Return-Path: jham@concentric.net Errors-To: Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:57:31 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: jham@pop3.concentric.net To: cafmr@pnc.com.au From: John Hammell Subject: Re: Clarifying? Citizens for Health's Position is Misleading- Here is Why Cc: Iamcsquid@aol.com At 06:45 PM 11/12/97 +1100, you wrote: >>Return-Path: Iamcsquid@aol.com >>From: Iamcsquid@aol.com >>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:45:19 -0500 (EST) >>Subject: Clarifying? >> >>i have recently joined the holistic health list and there seems to be some >>dissent on the actual intent and langage of the Codex. Per a different >>group, Codex poses NO immediate threat to supplemtns, st john's wort or >>otherwise Citizens for Health (the group which alleges that IAHF has been hysterical in its assertions that the harmonization language in the FDA Reform Bill dovetails in any way with the German Codex proposal to pose a threat to consumer access to dietary supplements) did not submit comments to the FDA in response to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was published in the July 7, 1997 Federal Register, Vol 62, #129, pp.36243-36248. Why not? We have responded, and we put the FDA on notice that they have no constitutional right to do what they are doing. (FDA announced their intention to go far beyond what they have to from an international law perspective in their efforts to expand the scope of adoption of Codex standards, guidelines and recommendatios, and we called them on it.) Sadly, the American people are blissfully unaware of what is going on, and Citizens for Health has not been following the issue carefully at all because its not in their best interests for people to see it clearly due to the direction they are trying to steer things in vis a vis their effort to expand the OTC drug category to include herbs. The pending threat posed by the German Codex proposal doesn't presently extend beyond vitamins and minerals, however for the sake of accuracy, this must be seen in the broader context of emerging international law. It must be viewed against the backdrop of current efforts to expand the OTC drug category in the US to include herbs when therapeutic claims are made, and it must be viewed against the current effort by Congressman Paul to rectify the problem by introducing HR 2868 (The Consumer Health Free Speech Act) (see below) Any legislation exists in a continuum and can't be viewed in isolation and understood. DSHEA does not protect us in the way that CFH asserts. For more details see the IAHF website. The FDA has announced their intention to expand the scope of adoption of Codex guidelines, standards, and recommendations far in excess of what they are even required to based on current international law. Citizens for Health is not following this situation carefully, and doesn't understand it. There are elements of truth to some of the things they are saying about Codex, but they constitute spin control. These issues can't be viewed in isolation, they must be seen against a backdrop which shows what is REALLY going on. Citizens for Health has significant financial backing from companies which have been pushing to expand the OTC drug category to include herbs and botanicals. This will become more apparent in the not too distant future as the Presidentially appointed Commission on Dietary Supplement Labels will be coming out with their final report at the end of this month. This Commission solicited comments on their draft report in August and held their final meeting in August. I reported on this in the December issue of Life Extension Magazine, which is out now. For a copy call 800-841-LIFE. The Commission announced in a press release following their final meeting in August that they intend to recommend that the OTC drug category be expanded to include herbs and botanicals when therapeutic claims are made. They did not have the statutory authority to make this recommendation, and did not properly fulfil their mandate. For more information on this, see my website and also www.emord.com It may seem innocuous that CFH and some of the companies that back them are pushing for the expansion of the OTC drug category to include herbs when therpeutic claims are made, since these products could still be sold as dietary supplements, but this is not innocuous. >From a standpoint of emerging international law, any move to push natural products across the line into a drug classification is a move in the wrong direction. The threat posed by the harmonization language in S.830 can't be viewed in isolation, but must be seen against a backdrop of this move in the US to expand the OTC drug category to include herbs, and the move in Canada to create a so called "third category". What is going on here? The pharmaceutical industry wants to push all natural products across a line into a drug classification, because by so doing they raise the hurdles such that smaller companies get knocked out of the market. Consumers lose when that happens because prices would be driven up. Companies that can afford to enter the OTC market will enjoy a market advantage over companies that can't because it is a huge advantage to be able to make therapeutic claims. The harmonization language in S.830 must be viewed against a backdrop of what is happening in the EU. They haven't yet finalized their regulations governing either dietary supplements or functional foods, but are moving in the wrong direction on dietary supplements. The only two countries opposing really draconian maximum potency limits are the UK and Holland, and a move is afoot in the UK to undermine their opposition to maximum potency limits. The British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods (MAFF) is seeking to restrict B-6 to just 10 mg without a prescription. They are basing their campaign to do this on a flawed, non peer reviewed study called the Dalton study which alleges that B-6 in low doses causes nerve damage, which is false. If MAFF is able to arbitrarily restrict B-6 in this manner, what would there be to stop them from similarly restricting access to other nutrients, and embracing the position of the German Codex proposal? I predict that Citizens for Health, the companies backing them, and all of the vitamin trade associations (which currently are pushing for an expansion of the OTC drug category to include herbs) will not only NOT BACK HR 2868- "The Consumer Health Free Speech Act" (which was just introduced by Ron Paul), but I predict that if we want to maintain our health freedom, it will be essential that CONSUMERS push for this legislation in an effort to STOP the push to expand the OTC drug category. Ron Paul just introduced his bill. What it does is to change the current definition of "drug" in the food drug and cosmetic act. It would amend it to exclude foods from the definition of drug. This would allow us to do what we SHOULD be allowed to do right now: make therapeutic claims on dietary supplements RIGHT NOW. >>as everyone knows, i have no regard for cesnorship, so i am forwarding the >>information in question, and hope for very quick clarification on this matter >>by Len horrowitz or anyone involved. i appreciate everyone;s patience and ask >>folks to stop "unsubscribing" for a while, i find it demoralizing. Any >>feedback on successes or failures with "oxygen therapy" and m. incognitus? >>Just WONDERING, mind you. ****************************************** Donations Needed- Am One Person Working Alone International Advocates for Health Freedom John C. Hammell, Legislative Advocate 2411 Monroe St.#2 Hollywood, FL 33020 USA 800-333-2553, 954-929-2905, FAX 954-929-0507, FAX ON DEMAND 954-927-8795,jham@concentric.net http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/hammell/index.html