegal for people to
keep themselves healthy by supplementing with essential nutrients.

Plus, the Directive only allows supplements to be made from a list of 15
minerals and 13 vitamins. That leaves out at least 40 minerals important in
human metabolism and forbids the use of the most bio-available forms of
vitamin complexes. In essence, it means that all nutritional supplements
will be virtually the same-the specific combinations might vary, but the
types and amounts of nutrients will be identical-no matter what product
they're formulated into.

So, for instance, a middle-aged woman in Liverpool, England, who has a
dangerously elevated homocysteine level will no longer have the option of
reducing her risk of heart disease with a vitamin B dosage of her own
choosing. If she's currently taking 5 mg of folic acid daily, under the new
Directive she will be legally restricted to a prescription of 1 mg per day.
If she's taking a 100 mg dose of B6, she'll be restricted to 10 mg. And her
pantothenic acid (B5) intake of 500 mg will drop to 200 mg. These maximum
dosage levels have been chosen to "protect" her (so we're told), when in
fact the protection she needs the most will be unavailable.

In addition to these essential B vitamins, low maximum dosage levels have
also been set for vitamin C, niacin, and vitamin E. But at least they made
it on the list of allowed nutrients.

Approximately 350 supplement ingredients are missing from the list. If they
are not added to the list by June 2005, they will be deemed illegal
throughout the European Union. Supplement manufacturers may submit
"technical dossiers" to support applications for the inclusion of individual
elements or formulations on the so-called "positive list." But the EU has
made this process so expensive and time consuming that many manufacturers
simply can't afford the costs involved. As a result, around 5,000 safe
formulas and nutrients that have been on the market for decades will soon be
banned.

Saving us from ourselves

Of course, these regulations were all passed under the guise of "protecting
the public." According to the World Health Organization, popular alternative
medicines are often "misused" and may "harm patients." They point out that
the "incorrect use" of alternative therapies has caused deaths in wealthy
countries where more and more patients rely on them.

You could also argue that the incorrect use of kitchen knives, water-skis,
and even plastic bags have all caused deaths! Not to mention the use of
AMA-sanctioned medical procedures and FDA-approved drugs. The key phrase
here is "incorrect use."

The WHO could do everyone a service by first addressing the incorrect use of
accepted mainstream therapies that have caused far more widespread death and
adverse reactions than natural medicine therapies ever have or ever will.

Although they are few and far between, there are mistakes and fatalities
associated with alternate therapies, supplements, and herbal remedies. It's
always important to keep in mind that many of the compounds and herbs used
in natural medicine treatments are very powerful. They have risks and
potential side effects, which is why I always recommend that you work
closely with skilled natural medicine practitioners whenever you use these
therapies. But even with their cautions, natural remedies are far, far safer
than prescription drugs, and one reason might be the users themselves. An
article published in the journal Psychologist noted that people who seek out
natural and alternative treatments are generally more health conscious than
non-users, and believe that by making sound lifestyle choices they can
influence their own health. But not if the EU has anything to say about it.

Where's the "fight for freedom" when you need it?

You'd think that such blatant abuse of power to restrict people's personal
liberty would have our own self-proclaimed freedom-loving government up in
arms (literally). But there's an even darker side to all this, and it has
little--if anything-- to do with health or looking out for people's best
interests.

Even if the American government didn't want to go along with the regulations
imposed by the EU Directive, we really wouldn't have a choice. In fact, the
United States never has acknowledged or stated any form of acceptance for
the EU Directive. But hard as it is to believe, this "Directive" can
actually over-ride United States law if it isn't stopped in Europe.

As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.S. will be bound by
any finalized standards put forth in the Directive.

If we choose to ignore the regulations our WTO-affiliation binds us to, we
would face severe trade sanctions with other WTO countries, which could
potentially cripple part of our economy. And there's no way that our already
anti-natural-medicine government is going to let that happen over access to
vitamins and minerals. So the best way to ensure it doesn't get to that
point is to do everything we can to stop it now--before it happens.

Protect your rights with these 3 steps

There are three actions to take. The most urgent is to support a case
brought by the British Alliance for Natural Health to overturn the European
Food Supplements Directive. In January 2004, the Alliance's attorneys (a
firm which has successfully had another European Directive overturned) won
the first round in the High Court of Justice in London; the appeal was
referred to the European Court of Justice. Please visit the Alliance's
website, www.alliance-natural-health.org
<http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/> , read about their case, and most
importantly, make a donation to support their efforts to protect everyone's
supplements, including yours. Even a few dollars will help; a few dollars
from each of us will add up. If we can help them overturn this food
supplement dictatorship in Europe, it won't ever come here.

The second action I urge you to take is to write, call, and e-mail your
state's Senators and Congressmen. Tell your Senators to oppose S.722, the
Dietary Supplement Safety Act, and tell your Congressmen to oppose H.R.
3377, the Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act. These two bills put
the wheels in motion for restrictions similar to those outlined in the EU
Directive to become U.S. law, which would be even more threatening to us
than just an inter- national code of standards. These extremely dangerous
and misnamed proposals would allow the FDA to "roll back" most of the small
amount of health care freedom you and I re-gained with the 1994 "DSHEA" law
we all fought so hard for. Even if we're successful in helping the Alliance
for Natural Health defeat the European Food Supplements Directive, if these
bills are passed into law, our supplement choices will shrink dramatically
anyway.

The final step to take is to tell your U.S. Senators and Congressmen to
support U.S. Representative Ron Paul's H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty
Restoration Act. This accurately named (for once) legislation would make the
Constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land again, and
restore law-making and judging power to our elected representatives and
American courts, respectively. Please don't leave this off your list; in the
long run, it's the most important action of the three.

Please make a donation-of any size-to the Alliance for Natural Health as
soon as you can. Then, please write, call, fax, and e-mail your U.S.
Senators and Representative as often as you can, telling them to oppose S.
722 and H.R. 3377, and to support American freedom by voting for H.R. 1146.

For further information on the European Union Directive on Dietary
Supplements and on the Codex Alimentarius legislation, contact the American
Holistic Health Association (www.ahha.org <http://www.ahha.org/> ), the
Alliance for Natural Health (www.alliance-natural-health.org
<http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/> ), or the International Advocates
for Health Freedom (www.iahf.com).

posted October 06, 2004 01:46 PM            

These two bills, H.R. 3377 and S. 722 are sponsored by democrats and from the list of cosponsors, it appears they are some of the most radical elements of the leftists in Congress.

One of the heroes of some here, Dennis Kuchinich is the sponsor of this bill in the House. Dick Durbin is the Senate sponsor. I'm a little surprised to see John McCain is a cosponsor in the Senate...but not too much.

Of course, I'm not surprised by this legislation. After all, it was and is the policy of the nations these people admire, aid and protect to tell their citizens, what to do, how to do it, when to do it and even what to think.

posted October 06, 2004 03:18 PM              

thanks Harpyr!!
but who let this KOOK Ron Paul into office? it ruins my whole massive conspiracy theory dangit!!........
maybe LOCAL elections can still do some good?

here are some choice excerpts from 1 of ron pauls' speech titled Neo-CONNED!

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2003

Neo-CONNED!

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant

Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?
The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem

posted October 07, 2004 11:02 AM              

In yesterday's e-Alert I gave you some background on the "European Union Directive on Dietary Supplements" that will become law in August of 2005. Among the 25 European Union (EU) nations (representing more than 450 million people), this directive reclassifies vitamin supplements as "medical drugs," mandates low dosage levels, and outlaws many supplement ingredients that are currently widely available. Created to "protect" consumers, the directive will do exactly the opposite by denying consumers access to natural therapeutic supplements.

But don't think you're off the hook if you live outside the EU. Plans are already underway to bring these extreme regulations to the U.S. and many other countries.

---------! ---------------------------------------------------------------
Try ing to stay positive
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the EU directive, a "positive list" has been created to mandate which dietary supplements will be allowed for sale. The list does not include about 350 supplement ingredients, such as boron, a mineral that helps manage symptoms of menopause.

So if you're a supplement manufacturer in an EU country, and you produce a supplement that contains boron, you'll be required to remove it from the supplement by August 2005. But there is another option. You can submit a "technical dossier" to argue the case that a particular ingredient (such as boron) should be included on the positive list. Ah, but there's a catch: The European Commission has made this process so expensive and time consuming that many manufacturers simply can't afford the costs involved. As a result, many safe formulas and nutrients that have been on the ! market for decades will soon be banned.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
But wait... it gets worse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The positive list isn't really as positive as it sounds.

For instance: Vitamin E made it on the positive list. Sort of. As HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D., has made clear in several e- Alerts, there are a number of different vitamin E forms, and the synthetic form should be avoided for internal use. But according to Euromonitor International, the ONLY form of vitamin E on the positive list is the synthetic form.

And then there's selenium. Besides the fact that selenium has excellent antioxidant properties that have been shown to help increase insulin efficiency, selenium also enhances the effect of vitamin E, making it a perfect match for any vitamin E regimen.
But the only two forms of selenium that made the positive list are - yep - synthetic forms.

Wondering why the positive list emphasizes synthetics? I'll answer that question with another question: What sort of company specializes in manufacturing synthetic forms of natural treatments?

You already saw it coming, didn't you? The answer: pharmaceutical companies. Large drug companies can easily produce synthetic ingredients at low cost. So the positive list will certainly be positive for drug companies, while many small manufacturers of natural supplements will be forced out of business.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decoding Codex
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The outlook for the future of dietary supplements in Europe is decidedly gloomy. But if you're a U.S. citizen you might be wondering how all of this will affect you. In fact, the 2005 implementation of the EU directive won't directly affect consume! rs outside the EU. But the U.S. and the EU are both members of a much larger club.

The U.S. is one of the 165 member countries of the Codex Alimentarius Commission - an international food standards program created by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). One of the purposes
of the Codex Commission is to "harmonize" international food trade. And here are a few key elements of that harmonizing:

* WHO regards all dietary supplements as "drugs" * The Codex Commission has made it clear that it wants to limit over-the-counter sales of dietary supplements while reclassifying others as pharmaceuticals, available only through a pharmacist

* The U.S. has one vote on the Codex Commission. The European Union represents 27 votes on the commission: the 25 votes of its member countries and 2 votes of the 2 EU candidate countries

* Under World Trade! Organization (WTO) rules, Codex decisions override decisio ns of individual countries

* Member countries (including the U.S.) that refuse to "harmonize" with WTO directives may be subject to restrictive trade sanctions

* The European Union is the United States' largest trade and investment partner, with a yearly two-way trade in goods and services that is estimated to be nearly $600 billion

"Harmony" never sounded so awful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Securing the Homeland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The remarkably harsh restrictions of the EU directive on Dietary Supplements have met with an enormous protest from people who correctly see this process as an infringement on their right to make their own health care choices. This past February, the High Court in London ruled that a case challenging the directive should be referred to the European Court - the only court with the authority to challenge EU directives. Exactly when that court will hand down a ruling is not known. What is known is that the decision will have a profound effect on the availability of dietary supplements in Europe and beyond.

Meanwhile, back on the other side of the Atlantic, many congressmen and pro pharmaceutical organizations have been calling for more restrictive regulations of supplements. So there's no time to waste in letting our legislators know that we don't want to see any form of the EU directive taking effect in the U.S.

A complete list of government e-mail and postal addresses is available at a web site called Congress.org.