To: IAHF List
From: "International Advocates for Health Freedom"
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:03:54 -0500
Subject: Open Letter to Dan Burton; CODEX Vitamin Oversight that Would be Acceptable vs Oversight That Would Not: The Issue Clearly Defined.

Gary Null Webmaster: Please post- Gary Null, lets do some more shows.

LEF Webmaster: Please post
All Allied Webmasters: Please post.
Stan Solomon- Lets do some more shows.
Jeff Rense, Art Bell- Others- I Want to Do Your Shows.

IAHF List: Please forward this to your own Senators and Congressmen, and to every member of the House Government Reform Committee which is listed Please call your own Senators and Congressmen, as well as those on the Government Reform Committee in order to educate them on this issue. 202-225-3121 Capital Switchboard. Oversight Hearing is scheduled for March 20th.

To: The Honorable Dan Burton c/o Beth Clay, Stan Solomon of Indianapolis Radio Show "Solomon's Watch",, Gary Null of Nationally Syndicated Radio Show "Natural Living With Gary Null", William Faloon, Publisher, Life Extension Magazine

Also to: Vitamin Consumers World Wide on the IAHF list, allied lists, via the IAHF website, and allied websites, and intended for discussion on the Stan Solomon radio show, Gary Null's radio show, and several other radio shows both in and outside of the USA including Art Bell, Jeff Rense, and others...

Also to: Every Member of the House Government Reform Committee
See This Cover Letter, IAHF Codex Vitamin Comments, TABD Press Release, Liberty Committee Pro Sovereignty Information below

Re: The Codex Vitamin Oversight Hearing Scheduled for March 20th, 2001

Dear Congressman Burton:

Thank you for indicating recently on the Stan Solomon radio show in Indianapolis your intention to not block grass roots participation as witnesses presenting oral testimony in your upcoming Codex Vitamin Oversight hearing on March 20. The audio file of what you said on the Solomon show, what an Indianapolis health food store owner said, and what I said can be heard in the Media Section at

Soon, the tape of my hour long show with Solomon in which I outlined the parameters of the Codex Vitamin issue to your Indiana constituents (and to vitamin consumers world wide) will be posted on the IAHF website as well, and I urge you and every member of your Committee to listen to it in advance of the Hearing, and to also listen carefully to the audio files of the Emergency Radio Shows held on Gary Null's nationally syndicated program to discuss the issue in depth. Null interviewed true grass roots health freedom fighters and industry people from around the world who are very concerned about the Codex/EU vitamin issues and so called "harmonization".

Given that the EU Parliament voted recently in favor of the highly restrictive EU Vitamin Directive, and given that the USA has entered into Mutual Recognition Agreements via NAFTA and GATT via which we agreed to enter into a constant process of harmonizing our domestic laws, and that FDA is clearly being guided by this while blatantly ignoring your expressed will and the will of the American people, we not only want you to conduct a hearing which brings all of this out, we also expect you and your committee to force FDA to not keep doing what they're doing, but to make them UNDO the things they've already done, but SHOULDN'T have done.

Your office received IAHF's request to present oral testimony and written comments on February 23 by certified mail with return receipt requested, cc'ed on the outside of the envelope to Congressman Ron Paul. The envelope contained IAHF's draft Codex Comments, also available at by clicking on the spinning green disk. Stan Solomon will also be hand delivering a looseleaf binder from IAHF to your home containing these comments and additional information for the purpose of assisting you. I hope to do some additional shows with Stan Solomon to insure that your constituents, and vitamin consumers world wide fully understand this important public health issue, since so much is at stake.

As a person with a genetic need for the supplements I take, I am not alone in expressing these sentiments as you can clearly see from the huge number of signatures and the educational materials found on petitions at and at we, the vitamin consumers of the world, do not accept what the Pharma Cartel is trying to do to us. 15,807 Vitamin consumers from 99 countries have signed the La Leva petition so far, including nearly 9,000 Americans, and about half that many so far have signed Gary Null's petition calling for thorough oversight on this issue, while additional paper petitions are being signed, so we thank you for your intention not to disenfranchise us.

Pharmaceutically dominated CRN and NNFA simply do not speak for the vitamin consuming public, and if you allow yourself to be scripted by CRN and NNFA in how you conduct this hearing, you will be blindsided, so our intention here is to properly inform you so to insure that this doesn't happen. Soon the hour long Solomon show in which I clearly framed the parameters of this debate will be posted in an audio file on the IAHF website's media section.


For you and the rest of the members of your committee to be in compliance with your oaths, you must ALL speak to the heart of this problem: the total unconstitutionality of harmonization and the Codex Alimentarius meetings in general, and the FDA's illegal actions at Codex in particular. Additionally, you must take concrete steps to force the FDA to remove the unscientific, biased, pharmaceutically funded NAS paper titled "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" from the table at Codex and to replace it with a paper that is consistent with the will of the American people and with current US law.

You must call witnesses who can attest to the gross lack of science and conflict of interest behind this paper as it was funded by pharmaceutical interests, and the NAS is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act so we can't get the raw data behind the paper or the CV's of its authors. FDA is clearly trying to hide behind this sneaky set up which We the People do not accept.

You absolutely stood on solid ground when you ordered FDA not to put that paper on the table, [see gif file of the letters which FDA ignored (including yours) at and and to the extent that you stick to your guns, We the People of America will back you up every step of the way and thank you for all you are doing in our behalf.

Your authority in telling the FDA not to put this paper on the table at Codex was based on the will of the people and the Congress as expressed through FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1997--CONFERENCE REPORT (Senate - November 09, 1997) [See and click on the spinning green disk to see IAHF's draft Comments to Congress on the Codex Vitamin Issue for complete quote of Senator Hatch wherein he references our amendment to FDAMA intended to protect dietary supplements from harmonization.

Also in the IAHF comments see quote from L.Robert Lake, Director of Office of Regulatory Affairs in letter to John Hammell in which Lake provides FDA's legal analysis of the language of our amendment to FDAMA showing their rationale for ignoring the will of the people and the will of Congress (and your letter). FDA had no right to ignore you based on a mere statutory interpretation of the language of this amendment, but Lake's interpretation does indicate that some member of the Government Reform Committee should sponsor legislation intended to stop the FDA from slithering through this hole they've found, and just because FDA has found a hole in the language doesn't give them any right to ignore the will of the people or the will of Congress, especially your letter to them. Lake's letter to Hammell will be included in IAHF's final comments which we will submit at the hearing.

A videotape of Dr.Yetley of FDA ignoring your letter can be found in the Media Section at and its been on the IAHF website since '98 causing vitamin consumers world wide to feel righteous indignation, along with the video also on the IAHF site showing Dr.Grossklauss, German Chair of the unconstitutional CCNFSDU meeting force me to turn my camcorder off. That prooves the non transparency of the Codex meetings, and helps explain why Dr.Rath held a huge demonstration against the meeting in '98 and again last summer in 2000. See Rath's video and photos from the demonstrations at I was wrongly kicked off the US delegation due to my role as a whistle blower, and the FDA's entire attitude about all of this could not possibly be any more arrogant.

Since we can't drive unelected bureaucrat Beth Yetley of the FDA from any office, and you can't fire her even though she blatantly ignored your request not to put the NAS paper on the table at Codex, we would appreciate it very much if you would please cosponsor the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, HR 1146 the moment it is reintroduced later this Spring, and that you send a message through this oversight effort, that every member of the House should follow your lead on this.

We also request that President Bush rescind the signature of the United States of America to the International Criminal Court treaty that former President Clinton authorized on December 31, 2000, and that you cosponsor HCR 23 which expresses the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.

We must remove the USA from the UN International Criminal Court because American citizens would not have any protection from our Constitution if hauled before it, and we can't go down this slippery slope because the moment we empower a UN Criminal Court, there is no way to predict what they might attempt to adjudicate. Such a court could, and most likely WOULD be used as part of the growing mechanism being used to dismantle our sovereign laws.

In closing, along with studying the IAHF comments very closely and to call on me and several others who can bring out the facts on this issue, I urge you to join the Liberty Caucus at along with Congressman Paul and Cook, two others who joined you in telling the FDA not to put the unscientific, pharmaceutically funded National Academy of Science paper titled "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels of Nutrients" on the table at Codex.

The American people have had enough, Congressman. Congress is simply going to have to STOP the harmonization of our dietary supplement laws to the grossly restrictive EU and Codex Vitamin standards. The agenda to do this is clearly exposed in THIS press release, only theres one big problem: they never asked the vitamin consuming public if we LIKE their idea to harmonize our laws to the EU and Codex or NOT!

We can see the agenda as clear as day. Check the contact listed at the end of CRN's press release below: Peter Heer of Hoffman La Roche, which was fined a record fine of $500 Million in '99 by the US Department of Justice for engaging in illegal price fixing in the sale of vitamin raw materials. Now they're trying via harmonization to make an end run around the will of the American people, the Congress, and our Department of Justice.

For 10 years CRN members Hoffman La Roche, BASF, and Daiichi Fine Chemicals ripped off American vitamin consumers and manufacturers, and now via the TABD, the EU, Codex, and via the Mutual Recognition Agreements the USA signed under NAFTA and GATT that require us to enter into a constant process of "harmonization" they figure they can simply dictate everything to us. Genuine oversight will stop them. As one vitamin consumer to another, I thank you for your help, and am sure I am not alone.

With Serious Concern,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom

Monday, November 20, 2000
Contact: Mike Greene
U.S. and European Leaders Agree on Principles to Harmonize Dietary Supplement Regulations WASHINGTON, DC -- The dietary supplements sector-working group of the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) agreed on several key elements to harmonize the regulatory framework for vitamin and mineral food supplements on both sides of the Atlantic. These major breakthroughs were forged at the Sixth TABD CEO Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio, from November 16-18.

The working group approved the principles and components on definition, safety, and GMPs. The working group also agreed to continue its dialogue and that its next steps would be to:
Define types of claims and appropriate labeling for food supplements and develop criteria for transatlantic acceptance of credible scientific evidence to substantiate these claims; evaluate mechanisms for authorizing/approving claims; and assess conditions for exclusivity to encourage research and development.

Encourage the scientific bodies responsible for the evaluation of the safety of total intakes of vitamins and minerals (EU Scientific Committee on Food and US Food and Nutrition Board) to cooperate closely to harmonize setting upper safe levels for vitamins and minerals.

Define and recommend methodologies for setting maximum levels for vitamin and/or mineral food supplements on the basis of upper safe levels of total intake for these nutrients and intakes from other sources. The responsible regulatory bodies are encouraged to cooperate and establish one set of figures for maximum levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements on both sides of the Atlantic.

Seek urgently, in light of the imminent proposed US rule on GMPs, transatlantic harmony for implementing common GMPs and quality standards. The working group also agreed to develop practical procedures to support GMP details; and seek acceptance, implementation, and appropriate enforcement.

Progress toward transatlantic harmonization of dietary supplements was led by a team of supplement CEO´s that included: Gale Bensussen, Leiner Health Products Inc.; William Van Dyke, B&D Nutritional Ingredients, Inc.; Johannes Burges, Hermes Arzneimittel; and Sonnich Fryland, Ferrosan. They were among the more than 120 industry leaders from the U.S. and the European Union who called on their governments to adopt a list of progressive trade liberalization measures at this TABD CEO Conference. The CEO´s, meeting with senior officials form the U.S. Administration, the European Commission, the U.S. Congress, and the European Parliament, made recommendations on how best to boost transatlantic and global trade and investment. They focused on specific mechanisms for resolving trade disputes and expanding the U.S.-EU commercial marketplace, which at $1 billion per day in two-way trade, is the world´s largest trading relationship.

"The recommendations we have developed at this meeting will, if adopted by the governments, expand trade and investment opportunities for large, medium, and small companies by removing obstacles and inefficiencies in the U.S. and European regulatory regimes," said George David, chairman and CEO of United Technologies Corporation and US TABD chair for 2000. "Adoption of these recommendations will create jobs, raise living standards, lower costs and improve access to goods–that is, provide concrete benefits for business, for labor, and for consumers." The TABD is a results-oriented forum that seeks to increase transatlantic trade and investment opportunities through the removal of costly inefficiencies from excessive regulation, duplication and differences in the EU and U.S. regulatory systems and procedures in a manner consistent with sustainable development.

For details about the dietary supplement sector working group progress and future plans, contact either Issues Manager John Cordaro–USA or Peter Heer–Europe
© Copyright Council for Responsible Nutrition, 2000. All rights reserved.
• 1875 Eye Street N.W. Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20006 • (202) 872-1488
Alert/U.S. Sovereignty or World Trade Organization?

June 17, 2000

Dear friend of liberty,

On Tuesday, June 20, an opportunity that comes only once every five years will occur. The U.S. House will answer the question: Should the United States of America remain a sovereign nation or be subjugated to the whim of unelected foreign bureaucrats? The question will come in the form of H.J. Res. 90 which directs the U.S. to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (W.T.O.)

H.J. Res. 90 directs the United States to maintain its sovereignty by withdrawing its membership and funding from the W.T.O. It was introduced on March 6, 2000 and is cosponsored by 10 courageous members of the U.S. House - Democrat and Republican alike. On Tuesday, June 20, two hours of debate will take place followed by the vote.

During the debate, opponents of H.J. Res. 90 will tell you that the W.T.O. does not diminish U.S. sovereignty. However, the Congressional Research Service wrote, "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It [the U.S.] is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules." (8/25/99)

During the debate, opponents of H.J. Res. 90 will tell you that the W.T.O. does not usurp Congress' constitutional authority to set tax policy. However, the Wall Street Journal wrote, "A recent decision by the 'WTO Appellate Body' ruled that $2.2 billion in United States tax breaks violate WTO rules and must be eliminated by October 1, 2000."

During the debate, opponents of H.J. Res. 90 will tell you that the W.T.O. does not violate principles of taxation without representation. However, Article I, Section of the Constitution gives the U.S. Congress - not unelected officials overseas - the sole authority to lay and collect taxes.

Furthermore, the Associated Press wrote, "...the agency [WTO] deliberates in secret...." (6/08/00) The design and operation of the W.T.O's dispute resolution system is established in the Uruguay Round Dispute Resolution Understanding (D.S.U.). The D.S.U. provides only one specific operating rule - that all of the panel's activities and documents are confidential. Under this W.T.O. rule, dispute panels operate in secret. According to the Financial Times, "...the WTO is the place where governments collude in private against their domestic pressure groups." (April 30, 1998) Those of us who are fighting for liberty and national sovereignty are such a "pressure group."

During the debate, opponents of H.J. Res. 90 will tell you that the W.T.O. advances "free trade." However, Lew Rockwell wrote in The Free Market, "As early as 1994, it was clear that the WTO charter... was a Trojan horse for economic surprise that some multinational corporations favored the treaty because it would impose huge costs on potential competitors. The architects of the WTO had openly stated that the treaty wasn't about free trade."

During the debate, opponents of H.J. Res. 90 will tell you that withdrawing from the W.T.O. is "unthinkable." However, we believe that it is unthinkable not to withdraw from the World Trade Organization. "It [the W.T.O.] is an egregious attack upon our national sovereignty, and this is the reason why we must vigorously oppose it. No nation can maintain its sovereignty if it surrenders its authority to an international collective. Since sovereignty is linked so closely to freedom, our very notion of American liberty is at stake in this issue," wrote Congressman Ron Paul.

The vote on H.J. Res. 90 was scheduled with little notice. Please take the little time that was given to us and think about this very important issue. We have posted additional information for you to consider on our special Web site.

If you agree we should maintain our national sovereignty, then the U.S. should withdraw from the W.T.O., and you must urge your U.S. representative to vote "yes" on H.J. Res. 90.

We believe that the W.T.O. is the trade ministry for future global government. We believe that the U.S. should always be a part of the global economy, but never a part of a global government.

Kent Snyder
Liberty Study Committee

Representatives - June 19, 2000)

[Page: H4657] GPO's PDF

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. OSE). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a bill that is coming to the floor either tomorrow or the next day. It is H.J. Res . 90. This resolution, if it were to pass, would get us out of the World Trade Organization.

There are many of us here in the House and many Americans who believe very sincerely that it is not in our best interests to belong to the World Trade Organization, who believe very sincerely that international managed trade, as carried on through the World Trade Organization, does not conform with our Constitution and does not serve our interests.

It said by those who disagree with this so often in the media that those of us who disagree with the World Trade Organization that we are paranoid, we worry too much, and that there is no loss of sovereignty in this procedure. But quite frankly, there is strong evidence to present to show that not only do we lose sovereignty as we deliver this power to the World Trade Organization, that it indeed is not a legal agreement. It does not conform with our Constitution; and, therefore, we as Members of Congress should exert this privilege that we have every 5 years to think about the World Trade Organization, whether it is in our best interests and whether it is technically a good agreement.

The World Trade Organization came into existence, and we joined it, in a lame duck session in 1994. It was hurried up in 1994 because of the concern that the new Members of Congress, who would have much more reflected the sentiments of the people, would oppose our membership in the WTO. So it went through in 1994; but in that bill, there was an agreement that a privileged resolution could come up to offer us this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, let me just point out the importance of whether or not this actually attacks our sovereignty . The CRS has done a study on the WTO, and they make a statement in this regard. This comes from a report from the Congressional Research Service on 8-25-99. It is very explicit. It says, as a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules. That is about as clear as one can get.

Now, more recently, on June 5, the WTO director, General Michael Moore, made this statement and makes it very clear: the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and, if necessary, the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.

Interestingly enough, in the past, if we dealt with trade matters, they came to the U.S. Congress to change the law; they came to elected representatives to deal with this, and that is the way it should be under the Constitution. Today, though, the effort has to be directed through our world trade representative, our international trade representative, who then goes to bat for our business people at the WTO. So is it any surprise that, for instance, the company of Chiquita Banana, who has these trade wars going on in the trade fights, wants somebody in the administration to fight their battle, and just by coincidence, they have donated $1.5 million in their effort to get influence?

So I think that the American people deserve a little bit more than this.

The membership in the WTO actually is illegal, illegal any way we look at it. If we are delivering to the WTO the authority to regulate trade, we are violating the Constitution, because it is very clear that only Congress can do this. We cannot give that authority away. We cannot give it to the President, and we cannot give it to an international body that is going to manage trade in the WTO. This is not legal, it is not constitutional, and it is not in our best interests. It stirs up the interest to do things politically, and unelected bureaucrats make the decision, not elected officials. It was never intended to be that way, and yet we did this 5 years ago. We have become accustomed to it, and I think it is very important, it is not paranoia that makes some of us bring this up on the floor.

[Page: H4658] GPO's PDF

Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing this either tomorrow or the next day. We will make a decision, and it is not up to the World Trade Organization to decide what labor laws we have or what kind of environmental laws we have, or what tax laws.