APPENDIX 1: Letter from Peter Aldis to Scott Tips, dated 6 February 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edith Brown" <office@hfma.co.uk>
To: <scott@rivieramail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 9:19 AM
Subject: Important Response on Legal Challenge
>
> 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 coclaimants.
> 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