To: IAHF List
Subject: HFMA & Aldis to IAHF "No Comment" --- Aldis Thinks This is Going to "Go Away"
Date: 1 Mar 2004 01:12:05 -0000

IAHF List: See the "reply" below my comments from Peter Aldis, Chair IASDA member vitamin trade association HFMA, ceo of Holland and Barrett (which is owned by Nature's Bounty, a huge publicly traded vitamin company which appears to be attempting to steer the dietary supplement industry and consumers AWAY from ANH's GENUINE efforts to overturn the EU Food Supplement Directive by running NAHS/HFMA's supposed lawsuit as a way of diverting industry money from where it SHOULD be going.

You can see the questions Aldis is refusing to answer below. What you should know is that he is ALSO refusing to respond to ANH's 23 page rebuttal to the libelous letter Aldis sent in response to the email he received from Scott Tips.

ANH's 23 page rebuttal to Aldis's libel will be posted on the web soon, and it is VERY revealing.

Last night Candace and I saw an incredible documentary in Vancouver called "The Corporation" Please see the website about this at The documentary states that corporations have the same legal rights as individuals, and makes a very good case that if they WERE PEOPLE, they would have all the characteristics of PSYCHOPATHS- since their sole purpose is to make MONEY for their shareholders, and all other considerations are TOTALLY IGNORED. This documentary will be coming to US theaters in June. It can be seen globally at upcoming Film Festivals and is a "must see" for all health freedom fighters. Anyone would gain a lot of valuable insight from seeing it, even if they are already aware of most of the information it presents because it is so thorough and well documented, with experts providing very solid commentary.

This certainly appears to be the case with Nature's Bounty, which employs Mr.Aldis.

No vitamin consumer on earth should purchase their products given the gross lack of accountability displayed here by Mr.Aldis who refuses to answer any questions pertaining to the "interesting" irregularities surrounding NAHS/HFMA's actions pertaining to their supposed effort to "defend" "our interests."

Nature's Bounty sells its products under a number of different brand names including Puritan's Pride and others. In the US they retail via "Vitamin World" stores, and via Walmart, as well as via numerous drugstores where they sell via private labels. They own L&H vitamins, a mailorder firm. In the UK they own Holland and Barrett, and all the GNC stores in the UK and Europe. See their SEC filing on the Edgar database for full details.

Clearly, they have abandoned consumers- see all emails below:

From: "Edith Brown"
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

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
Health Food Manufacturers' Association
63 Hampton Court Way
Thames Ditton
Surrey KT7 0LT

Tel: 020 8398 4066
Fax: 020 8398 5402

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hammell []
Sent: 25 February 2004 22:34
To: Ralph A Pike;
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

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 and 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.

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 ? 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

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.


Scott C Tips
General Counsel
National Health Federation

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


Ralph A Pike
National Association of Health Stores
First Floor
4 Abbeydale Road South
South Yorkshire
S7 2QN

Tel & Fax - +44 (0)114 235 3478
Mobile - +44 (0)7866 317760

For Health Freedom,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
556 Boundary Bay Road
Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA
800-333-2553 N.America
360-945-0352 World