To: IAHF LIST
Subject: Your Senators/Congressmen MUST Act on This... or We're DEAD. Forward it to More People & Get Them to ACT or We're Dead.
From: John Hammell email@example.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 19:20:06 -0400
All webmasters: Please post.
Everyone: You must follow these instructions and get more people to or we're dead.
I just asked FDA to provide a detailed legal interpretation of the scope and reach of the Federal Statute that they CLAIM protects us from Codex-if you didn't read the letter the first time you must read it now (way below) and THINK about it!
Melinda Plaisier at FDA either won't respond at all or won't reply honestly to that email even if she has massive Congressional pressure, but if we can GET massive Congressional pressure, and she doesn't respond to our Senators and Congressman, we MIGHT STILL get the oversight hearing that pharmaceutical/NWO interests have BLOCKED us from getting, and you must follow the instructions below and get more people to.
Milton Bass,JD has just completed a 40 year career fighting the FDA, and his assertion that the Federal Statute which FDA claims protects us from Codex does not in FACT protect us isn't something that the FDA is going to want to admit to under ANY circumstances, and Milt IS correct in his concern, unfortunately!
Unless Enough People Follow These Simple Instructions-We Won't Be Able to Stop the Codex Scam:
1. You must know the NAME and email address of the congressional aides at your Senators and Congressman's offices who handle FDA issues- so start by calling them via the Switchboard at 202-225-3121 and ask for their email address. Here is what to say either to them live or to leave on their voice mail:
(Tell them your name) and tell whoever answers that you need to speak with whoever handles FDA issues. Tell that person:
"I have drafted a letter that I need you to send to the FDA on your letterhead to get them to respond to a query that John Hammell of International Advocates for Health Freedom sent them, but to which they won't respond unless Congress pressures them.
I need your email address so I can provide you with the letter that needs to go on your letterhead and be sent to the FDA, along with the email from John Hammell that FDA won't respond to unless we get your help.
John sent FDA attorney Melinda Plaisier a request for a detailed legal interpretation of the Federal Statute that implements the GATT trade agreement, since Plaisier and Yetley at FDA claim it exempts us from the threat of our vitamin laws being harmonized to a really restrictive emerging Codex vitamin standard, while Milt Bass, a very experienced attorney says just the opposite, that it DOESN'T protect us! It is against current US law for the FDA to take any action that threatens to set up our dietary supplement laws for harmonization to a more restrictive international standard- but we need your help to stop them from continuing to break the law!!
Please preface Hammell's email to FDA's Plaisier (enclosed) with the following letter which I need you to please put on your letterhead and send to FDA. FDA probably either won't respond, or they will attempt to keep lying about this. Please send any response from them to me. If they do not respond, please let me know this and please communicate about this with Congressman Burton, Chair of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and urge him to hold an oversight hearing":
To: Melinda Plaisier, Associate Commissioner of Regulatory Affairs, FDA Commissioner Jane Henney,MD Beth Yetley, US Delegate, Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses Senior Scientist, CFSAN, FDA
From: (Name of Senator or Congressman, on Letterhead)
Dear Ms. Plaisier:
On May 22, John Hammell of International Advocates for Health Freedom sent you an email message, a copy of which I am enclosing. In it he requested a detailed legal interpretation involving the scope and range of the Federal Statute that implements the Uruguay Round of GATT (which created the WTO).
Hammell's concern is that the implementing statute is loosely defined and opens up a Pandora's box in terms of how it could be interpreted, especially given that it could be interpreted by the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO in the context of a trade dispute against the United States which could negatively impact American consumer access to dietary supplements.
Hammell points out that in 10 out of 10 decisions rendered by the DSB of the WTO involving the environment or the public health, the decisions went against both- and for this reason there were massive demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle.
Hammell requested this information due to statements made verbally, as well as in writing by Melinda Plaisier and by Dr.Beth Yetley stating that "nothing in the draft guidelines for vitamins and minerals at Codex could in any way effect consumer access to vitamins in the USA."
These statements are made via a press release by Plaisier, via letters she has sent to members of Congress (which don't address Hammell's concerns) and via the US Draft Comments to the CCNFSDU for the upcoming Codex meeting in Berlin which starts on June 19th. John is openly questioning the legality of the US draft comments based on concerns expressed to him by Milton Bass,JD who just retired from the NY lawfirm of Bass and Ullman after a 40 year career as a specialist in food and drug law wherein he devoted his career to defending consumer access to dietary supplements.
It is imperative that you respond to Hammell's detailed questions in a timely fashion, well in advance of the Codex meeting in Berlin which starts on June 19th, and that you cc me with your response.
Hammell does not trust the FDA to protect his interests at Codex given the concerns expressed in his email and due to the fact that Dr.Yetley is being sued for Contempt of Court for refusing to implement the court decision rendered in Pearson v. Schalala wherein a Judge ordered the FDA to allow the making of 4 claims on dietary supplements that FDA is currently still refusing to allow, hence this additional lawsuit. (see http://www.emord.com/) It is essential that the FDA obey the law.
Hammell has cc'ed his message to Virginia Senators Warner and Robb, Utah Senator Hatch as well as to Congressmen Boucher, Paul, Burton and I. I intend to discuss this with them as well, and urge you to rapidly respond to John, to me, and to these people as well. It is illegal under current US law for the FDA to take any action intended to build consensus leading to passage of the codex vitamin guidelines. FDA must vigorously oppose their passage, but has not been doing so. John Hammell is a vitamin consumer who speaks for not only Americans, but vitamin consumers all over the world. Please show John the respect that he is due by rapidly responding to his email.
enc: Hammell's email to you (see below)
From: John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
POB 625 Floyd, VA 24091
800-333-2553, fax 540-745-6535
To: Melinda K. Plaisier, Associate Commissioner of Legislation,FDA
and to Commissioner Jane Henney,MD- FDA
and to Ellen.Anderson@cfsan.fda.gov
and to firstname.lastname@example.org
and to Michael.Wehr@cfsan.fda.gov
and to email@example.com
and to firstname.lastname@example.org
and to email@example.com
and to firstname.lastname@example.org
and to email@example.com
and to firstname.lastname@example.org
and to email@example.com
and to firstname.lastname@example.org, PRDept@rath.nl
and to the IAHF email distribution list of millions of vitamin consumers world wide.
Dear Melinda Plaisier, and Commissioner Henney:
I require a detailed written statement from the two of you pertaining to the extent and reach of the exemption clause contained within the Federal Statute which implements the GATT trade agreement, especially given that there are numerous undeniable examples in which the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO has forced us, under threat of trade sanctions, to harmonize our laws in ways that have been deletrius to the public health and to the environment. In fact, in 10 out of 10 decisions rendered by the DSB of the WTO, the decisions have gone AGAINST the environment and the public health as the DSB was clearly designed to rubber stamp the greed driven agenda of the multinational corporations (See http://www.tradewatch.org/ Harmonization Alerts section)
It is due to this very problem that over 70,000 angry demonstrators shut down the WTO meeting in Seattle as you can see at http://www.indymedia.org/ and as was widely reported on network TV.
It is due to this very problem that Matthias Rath, MD demonstrated against the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use Meeting in Berlin in '98, and he is planning another demonstration as you can see from http://www.rath.nl
The Federal Statute which I require your detailed legal interpretation of in writing reads as follows:
"No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is INCONSISTENT (my emphasis added) with any law of the United States shall have any effect." [19 USC section 3512(a)(1)]
I require, in writing, to know in detail, what the reach and extent of this exemption is. In other words, where would it NOT come into play? What kinds of provisions would NOT be inconsistent with US law, given that there are numerous examples where the DSB of the WTO has ruled against us and forced changes to our laws under threat of imposing trade sanctions?
In light of my concerns, please read and comment on this paper:
International "Harmonization" of Social,Economic and Environmental Standards
In light of the following examples of where the US has been forced to harmonize its laws, convince me that the Federal Statute above protects my access to dietary supplements:
Challenge of U.S. Endangered Species Act (Shrimp/Turtle Case) forced changes to our endangered species act.
See for example http://www.harmonizationalert.org/October99/Mondev.htm
to learn how a Canadian Corporation used NAFTA to attack the US judicial system.
Challenge of U.S. Forest Protection Rule (Asian Longhorned Beetles)
The problem with the Federal statute cited above which allegedly exempts us from harmonization is, how will this be argued in EACH CASE? On the surface it APPEARS that we're protected by US dietary supplement laws (Proxmire and DSHEA), but what if we don't HAVE something in our law that could be called for by a finalized Codex vitamin standard (eg restrictions on availability of high potency vitamins except by prescription)? Could such a restriction be said to be "inconsistent" with our law?
(It would all depend on who is doing the interpretation.) The problem is that there is nothing comparable to a restrictive Codex vitamin standard currently IN our law, so if its not IN our law, it can't be SAID to be INCONSISTENT!)
Do you dispute the contention that this opens a PANDORAS BOX as to how it will be interpreted?
Do you dispute my contention that it could be interpreted by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body?
Do you dispute my contention that the DSB disallows testimony from individuals, no matter how well qualifted, as well as from NGO organizations?
Do you dispute the contention that the DSB of the WTO ONLY hears testimony from government Codex reps such as Dr.Yetley of FDA?
Do you dispute the contention that Dr.Yetley is currently being sued for Contempt of Court for refusing to implement the Pearson court decision? (see http://www.emord.com/)
Do you dispute the contention that the Grocery Manufacturers of America have petitioned the FDA demanding that FDA immediately implement the Pearson court decision and also WITHDRAW the "Guidance Document to Industry on Significant Scientific Agreement" which FDA has included in Agenda Item #10 at CCNFSDU? (Is it APPROPRIATE for FDA to attempt to go around our courts, the USDOJ, and Congress this way?)
In light of Dr.Rick Malter's rebuttal to the NAS paper "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Upper Levels for Nutrients" please explain to me how the NAS paper is consistent with the will of the American people and the will of Congress as clearly expressed via Proxmire and DSHEA, and please explain to me why the FDA has ignored a Congressional request that it be removed from the table at Codex. (See http://www.iahf.com/ for NAS paper and Malter's rebuttal, and letters from congress.)
As you can see from the website of Matthias Rath, MD at http://www.rath.nl/new_default/new_main_us/def_usa.htm
vitamin consumers world wide are emailing all of the CCNFSDU delegates demanding that all deliberations on the Codex vitamin issue immediately CEASE!
Given that at Codex, its one country, one vote, and the vote of any tiny little country counts just as much as the US vote, regardless of population size, don't you think it should follow that when the USA develops its Codex Comments that my written comments, and those of each person on my email distribution list should logically count just as much as the written comments of CRN, NNFA, or other trade associations which don't speak for the people of America but who represent the will of multinational pharmaceutical companies, including those who got nailed by the USDOJ for engaging in illegal price fixing in the sale of vitamin raw materials? Please explain your answer in detail because I am going to tabulate all of the written comments as "votes" and I am certain we have CRN outvoted.
Under these circumstances, wouldn't it be appropriate for Dr.Yetley to take the following steps vis a vis the US position on the vitamin issue at CCNFSDU? (If not, state your reasons in writing):
1) Immediately email the German hosts of the meeting to remove the NAS paper "A Risk Assesssment Model for Establishing Upper Levels for Nutrients" from the table at Codex as it was generated via pharmaceutical funding, it never underwent a public comments period, it was never peer reviewed, and it is inconsistent with the will of the American people as clearly expressed under Proxmire and DSHEA.
2) Forcefully call for an immediate CESSATION on all Codex deliberations regarding the vitamin guidelines.
Commissioner Henney, and Melinda Plaisier: after you provide me with detailed written comments addressing all questions asked herein, will you please agree to be interviewed by me, on video, for the sake of total transparency prior to the CCNFSDU meeting on June 19th? I will be flying to Germany for the meeting on June 17th, my birthday, and prefer to meet with you regarding this prior to that date. Please let me know, in writing, if this would pose any problem.
For the Public Health of Vitamin Consumer World Wide,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
Member: The American Media Association