Subject: FDA BANS HAMMELL FROM US CODEX DELEGATION FDA's Libelous Letter/My Reply/ I am STILL GOING to Berlin! US Codex Manager Scarborough Says Yetley Lied- But he seems disinclined to overrule her. What You Can Do To Help!
From: John Hammell
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:41:09 -0400

All Webmasters: Please post!

Everyone: See FDA's libelous letter to me below, and my reply.FDA Codex Manager Dr.Scarborough at USDA admits that Yetley lied about me, then he does nothing to overrule her.Your Congressman can talk to US Codex Manager F.Edward Scarborough at USDA at 202-205-7760. He can be faxed at 202-720-3157. This is insane, but it shows how badly we need to pass the American Sovereignty Restoration Act- Ask your Congressman to cosponsor it, and to see an analysis of this bill go to re GATT!

Please forward widely. Please send to your Senators and Congressman with your own note of protest, requesting that I be reinstated to the CCNFSDU Codex delegation for the June 19-23 meeting in Berlin, that FDA send me a written apology for libeling me, and that FDA attorney Melinda Plaisier respond to my letter, which you can see by scrolling all the way to the end of this email.

I am still going to Berlin and will try to get into the meeting with a press pass, if Congress won't overrule Yetley like they should and put me back on the delegation. Will participate in Dr.Rath's pre meeting program on the 18th, his DEMONSTRATION IN THE STREET against the meeting on June 19 and will help network with the German health freedom fighters in an effort to strengthen the health freedom movement. Your donations are still very badly needed and much appreciated! Please send your check or MO to IAHF POB 625 Floyd VA 24091 USA

Not long ago the FDA banned Robert Cohen from participation on a US Codex delegation to a meeting on genetically engineered foods in Japan. He has been sharply critical of FDA for approving Bovine Growth Hormone and for not allowing warning labels on GE food. He has a copy of the study that proves that Monsanto knows that BGH causes cancer in rats, but will be put in jail if he releases it due to legislation that passed in '96. He's willing to release it anyway if the NY Times puts it on the front page, but they never will. FDA hates whistleblowers, and only want people to be on their Codex delegations if they agree to rubber stamp the US draft comments which rubberstamps the pharmaceutical agenda, any nay sayers need not apply.

Now FDA has banned me under equally false pretenses from participating as a member of the US Codex Delegation to the Committee on Nutrition meeting in Berlin June 19-23rd, and they've libeled me in the enclosed letter which they cc'ed to the US Codex office at USDA. (See their letter to me below with my response.)Clearly they are DESPERATE to thwart our collective efforts to blow the whistle on the Codex vitamin scam, and they're very worried by how much "on target" we have been and will only continue to be! Dr.Scarborough, US Codex Manager at USDA who FDA cc'ed the letter to told me he checked out FDA's allegation and found that FDA has indeed fabricated their whole story against me. I told him I wanted a written apology from her, and wanted him to reinstate me, but he told me that Codex delegates have "broad discretionary powers", and hinted that I should just use my press pass to get in and not bother trying to get back on the delegation.

I angrily demanded to know if he felt that her "broad discretionary powers" included a "right" to libel people, and told him I thought he should overrule her. He told me they were having "another meeting" to discuss this further. Then when I tried calling back yesterday, he wouldn't take my call. He also wouldn't take a call from Gary Trexler whose radio show I was on yesterday.

FDA's letter came shortly after someone hacked the website of Citizens Voice for Health Rights in Canada to delete the audio file of an interview of me discussing my (still unanswered) letter to FDA attorney Melinda K. Plaisier, Associate Commissioner of Legislation, of whom I'm requesting a detailed legal analysis of the Federal Statute that implements the Uruguay Round of GATT, in light of my specific concerns that it opens a Pandora's box in terms of how it could be interpreted. FDA won't want to respond to my letter under any circumstances.(The hacked audio file of me discussing this was restored from a backup copy- go to click on "Bush Telegraph".)

I want Plaisier to discuss the range and scope of the statute and to provide me with specific examples of where she thinks it would or would not apply.

See Yetley's letter to me below, along with my response. I have already communicated regarding this to my Congressman, both Senators, as well as other members of Congress and they are making an effort to help me. I need you to forward my letter to your Senators and Congressmen and to request that they send it to Plaisier themselves requesting a response.

At the very least I hope to still attend the Codex meeting in Berlin using a press pass, and if that should fail, at the very very least I will help Dr.Rath with his demonstration in front of the Codex meeting on June 19th, and with his anticodex meeting on June 18th, and I'll spend a week meeting with and networking with German and Dutch consumers who attend the demonstration.

Here is the FDA's libelous letter banning me from the US delegation and my response: Please forward FDA's letter and my response to your Senators and Congressman. Tell them that Dr.Scarborough, US Codex Manager at the USDA reviewed their letter and told me verbally that he checked out what FDA said and found it to be a fabrication. When I asked him if he could overrule her, he told me Codex delegates have "broad discretionary powers" to exclude anyone from the delegation. When I asked him if those broad powers included a right to libel people, and told him I wanted a written apology from her, he hinted that I should just get in using my press pass.

Food and Drug Administration
Washington, D.C. 20204

May 26, 2000

Mr.John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
P.O. Box 625
Floyd, VA 24091

Dear Mr. Hammell:

I am writing to you as the U.S. Delegate to the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU). You have asked to attend the upcoming session in Berlin, Germany as a member of the U.S. Delegation.

We regret to inform you that your application to serve as a member of the U.S. Delegation to this Session of the CCNFSDU is declined on a basis of your inappropriate behavior which resulted in your removal from the 1998 Session of the CCFSNDU by the Committee Chairman and which embarrassed the United States in an international meeting. We are unwilling to take the risk of having the United States again embarrassed in this manner.


H. Michael Wehr
for Elizabeth A. Yetley, Ph.D.
U.S. Delegate to the 22nd Session

cc: U.S. Codex Office



International Advocates for Health Freedom
John C. Hammell, legislative advocate
800-333-2553, 540-745-6534, fax 540-745-6535,
PO Box 625 Floyd, VA 24091, U.S.A.

To: Elizabeth A. Yetley, Ph.D.

U.S.Delegate to the 22nd Session of the CCNFSDU
c/o Joe Levitt, Director of CFSAN fax 202-205-5025
c/o Bob Lake, Director of Regulation and Policy
c/o Dr.H. Michael Wehr, CFSAN, FDA fax 202-205-0165
c/o F.Edward Scarborough, Ph.D. U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius
Office of Undersecretary for Food Safety, USDA fax 202-720-3157

Dear Dr.s Yetley and Michael Wehr:

I am in receipt of your letter of May 26, 2000 (attached) wherein you have wrongfully and libelously declined my application to participate in the upcoming CCNFSDU meeting in Berlin, besmirching my good character in the process by ccing your false accusations that I "engaged in inappropriate behavior" that "resulted in my removal from the '98 CCNFSDU meeting by the Committee Chairman" to the U.S. Codex Office at USDA.

There is nothing in the minutes of the meeting attesting to the truth of your accusation, and I have eye witnesses willing to attest to the fact that I was present for all 5 days of the meeting from which I have detailed handwritten notes. I am apprising my Congressman and Senators of your efforts to block me as a whistleblower who has been monitoring your illegal actions, and I demand an immediate written apology as your assertions lack any basis in fact.

You seem to think that it is "inappropriate" for members of the delegation to disagree with the position of FDA,CRN,NNFA as well as the multinational corporations on the Codex vitamin issue, but they, and you, do not represent the will of the American people, the will of Congress, or the will of the Courts with regards to the Codex vitamin issue. I therefor request an immediate written response to this letter, along with reinstatement on the delegation, as well as a meeting with you in light of the following ongoing concerns which you have been unwilling or unable to address:

Longtime health freedom attorney Milton Bass feels that you have made a very misleading assertion in the draft US comments on CCNFSDU Agenda Item #5, Proposed Draft Guidelines for Vitamins and Mineral Supplements: "The US supports consumer choice and access to dietary supplements that are safe and labeled in a truthful and non misleading manner. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, a broad array of dietary supplements are available to US consumers. The proposed Codex guidelines for vitamin and mineral supplements will not, in any way, adversely effect the availability of these products to US consumers. The absence of science based Codex guidelines, however, could adversely effect the ability of US manufacturers to compete in the international marketplace."

As I have already stated to you in writing, this assertion of yours is very misleading. I still require a written response from Melinda Plaisier, FDA Associate Commissioner on Legislation, to an email message sent on May 22 (attached below). Attorney Milton Bass has carefully reviewed the Federal Statute that implements the Uruguay Round of GATT and finds that the statute opens a Pandora's box in terms of how it could be interpreted. I therefor still require a detailed legal interpretation from Plaisier pertaining to the scope and reach of the statute, providing examples of where the FDA thinks it would or would not apply in light of my detailed concerns, especially in light of the fact that in 10 out of 10 decisions effecting the environment and public health rendered by the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO, decisions went against the environment and against the public health.

It would appear from your actions at Codex that you are actively attempting to set us up for forced harmonization to a very restrictive Codex vitamin standard by illegally taking actions at Codex that play into the hands of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body which refuses to hear any individual or NGO testimony- only testimony from government reps such as Dr.Yetley. Dr.Yetley's bias against the use of dietary supplements is well known. Currently she is being sued for contempt of court by Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw for being in contempt of court for refusing to implement the Pearson court decision. Although a Judge recently threw Pearson's contempt case out, that was expected and the matter is being appealed. I predict you will lose in the end.

I received the attached letter of May 26, 2000 from you Dr.Wehr, and must inform you that if you have been told by Dr.Yetley that I was "removed" from the '98 session of the CCNFSDU by the German Chair of the Committee due to alleged "inappropriate" behavior, that her statement to you was a total fabrication, an outrageous distortion of what in fact happened. There is nothing in any official minutes from the meeting to indicate any truth to your assertion that I was thrown out of the meeting, not is it verifiable by any honest eye witness account. I was in fact present for the entire 5 day meeting, I was at no time removed from the meeting by the Committee Chair as you falsely state, and I have hand written notes from all 5 days of the meeting as well.

At not time prior to the meeting, or at its start did anyone ever state in writing, or verbally that I could not videotape the meeting so that the numerous American consumers (and other around the world) who would have liked to be able to attend could at least see what happened. During the half hour that I did tape prior to being asked to stop by the Chair of the meeting, at no time was any effort to stop me made by Dr.Yetley, and when I was asked to stop taping I did stop, and at not time was I forced to leave the meeting as you quite falsely assert. As for the United States being "embarrassed" at the meeting in '98, the only cause for alleged "embarrassment" might stem from how your fellow regulators would react to you regarding my obvious opposition to the US position and to the meeting on a whole.

Given the derisive statements I heard wherein a delegate from one of the South American countries openly ridiculed the FDA's inability to suppress the use of dietary supplements in our country as they do with the help of the military dictatorship that rules with an iron hand in their banana republic, I might be willing to accept as true an assertion on your part that you lost face in front of your regulatory peers.

This loss of face that is so deeply disturbing to you is due to the successful efforts of the American people, Congress, and courts in opposition to your immoral actions, but as a whistle blower who seeks to truly defend the public health against your actions, I stronly object to your fabrications of truth with regards to what happened in '98 at the CCNFSDU meeting. Clearly Dr.Yetley, you are still very angry at the way I interviewed you at the pre meeting of the US delegation in that Hotel in Berlin the day before the meeting in Berlin 2 years ago, and you don't like the fact that digitized footage from that interview has been uploaded to the web. Too bad! Thats what you deserve when you ignore the will of Congress and the will of the people and falsely conclude that "the law is in your mouth."

Two weeks ago as a credentialled reporter from the American Media Association representing Life Extension Magazine, I videotaped the FDA preliminary Codex meeting in Washington DC, and asked you some questions that you, Dr.Yetley, felt quite uncomfortable responding to regarding Agenda item #10, a "Discussion Paper on the Scientific Criteria for Health Related Claims" which the USA illegally collaborated on with the German, French and Danish delegates, totally contrary to current US law which forbids FDA from taking any action designed to build consensus towards eventual passage of a Codex vitamin standard.

I queried you Dr.Yetley on the appropriateness of your including in Agenda Item #10 the Guidance Document to American Industry on Significant Scientific Agreement when you are currently being charged with contempt of court over this issue.

Although the contempt suit was thrown out a few days ago, this was expected and you will lose at a later date when it is appealed. This suit was filed by Emord and Associates representing the American Preventive Medical Association, Julian Whitaker MD, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw and others. It can be viewed at

Moreover the website of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, you will find the legal petition filed by that trade association demanding that the FDA immediately WITHDRAW the forementioned "guidance document" due to the fact that you cannot scientifically define what is meant by the word "significant" and GMA has demanded that FDA immediately implement the Pearson court decision on which you are clearly trying to drag your feet in complete defiance of our Constitution, the will of the people, the will of Congress, and the will of Judge Silver in the US Court of Appeals. The recent Judge's decision wherein the contempt charge was thrown out will not stand. You have 180 days to respond to GMA's petition and demand.

Moreover, I just spoke with Jay Patrick, the President of the Alacer Corp, and he is on the verge of filing a suit against the National Academy of Sciences due to their unscientific conclusion in April of 2000 pertaining to a UL on vitamin C of 2,000 mg for daily intake. [UL refers to, "The largest amount healthy individuals can take each day, from food and supplements, without risking adverse health effects." For Vitamin E is 1,100 IU for synthetic, and 1,500 IU for natural; 400 mcg for selenium. For your awareness, FDA, I have been taking 20 grams of C per day for the past 21 years with no deletrious effects, so NAS is clearly incorrect. The UL's for E and selenium are equally unscientific and pharmaceutically biased- but you will no doubt attempt to cite this pseudoscience as if its real, regardless of how many lawsuits are filed against you and against NAS. When Allacer Corp. sues NAS, they won't be able to not cough up the CV's of the authors of their papers the way they currently can do to not being subject to FOIA from not being part of the government.

It is apparent that you are attempting to use Codex as a means of making an end run around the US Congress, the will of the people, the will of our Courts, and even around the will of the US Department of Justice which fined Hoffman La Roche $500,000,000. in 1999 for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act wherein they engaged in illegal price fixing in the sale of vitamin raw materials in a blatant effort to rip off consumers and vitamin manufacturers over a 10 year period. Several other multinational pharmaceutical companies including BASF, Merck, Takeda, and Daiichi Fine Chemicals were two of the companies that contributed to the publication of the unscientific paper (A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Upper Levels for Nutrients) which Congress asked FDA to withdraw from its '98 Codex comments due to the fact that it was unscientific, pharmaceutically funded, went diametrically against the will of the people and the will of Congress as clearly expressed under Proxmire and DSHEA.

The fact is, Mr.Wehr, and Dr.Yetley, that the FDA has been violating US law at the CCNFSDU meetings at least since the '96 meeting in Bonn, and I can proove it.

In 1996, at the CCNFSDU meeting in Bonn, Dr.Yetley violated US law when she seconded a motion made by Dr.Margaret Cheney of Canada wherein Cheney proposed that herbs be shifted out of Codex (where they would at least be regulated as foods, as is consistent with US law) to a secret Committee of the World Health Organization, which regards herbs to be "drugs", (a position that diametrically opposes US laws.)

The circumstances under which Dr.Cheney made her motion which Dr.Yetley illegally seconded were quite interesting as well as revealing. A Canadian motion had been on the table at Codex from a previous Codex meeting in Vancouver to create a negative, or no trade list of herbs for the purpose of banning the sale of a lot of safe/effective herbs from international commerce (ostensibly to protect consumers) but in reality to stop them from "interfering" with the sale of patented pharmaceutical drugs.

Aware that this Canadian motion was on the table, I travelled extensively throughout Canada to alert the Canadian people who then flooded Ottawa with phone calls demanding that Canada back off from the negative list proposal.

Aware that Ottawa was being flooded with calls, I then attempted to call Dr.Cheney at the HPB, but instead spoke with Ron Burke, her assistant. I asked Dr.Burke if the HPB was responsive to the will of the Canadian people and told him I was aware that members of Parliament in Ottawa were being deluged with angry demands that Canada back off from the negative list for herbs proposal because it is obvious that an effort is being made to block consumer access to natural products world wide.

Burke sarcastically attempted to humor me responding with "Yes, Mr.Hammell, we at the HPB are very concerned with the will of the Canadian people. Therefor, Mr.Hammell, when you go to Bonn, with your own two eyes Mr.Hammell, you will see Dr.Cheney back off from the negative list for herbs proposal. But, wouldn't you agree Mr.Hammell, that many of these herbs are dangerous and the public must be protected from them?" To which I responded "Mr.Burke, when I am in Bonn, I will see EXACTLY what Dr.Cheney does or doesn't do, and I will see exactly what she does or doesn't say, and whatever she does or doesn't do and does or doesn't say, you can be sure that I will not only report back to Canadian vitamin and herb consumers, but to consumers all over the world!"

So, at the beginning of the meeting in Bonn, Dr.Cheney stood up and announced quite unconvincingly that Canada had "backed off" from the negative list proposal for herbs in deference to the will of the Canadian people. Then she sat down, her body language clearly indicating that she hadn't meant a word she'd just said. Sure enough, during coffee breaks and lunch breaks, whenever I attempted to approach her to discuss the matter she turned away from me and refused to communicate. Then towards the end of the 5 days meeting, she stood again, announced that she had been "reconsidering" the negative list for herbs proposal, and that in her estimation, the CCNFSDU lacked the time and expertise to properly address the issue, therefor, she made a motion that herbs be shifted over to a "special panel of experts" at WHO to "properly" address the matter. When she made this motion, I noticed the eyeballs of the German, Swiss, French, and Italian delegates all swivel expectantly and fix on one person in the room: Dr.Beth Yetley of the FDA who rose to her feet as if on cue, and without consulting ANYONE on the delegation to see what we thought of the idea of her seconding this motion, in complete violation of US law, she seconded it. This was a violation of law because it is common knowledge that WHO regards herbs, and all dietary supplements, to be "drugs" and their regulatory views are polarly opposite the will of the American people, and the will of Congress as clearly expressed under Proxmire and DSHEA.

In this fashion, herbs were shifted out of Codex, where they would at least have been regarded as foods, to a secret committee at WHO In this fashion, herbs were shifted out of Codex, to a secret committee at WHO, that meets totally behind closed doors, with consumers having no access whatsoever to any of their deliberations. Allegedly, the US Codex delegation is a “working group” in which the US delegate is supposed to confer with others on the delegation when making decisions, but this was not the case in Bonn, or in Berlin in '98. Events at these two mmeetings stand in marked contrast with what happened in Geneva when the Codex proposal for vitamins was almost withdrawn from the table entirely due to consumer pressure from all over the world who felt that the matter should best be left up to national authorities to decide. Rather than remove the vitamin proposal from the table entirely, as should have occurred at that point, instead the measure was moved back from step 5 to step 3.

The will of American vitamin consumers was steadfastly ignored by the FDA and this is readily documented, and this problem is recurring with the upcoming meeting in Berlin from June 19-23, 2000. I worked very hard to get dietary supplements specifically exempted from the harmonization language of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 and my amendment makes it ILLEGAL for you to take ANY action that threatens to harmonize US law to a restrictive Codex vitamin standard. It is ILLEGAL for FDA to attempt to build consensus on the Codex vitamin issue, and Plaisier's legal interpretation of the Federal Statute that implements GATT is clearly incorrect. Once again, I must see her detailed legal analysis of this Federal Statute discussing its scope and range given the specific concerns expressed in the email below, and I must have a meeting about this with you prior to the Berlin meeting. You must immediately send an apology for your wholly unwarranted criticism, and you must reinstate me to the CCNFSDU delegation, as you have no evidence to back your libellous assertions.

enc: email to Plaisier
For Health Freedom,
John C. Hammell, President IAHF

From: John C. Hammell, President
Monday, 5/22/2000

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
and to
and to
and to
and to
and to
and to
and to
and to
and to
and to,
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 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 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

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
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

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 for NAS paper and Malter´s rebuttal, and letters from congress.)

As you can see from the website of Matthias Rath, MD at
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