To: IAHF List
Subject: Fake Codex Vitamin Oversight Worse Than NO OVERSIGHT. Fiction/FACT/Fiction/FACT/Fiction/FACT
From: "International Advocates for Health Freedom" firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:29:59 -0500
IAHF List: Please email this in to your own congressman and Senators and to Burton to complain. They're not planning on conducting GENUINE oversight on the Codex vitamin issue on March 20, they're planning on PRETENDING to provide oversight, which is WORSE than not doing anything at all. Burton's fax is 202-225-0016 attn Press Secretary John Carterelli.
I will hand carry this straight into Burton's office tomorrow (the day before the Hearing) in a last ditch effort to head off a whitewashed hearing. Please call your member of Congress to complain. Any member can be reached via 202-225-3121 Capital Switchboard.
FICTION: US domestic vitamin laws are "protected" from Codex harmonization by Federal Statute 19 USC 3512 (a)(1) and (a)(2).
FACT: The statute looks good on paper, but is only a paper tiger. Through Mutual Recognition Agreements under NAFTA and GATT, the USA has agreed to enter into a constant process of harmonization to international standards, and FDA is doing exactly that via Codex while falsely claiming, (along with the pharmaceutically dominated vitamin trade associations) that our domestic laws are protected, and that they’re "only taking actions at Codex that would protect our offshore markets." The Congressional Research Service analyzed the issue of our sovereignty being destroyed via harmonization, and reported back to Congressman Ron Paul "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) http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update6.17.00.htm
FICTION: Vitamin consumers, health food stores, and small manufacturers can trust the vitamin trade associations NNFA, UNPA, AHPA, CRN, and IADSA to properly defend our interests before Congressional Oversight Committees and at Codex Meetings. If they say Codex is a “non issue” that “can’t impact our domestic vitamin laws” we can trust them, and should just automatically believe what they tell us.
FACT: Just 10 days after being witnesses on March 20 before Congressman Burton’s Government Reform Committee oversight hearing on the Codex Vitamin issue, Loren Israelsen and David Seckman will be presenters at an IADSA conference in Capetown, South Africa titled "Towards a Global Regulatory Model" where they will assist in developing global regulation that they view as "inevitable" and which they [privately] believe will supercede US law, which they privately know is in a process of harmonization. http://www.hpasa.co.za/news_release.htm While "oversight" witness Karl Riedel won’t be attending the IADSA meeting, Randy Dennin, employee of Pfizer pharmaceuticals, and Riedel's co-chair on NNFA’s International Committee (the committee that endorses the FDA's pro pharmaceutical stance on Codex) is a scheduled speaker at the Capetown IADSA meeting.
If Codex were truly a "non issue" as FDA, CRN, NNFA, AHPA, UNPA and IADSA all falsely claim, why would Israelsen, Seckman, and Dennin all be willing to spend the better part of 24 hours on a plane flying to South Africa? Answer: Its in the best interests of the pharmaceutical companies dominating the vitamin trade associations that their smaller members, health food stores and the general public BELIEVE Codex to be a “non issue” so that they won’t look too closely at what is going on as pharmaceutical interests seek a MONOPOLY over natural products. Hoffman La Roche, BASF, Takeda, Daiichi Fine Chemicals were heavily fined in '99 for engaging in illegal price fixing in the sale of vitamin raw materials by the US Justice Dept. Via Codex, they and other pharmaceutical interests have found a way to make an end run around US vitamin laws to gain the monopoly that the US Justice Dept blocked them from having. If they can get high potency vitamins regulated by prescription, they can make far more money, off less product, while simultaneously blocking consumer access to vitamins, to stop the move towards widespread prevention that is cutting into the sale of their patented pharmaeutical drugs.
FICTION: The National Academy of Sciences paper titled "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" which was put on the table at Codex over Congressional objection, is actually in our best interests as it shifts the debate at Codex to science based risk assessment as opposed to arbitrary potency limits based strictly on the RDAs. The FDA is only trying to protect our ability to sell product offshore.The paper represents the “best science we can get” to protect our business interests.
FACT: The NAS paper never underwent a public comments period. It was funded by pharmaceutical money, and several of the companies that funded it are members of CRN. Its conclusions are biased and unscientific. A toxicology model intended for the evaluation of toxic, pharmaceutical drugs has been misapplied to an evaluation of safe vitamins and minerals and several erroneous conclusions have resulted. Far from being "helpful" to the business interests of vitamin companies, the paper falsely defines vitamin safety as part of FDA's ongoing effort to harmonize our vitamin laws to more restrictive international standards such as EU and Codex standards.
Richard Malter, Ph.D’s excellent rebuttal to the NAS paper was published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. Malter submitted a request to present oral testimony at this hearing, and submitted his rebuttal as written testimony, but was denied a chance to present testimony. The National Academy of Science is not part of the government, so we can't get the raw data behind this paper or the CV's of its authors because NAS is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.The FDA is trying to hide behind this fact. Additional rebuttals to the NAS on the vitamin issue can be found along with the NAS paper and Malter's rebuttal at http://www.iahf.com under "NAS paper and Rebuttals".
The FDA put the NAS paper on the table at Codex over the direct written objection of 5 members of Congress: Burton, Paul, Cook, Stump, and De Fazio. Their action was solidly grounded in law. By putting the NAS paper on the table at Codex, the FDA violated an amendment to harmonization language of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 which made it illegal for them to take any action that threatens to harmonize our domestic law to a more restrictive international standard. All of this is discussed thoroughly in IAHF's written comments to Congress on the Codex vitamin issue http://www.iahf.com click on the green spinning disk. FDA attorney L.Robert Lake admitted to me in writing FDA's intention to ignore the law. I have his letter and could show it to the Oversight Committee, but am being denied a chance to testify.
Burton is now pretending he never signed the letter to FDA telling them not to put the NAS paper on the table at Codex, but a gif file of the letter with his signature can be seen at http://www.iahf.com in the letters from Congress section, while a video of Dr.Yetley of FDA showing her ignore the letter can be seen at the IAHF website in the Media section, along with a video showing the German chair of the Codex meeting force me to turn my camcorder off showing the non transparency of the Codex "process". De Fazio and Paul who also signed the letter telling FDA not to put the NAS paper on the table at Codex are issuing a dissenting statement into the record of this Hearing.
FICTION: Dan Burton would never conduct a phony oversight process that protects the business interests of pharmaceutical interests, because he is a vitamin consumer himself and a friend to the vitamin consumer.
FACT: By delegating authority to staff to put hearings together, Burton appears to have been blind sided. Information appears to have been selectively kept from him, and if this is not the case, then he has either been conned, or he's not truly interested in conducting genuine oversight perhaps out of fear of alienating possible contributors to his campaign. I hope that is not the case and hope he will look very closely at this.
By ignoring the grass roots vitamin consumers who are trying to bring forth the facts on this issue, but not allowing Suzanne Harris, JD (expert on International Law and on Codex), Richard Malter,PhD (expert on safety of vitamins) and John Hammell (President of International Advocates for Health Freedom, whistleblower on Codex vitamin issue who was wrongly kicked off US Codex delegation for effort to defend US law) to testify at this hearing, the issue is being whitewashed, and the truth is not coming out. Its not hard to see the pharmaceutical influence within the vitamin trade associations, especially within CRN: look at http://www.crnusa.org/2members.html Membership includes Hoffman La Roche, BASF, Daiichi Fine Chemicals (All heavily fined by US DOJ for engaging in illegal price fixing in sale of vitamin raw materials), and a slew of other multinational pharmaceutical companies including Warner Lambert (Part of Pfizer) which also owns Capsugel (which is also a member of NNFA). Randy Dennin of Capsugel (Pfizer) is co chair of NNFA's international committee (along with witness Karl Riedel who echos his views on Codex).
Through the creation of a bogus definition of vitamin safety (approved by Dennin of Pfizer) FDA is setting the USA up for harmonization to a grossly restrictive Internatinoal Standard. Members of CRN, NNFA, UNPA, AHPA are working towards harmonization (and undermining US law) via CODEX, TABD, and IADSA see "U.S. and International Leaders Agree on Principles to Harmonize Dietary Supplement Regulations" http://www.crnusa.org/shellnr112000.html See IADSA meeting program "Towards a Global Regulatory Model" http://www.hpasa.co.za/news_release.htm Please ask Burton not to suppress this information !!!