To: IAHF List
Subject: CSPI URGES FDA TO USE CODEX AS WAY AROUND DSHEA: Article Discusses Legal Mechanics of Harmonization
From: "International Advocates for Health Freedom"
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:22:24 -0500

IAHF List:

The article cited below, while written by Bruce Silverglade, of Center for Science in the Public Interest, an enemy of health freedom, is still very worthwhile to read because it outlines the legal mechanics by which we're being set up through Codex for the destruction of our dietary supplement laws via harmonization. Silverglade views this as an "opportunity" for the FDA to "protect" us... His statements also shoot holes in the theory that a Federal Statute in fact protects our domestic laws from harmonization.

Bruce Silverglade of CSPI is a staunch opponent of dietary supplements, and CSPI has publicly denounced the Dietary Supplement Health and Eduction Act of 1994. In the article above, Silverglade provides an in depth legal analysis and legal framework showing how the International Harmonization of Dietary Supplement Standards is proceeding. In his article, Silverglade cites Codex as an "opportunity" for the FDA to "protect" American dietary supplement consumers via harmonization to more restrictive international standards. CSPI is part of the "Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue", a bogus organization that doesn't represent consumers at all, but which purports to. The TABD is another multinational construct created via the WTO. Through it, CSPI is pretending to represent our interests. This is another reason why we need a REAL

Oversight hearing on the Codex vitamin issue on February 28th, and we need a LOT more signatures on both the petition at and at to pressure Congress so they don't try to "whitewash" the hearing. The hacking problem that caused so much trouble over the weekend won't happen again. (Pharmaceutical hackers attacked the La Leva petition in desperation to stop our expose. This only effected Americans who had signed. A statement was made about the hack at the ISP of the La Leva site at ). It is safe again to sign both petitions, and to download a paper petition and backgrounder to put in your local health food store.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- International Harmonization of Food Safety and Labeling Standards Threats and Opportunities for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture

by Bruce Silverglade, esq. Center for Science in the Public Interest June 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpt from Silverglade's article-Re Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement ("SPS") Can indirectly force harmonization based on "safety" via adverse WTO Dispute Settlement ruling (reason NAS/FDA is so busy creating phony safety standards for vitamins, to set us up to lose in a trade dispute)

Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement ("TBT") Can force harmonization based on labeling requirements, packaging.

excerpt: (Shows that none of our domestic laws, including DSHEA, are safe from harmonization.)

"It is a general tenant of statutory construction, however, that ambiguous provisions of a law are to be construed in accord with the law's overall purpose. The overriding purpose of the SPS and TBT Agreements are to facilitate trade by harmonizing regulatory requirements on an international basis. Given the overarching purpose of the agreements, the U.S. government can provide no real assurances to American consumers that FDA and USDA regulations will not be affected adversely."

"The Uruguay Round focuses as never before on non-tariff barriers to trade. For example, two of the Uruguay Round agreements, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), have a direct bearing on the regulation of food safety and labeling. The thrust of both agreements in the area of food regulation is to encourage nations to support the development of international food safety and labeling standards and to adopt such standards as domestic requirements, thus easing the flow of food products across borders. The SPS Agreement urges nations to harmonize food safety standards, such as food additive regulations, pasteurization requirements, and meat inspection procedures. The TBT Agreement urges nations to harmonize technical regulations, including packaging, marking, and labeling requirements, such as nutrition labeling and the minimum mineral content in mineral water.

The Uruguay Round Agreement enhances the legal effect of GATT by providing that the Agreement is binding on all World Trade Organization (WTO) members. This provision reflects a shift from past rounds where parties to GATT could selectively choose which agreements to accept.

The Uruguay Round Agreement also establishes a procedure by which a nation may bring a complaint before the WTO and challenge a WTO member's regulation. In such cases, the WTO establishes a Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to hear challenges and issue rulings determining whether the regulation of a particular nation constitutes an improper restriction on trade. The DSB, which generally consists of three trade ministers selected by the WTO, meets in proceedings closed to the public. If the DSB finds that a regulation violates the SPS or TBT Agreements, and hence constitutes an illegal trade barrier, a nation must abide by the decision or face WTO-ordered trade sanctions, such as higher tariffs or other punitive measures.