To: "Health Freedom, Codex Issues
Subject: Open Letter to EHPM from IAHF: How Do You Justify Injuring Vitamin Consumers World Wide Via Your Actions? See Report from Brussels & Press Release Below by Martin Forde, ND from Ireland
From: John Hammell firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:25:23 -0500
IAHF List: Please see the following message to Pedro Azua, Secretariat of European Health Products Manufacturing Assn, (EHPM), the largest vitamin trade association in Europe, which has just sold consumers all over the world down the river, placing our lives in jeopardy, while simultaneously setting up the industry for destruction due to pharmaceutical influence within EHPM.
To: European Health Product Manufacturers Assn
Pedro Vicente Azua
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Rue de l'Association 50 - 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 2091145
Fax: +32 2 2233064
Dear Mr. Azua:
Please explain to me how you justify EHPM's endorsement of the EU Vitamin Directive, when its passage on February 20 2002 would condemn people not only all over the EU, but also people all over the world to lives of ill health, by virtue of how the finalized EU Vitamin Directive threatens to impact Codex? (Documentation proving that US Domestic Vitamin Laws are NOT PROTECTED from Codex harmonization can be found at http://www.iahf.com Click on the spinning green disk to see the letter to Congressman Burton from Congressmen Paul and De Fazio. The congressional research service has confirmed that all of our domestic laws are subject to harmonization to international standards under threat of trade sanctions.
In his email below, Irish naturopath Martin Forde, who attended the meeting in Brussels where the Vitamin Directive was just deliberated, states that "- The EHPM supports the Common Position of the Council and wants the Directive to go through. - The EHPM only supports one amendment, the extension of the deadline for submitting dossiers from 18 to 36 months." So Pedro is only now revealing to us what the EHPM position is to be, huh? No wonder he kept it under wraps. EHPM should be consigned to history and I for one do not feel like making further contributions to EAS's lifestyle" Martin Forde
Mr. Forde worked very hard to lobby the Irish MEPs in Brussels and was able to get Mrs. Doyle and Mrs. McKenna to go against the Directive due to the outrageously negative impact it would have on consumer access to dietary supplements, and for no scientifically justified reasons.
Why are you not making a similar effort to oppose the Directive Pedro? Why didn't you even try to turn MEPs against the Directive the way Martin did? Could it possibly have anything to do with multinational pharmaceutical companies dominating EHPM from the top down such that they have the most influence within the trade association, and you feel that your job would be in jeopardy if you did not kowtow to their every wish and command? Why should anyone trust either EHPM or EAS given this situation???
Please examine the following information and press release by Dr.Forde about the Directive. I would like to know why you oppose his efforts to safeguard the health and rights of vitamin consumers throughout the EU, and vis a vis the impact this will have at Codex, the world? Any failure on your part to reply to this question will be very conspicuous as I am posting this on the IAHF website. If you respond, I will give you equal time. IAHF has documented that the same kind of pharmaceutical influence which is clearly causing EHPM to adopt this anti public health position is also being adopted by CRN, NNFA, and all other dietary supplements trade associations in the world, and due to the same pharmaceutical influence.
IAHF is deeply saddened to observe this unfolding genocide and has documented on the IAHF website at http://www.iahf.com that American dietary supplement laws are not safe from harmonization to a now clearly advancing Cartel agenda, with the EU Directive having been set up to impact Codex by the language put into square brackets at the most recent CCNFSDU meeting in Berlin in November.
IAHF encourages your in depth response to these concerns. If you think I am incorrect in my assertion that EHPM's actions are indirectly jeopardizing people's lives by helping to generate a scenario in which over 300 safe dietary supplements stand to be banned right from the outset, with numerous more to follow, please provide any evidence you think you can muster up to my attention.
Please see Dr.Forde's information below. Your actions disgust me. Why do you completely ignore the public health needs of the vitamin consuming public? Why do you make money your God? How do you sleep at night???
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION TODAY IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 00:49:39 -0000
"- The EHPM supports the Common Position of the Council and wants the Directive to go through.
- The EHPM only supports one amendment, the extension of the deadline for submitting dossiers from 18 to 36 months."
So Pedro is only now revealing to us what the EHPM position is to be, huh? No wonder he kept it under wraps. EHPM should be consigned to history and I for one do not feel like making further contributions to EAS's lifestyle Martin Forde
from Martin Forde
I went to Brussels on Monday to visit the offices of all the Irish MEPs on the Environment committee plus John Bowis of the UK plus Nuala Ahern's office as she is chair of the CAM intergroup. The following is the document I went through with them. I found the visit worthwhile and feel I was able to clarify some matters. There is quite a fighting spirit and there appears willingness to propose far reaching amendments. i was asked to send on suggestions for amendments.
IRISH HEALTH TRADE ASSOCIATION 18 JANUARY 2002
Food Supplements Directive:
We now urge you to please consider rejecting this Directive as amended by Council
IT NOW PROPOSES POLITICAL LIMITS, NOT SCIENTIFIC LIMITS
Article 5 was the original selling-point, supposed to break new ground by setting clear scientific safety limits for vitamins and minerals. Compromise changes now give the Population Reference Intake a role in setting limits in every case. So, upper limits will no longer be a matter of scientific safety but of political negotiation among the member states. Vitamins and minerals have been available as foods safely since the 1930's and foods should not face restriction on political grounds.
IT UN-NECESSARILY BANS INGREDIENTS AND PREVENTS U.S. IMPORTS
The Positive Lists (Annexes 1 and 2) exclude a very long list of commonly used vitamin and mineral ingredients forms One effect of this will be to eliminate transatlantic trade except for the largest companies who are in a position to reformulate; another is to make it very difficult and expensive to introduce new products.
IT WILL BAN INGREDIENTS EVEN AFTER THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE SAFE
Article 6 offers to temporarily permit existing ingredients not in the annexes – if they can be proven to be harmless. But after the temporary permission runs out, they would be banned anyway! It states in essence: "Show that your ingredients are safe by submitting an expensive dossier -then we will ban them anyway in five years' time". Does this qualify as the most unfair law ever?
IT BANS SEVERAL NUTRITIONALLY RELEVANT MINERALS WITHOUT TRIAL Other non-essential substances such as fish oils and herbs will be allowed to continue under national law, but six minerals including boron vanadium and sulphur are excluded without any safety review.
IT AIMS TO EXTEND THIS FLAWED APPROACH TO ALL POSSIBLE INGREDIENTS, NOT JUST VITAMINS AND MINERALS
There has in fact been great disagreement between EU countries about the Directive. The Directive has only just made it through the Council of States, with Austria, Greece and Denmark opposing it to the bitter end. Because of attitudes such as these, countries where health stores offer real choice such as Ireland, UK and Netherlands, are being forced to take on severe restrictions.
Further Info: Martin Forde 086 8133875 or 01-8339902
EU Food Supplements Directive:
EU says: "Prove to us it's safe – and we'll ban it anyway!"
"The proposed Food Supplements Directive now in front of the European Parliament brings EU official arrogance to new heights" said health trade representative Martin Forde, speaking at a meeting of the European Health Freedom Alliance in Dublin last night. "It seeks to ban so many vitamin and mineral ingredients that have been used safely for years that, under pressure from all sides, the officials have offered to temporarily permit existing ingredients – if they can be proven to be harmless. But after the temporary permission runs out, they would be banned anyway! "This is not Alice in Wonderland – this is exactly what is proposed in Article 6 of this measure that will be discussed in the European Parliament next Tuesday [22 January]'
"The Directive, devised by EU Commission bureaucrats, threatens also to kill off the rapidly expanding cross-Atlantic trade in high-tech food supplements which are popular in Europe.
"There has been such disagreement between EU countries about the Directive that its original selling-point has been lost. It was supposed to break new ground by setting clear scientific safety limits for ingredients. But political wrangling has muddied the proposal so much that limits will now be set by political discussion between member states, many of whom hate the directive and do not allow food supplements in their own countries. "The Directive has only barely made it through the Council of States, with Austria, Greece and Denmark opposing it to the bitter end. Because of attitudes such as these, countries where health stores offer real choice such as Ireland, UK and Netherlands, are being forced to take on severe restrictions.
"Just as with the heavy-handed banning of St. John's Wort, consumers and holistic practitioners are outraged and shocked. They see the Directive as nothing in fact to do with safety but more to do with curtailing the health options freely available to people up to now" END