Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 20:23:04 -0400
From: John Hammell
Subject: Material for Hour of the Time Radio Show re Codex International Threat to Health Freedom

Vitamin companies, health food stores, and consumers across the USA should make a donation to the Alliance for Natural Health in the UK (see attached ANH flyer) here is why:

The EU Vitamin Directive was passed in March. What passed was a framework, with article 5 on potency levels still under deliberation. Unless we help ANH stop the EU Vitamin Directive by positively impacting Article 5, and by challenging the Directive legally, a grossly restrictive Codex vitamin standard will be driven through to completion, and the USA has been set up for harmonization to it- see evidence below in my white paper which proves this. Via the cc line I am putting you in touch with Dr.Robert Verkerk of ANH and encourage you strongly to call him at 011441252377931 ANH refuses to allow pharmaceutical interests under their tent.

ANH is opposed by a controlled opposition group: Consumers for Health Choice, that is represented by a pharmaceutically controlled lobbyist, Chris Whitehouse, who is endorsed by Alex Schauss.

Alex Schauss cannot be trusted. He has his own agenda, and this problem has been going on for a long time. He has German pharmaceutical clients that date back to when he was with Murdock at Nature's Way. Murdock has since left the industry to sell cars, having sold out to Madaus a German company. Schauss's spin on the Codex issues via CFH was intended to assist in a pharmaceutical takeover of the natural products industry. He is still up to his old tricks.

Please see the attached file re ANH which deserves support from vitamin companies, consumers, health food stores and alternative practitioners world wide because their fight is everyone's fight due to how the EU Vitamin Directive threatens to push a very restrictive Codex vitamin standard through to completion. Please send a donation to ANH to help them with their fight, because their fight is OUR fight.

The USA has been set up for harmonization to a very restrictive international standard. See evidence below:

Discussion Paper Which Proves American Vitamin Laws Are NOT Protected from Harmonization to the EU Vitamin Directive and Codex

Table of Contents:


Analysis of lies told by CRN, NNFA and other vitamin trade associations who say US domestic vitamin laws are "protected" from harmonization to the EU and Codex.

2. IADSA = Controlled Opposition- Vitamin companies world wide have been lied to when told IADSA "is protecting them" from Codex.

Simon Pettman, IADSA lobbyist, openly admits in article posted on web that he was in favor of passage of EU Vitamin Directive. (which sets up passage of a restrictive Codex vitamin directive.)

Upon scrutiny, Pettman is lobbying heavily for pharmaceutical interests via EAS. Ron Law of NNFA New Zealand further corroborates that IADSA is a controlled opposition group because NNFA NZ was kicked out of IADSA due to raising a lot of contentious questions about conflict of interest that Dennin and Pettman did not want to answer, so they did away with IADSA's charter in order to kick troublesome NNFA New Zealand out.

3. On May 20, 1999, CRN member company Hoffmann-La Roche pleaded guilty to leading in an international conspiracy to fix the prices of vitamin raw materials and was sentenced to pay a record $500 million criminal fine.

4. In 2000 CRN & TABD (Trans Atlantic Business Dialoge) comes right out in public and openly states their intention to harmonize American vitamin laws to the draconian standards under development in the EU and at Codex.

5. Matthias Rath discusses the TIMING on the pharmaceutical effort to fix the prices of vitamin raw materials: the pharmaceutical conspiracy followed as a result of a lecture that he gave at Hoffman La Roche in 1990 wherein he presented his and Pauling's data proving that cardiovascular disease can be successfully prevented and treated very inexpensively using their nutritional protocol.

Conclusion: Karl Riedel of NNFA lied under oath on March 20, 2001 when he stated that US domestic vitamin laws are under no jeopardy of being harmonized to the EU Vitamin Directive or to a finalized Codex standard. Vitamin companies, health food stores and consumers across the USA have been badly misled on the Codex vitamin issue, as have consumers world wide.


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)

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. 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 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 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 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 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" See IADSA meeting program "Towards a Global Regulatory Model" Please ask Burton not to suppress this information !!!

(2). IADSA = Controlled Opposition

Vitamin companies around the world have been led to believe that IADSA (International Alliance of Dietary Supplement Associations) has been "protecting them" from Codex. In REALITY, IADSA has been doing the EXACT OPPOSITE because IADSA is a controlled opposition group whose lobbyist in Brussels, Simon Pettman, has simultaneously been lobbying for numerous pharmaceutical interests belonging to ERNA, and EHPM via his lobbying firm: EAS (European Advisory Services). In the article below, which IAHF commented on in an email to Pettman which he never responded to, Pettman is quoted in an article that was posted on the web in which he ADMITS OPENLY that he was in favor of passage of the EU Vitamin Directive all along. Passage of the EU Vitamin Directive threatens to push a finalized Codex vitamin standard through to completion: see this:

To: "Health Freedom, Codex Issues"
Subject: Petman Quoted: Exposes Self as Pharmaceutical Stooge -Totally Exposes IADSA as Controlled Opposition Group Show Article to Vitamin Companies, Health Food Stores, Ask Them to Quit Their Vitamin Trade Assoc if It Belongs to IADSA
From: "I A H F"
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:12:56 -0500

Simon Petman: I challenge you to respond to this, especially to your words quoted in red below (scroll down) and my comments. Any lack of response will be very conspicuous to vitamin companies and consumers world wide.

IADSA is clearly a pharmaceutically dominated controlled opposition group that is only PRETENDING to fight for health freedom. How much are you being paid to assist pharmaceutical interests in taking over the supplement industry, Simon? Tell the truth!

Please explain why you think ANY honest vitamin company that CARES about consumers, especially small to mid sized companies, and health food stores should feel the least bit comfortable about belonging to any vitamin trade association, anywhere in the world that belongs to IADSA???

IAHF List: I have dissected the article below with the comments in blue. Especially see the quote by Simon Petman, lobbyist for sold out vitamin trade association IADSA, marked in RED below (scroll down). Petman, who openly admits here that he wanted the EU Vitamin Directive to pass, is a traitor to the small to mid sized vitamin companies, health food stores and consumers and is the number one pharmaceutical stooge trying to push a pharmaceutical takeover of the supplement industry.

Please show this to health food stores and small to mid sized vitamin companies world wide and tell them they should quit their local vitamin trade association if it belongs to IADSA. From the quote below by Simon Petman anyone can clearly see that Petman and IADSA are assisting pharmaceutical interests to takeover the supplement industry. As you can see, I have sent this directly to Petman, challenging him to respond.
Vitamin supplement directive approved by MEPs

14/03/02 - Despite fierce lobbying which at one stage caused the European Parliament's email system to crash, MEPs yesterday voted to approve plans for a tightening of the safety controls for vitamin supplements.

Actually, what REALLY happened is that the corrupt members of the EU Parliament wrongly ignored the largest referendum in human history wherein they received more than 547 Million votes from EU vitamin consumers and vitamin consumers around the world who demanded that the EU Parliament vote to kill the EU Vitamin Directive because it wrongly attacks small vitamin companies and wrongly threatens to remove safe vitamin products from the market via regulatory overkill intended to protect the pharmaceutical industry from unwanted competition.

Such was the level of vitriol unleashed against Emilia Mueller, the MEP who proposed the legislation, that Parliament also took the unprecedented step of opening an investigation into the lobbying ­ not to say bullying ­ tactics of some of the bill's opponents.

Given the immense level of corruption in the EU which is documented on Dr.Rath's website via a documentary video and other factual information at, this is a truly Orwellian statement. The only "bullying" that has taken place here has been against small vitamin companies and consumers who stand to suffer by this pharmaceutically instigated attack on our lives and health. MEP Jackson from the UK had this very justified criticism of the Directive: Small businesses have been allowed too littletime to submit the required safety dossier on their products. We may put that right tomorrow, but why, Commissioner Byrne, is it that there is no cost impact assessment on small businesses in this directive? When it came forward two years ago there was no cost impact assessment attached.

The new legislation means that manufacturers of food supplements containing vitamins and minerals have three years to provide the European legislators with full details of the ingredients used in the supplements.

Once they have been submitted, they will then be assessed for safety in accordance with existing scientific guidelines and maximum levels will then be set.

Scientific guidelines established by WHO exactly? Bodies such as the EU's Scientific Committee on Foods and the National Academy of Science in the USA? These pharmaceutically dominated bodies are caught in a hopeless conflict of interest that precludes any shred of honesty. They're all awash in pharmaceutical research grants. The way they make their money is to figure out ways to "tweak" nutrients molecularly so they can be turned into patentable pharmaceutical "drugs". Then they have the job of driving the dietary supplements off the market via phony "safety" standards to stop the competition. In some cases they find it "necessary" to get dietary supplements permanently banned to stop unwanted competition completely such as they did with l-tryptophan right at the moment Eli Lilly first started marketing Prozac. Maximum levels are not necessary for ALREADY SAFE products. Where are the alleged bodies? No one is dying from safe vitamins, only from toxic pharmaceutical drugs which currently constitute the world's 3rd leading cause of death.

Manufacturers will also be obliged to provide detailed labelling on bottles and packaging to give consumers clear daily dosage instructions. They will also have to carry a warning about the dangers of excessive use.

These dosage instructions and warnings are totally unecessary. These are safe substances. They stand in marked contrast to pharmaceutical drugs which REALLY ARE dangerous, to say nothing of OTC drugs, alcohol and cigarrettes.

The rules are logical in that they bring dietary supplements under the same kind of safety controls as food and medicines, but they have faced stern opposition from an extremely vocal minority who have claimed that many products currently available for use will now be banned.

The European Commission has strongly refuted these claims, saying that only those products which are not found to be safe will be removed from sale. This, the Commission argued, was clearly in the interest of consumers throughout the Union, and that any product which was natural and safe had nothing to fear.

Of course the corrupt EC would refute these claims. They will do ANYTHING to help the drug companies that pump money in to them. Corruption in the EU is widespread and under an intense investigation as Dr.Rath quite correctly points out at

Not everyone agreed, however, and one Dutch vitamin supplement supplier is said to have bombarded the European Parliament with emails claiming that the increased cost of submitting the ingredients for assessment would push many producers and retailers out of business.

Other opponents said that they feared the maximum levels set by the European authorities would err on the low side, forcing manufacturers to reformulate their products and obliging consumers to buy more in order to obtain the same dose.

Reports claim that some 300 nutrients currently used in supplements are not included on the initial list of permitted substances, but these reports have been dismissed by some people in the industry. The words "sold out" should be placed after the word "some" in the sentence above. Thus: "These reports have been dismissed by some SOLD OUT people in the industry."

"As far as we are aware, there are nowhere near 300 substances on the list" said Simon Pettman of IADSA, an organisation which represents national dietary supplement associations across Europe. "There are perhaps 30 or so substances currently on the list for approval by the Commission's Scientific Committee on Food, and there will almost certainly be more, but by no means as many as 300."

The problem is that the most vociferous individuals have been those who are opposed to the regulations, Pettman said, giving the impression that there is widespread discontent with the ruling. "I think it is safe to say that of the 21 or so national associations which we represent in Europe, 17 are delighted with the rules, a couple are neutral and the rest have some slight concerns.

Simon Petman is getting very clever here. He knows the Directive discusses just under 300 ingredients, so he's pulling "lawyer tricks" here in what he's saying in an effort to to spin control against opponents of the Directive.

There in fact IS widespread opposition to the ruling by CONSUMERS all over the world, over 547 votes in Dr.Rath's referendum on the issue were cast against the Directive, most from consumers living in the EU to whom the EU is supposedly answerable. As for the 3 National Associations that weren't delighted, shouldn't minority groups have RIGHTS in the EU? If an analysis were made of the 3 groups that weren't delighted, I bet any money they have the LEAST influence from pharmaceutical interests.

"Even those who are not 100 per cent happy with the rules ­ for example, we know of some concerns about the way in which the dossiers have to be submitted to the SCF and the costs that might entail ­ nonetheless realise that they are necessary and inevitable ­ it is perhaps more in the detail of how they are to be implemented that the concerns arise."

Pettman said that the lawmakers could perhaps have decided to set the maximum limits for nutrients from the outset, rather than going through the lengthy procedure of obliging companies to submit details and then assess them. "But if they had done this, I suppose we would simply have been arguing about the limits instead," he added. "The way they have chosen is not perhaps the ideal way, but all things considered it is perhaps the most practical."

Yeah, its "the most practical" to screw the industry incrementally rather than via a full frontal assault, because thats the only way to avoid a huge backlash.

Some of the organisations lobbying against the directive have accused IADSA of not doing enough to stand up for its members, but Pettman explained that they had misunderstood what the organisation's role was.

"About 98 per cent of our European members are in favour of the rules. Of course, this means that 2 per cent are opposed, but we cannot take sides with either party. In the UK, for example, there has been a lot of press coverage condemning the regulations, but most of our members there are in favour of the rules. The coverage in Britain is simply another example of Euro-bashing that the UK press enjoys so much."

He says IADSA "can't take sides with either party"- but of course he has just sided heavily with the side that wanted the Directive to pass... Of course the views of consumers as expressed via Dr.Rath's referendum are of no consequence to Petman and neither is the concern that no impact study was ever conducted to assess how the Directive might threaten small companies, because Petman does the bidding of the largest, most powerful companies that control the trade associations that he represents, because they're the main people paying him.

He added that it was hard to understand why opponents were so active now, right at the end of the decision-making procedure, when the proposal had first been put forward in May 2000. "That was the time to scream and shout, not now! In any case, it is hard to understand why there is so much opposition to regulations which will bring greater safety and clarity to the industry.

Yeah, sure, as it its POSSIBLE to generate a high level of public concern about this way back in May of 2000 when the date of its implementation is so far away. Similarly, the process of incrementalism is still being employed with regards to this Directive for the same reason: to avoid opposition, to side step a public backlash. Meanwhile Simon "plays dumb" pretending to not understand the concern of small manufacturers and consumers as if "safety" is even a valid issue....

"It is true that some of the concerns raised by lobbyists are genuine and need to be addressed. But the way they have gone about putting their case makes them look like extremists and does little or nothing to promote their cause."

Wrong, Rath has done a lot to educate people world wide to the immense corruption in the EU via the video and other info on his website. Rath was able to get MEPs to express concern on the floor of Parliament about the lack of impact studies on the effect the Directive threatens to have on small businesses. A thorough analysis of this is certainly not something Petman or his most powerful clients would welcome, so of course he takes sides against Rath and consumers and tries to depict them in a negative light when the only true "EXTREMISTS" are the pharmaceutically dominated people pushing this Directive in the corrupt European Parliament, and the traitors who are assisting them...... especially Simon Petman who is perhaps the worst of them.

He concluded: "One argument I have seen is that the whole directive is a plot by the major pharmaceutical companies to price the smaller players out of the market. That is tosh ­ the vast majority of the vitamins produced are made by these same major players who will themselves be subject to the same regulations. They may well be able to shoulder the additional costs more easily than smaller players, but to accuse them of conspiring is frankly ludicrous."

The US Dept. of Justice, their EU, Canadian, and Australian counterparts all issued record fines to Hoffman La Roche and other vitamin raw material suppliers for engaging in illegal price fixing in the sale of vitamin raw materials. In the USA the US DOJ busted Hoffman La Roche, Merck and many other companies for violations of the Sherman Anti Trust Act for conspiring to fix the prices of vitamin raw materials. Given this well documented historical fact, is it really too much of a stretch to assert that this provides a motive for additional conspiracy against the smaller players? Of course it is TRUE that the additional costs would be very EASILY handled by the larger companies, ESPECIALLY as an INVESTMENT necessary to drive the smaller players out of business. Given the fact that this has already happened in Norway and Australia when onerous regulations were imposed in those countries, it is clear that Petman is attempting to do major spin here against the truth in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the small to mid sized companies that belong to the trade associations that are members of IADSA, which he provides "lobbying services" to. Dr.Rath explains the history of how Hoffman La Roche and the other companies formed the Vitamin Cartel at

The timing on the formation of the Cartel was no accident. It coincided with communications and a visit that Rath paid to Hoffman La Roche to inform them of his and Paulings breakthrough discovery of a nutritional solution for human cardiovascular disease because he wanted their assistance to disseminate this information. After listening to Rath present his and Paulings' data for several hours, they privately agreed that he and Pauling had indeed made a breakthrough discovery, however they were not willing to disseminate the information because it would have conflicted with the sale of many of their pharmaceutical prescription drugs, especially heart drugs. Although they weren't willing to help Rath disseminate this info, they realized they could do nothing to stop Rath from disseminating the information himself, and they realized that it and other info about the healing power of nutrients would cause a boom in demand for vitamins, so they decided to do some vitamin price fixing in order to profit all they could anyway.

As a fall back position in case anything went wrong (and it DID, they got busted) is it REALLY too much of a stretch to accuse Hoffman La Roche, Rhone Poulenc and the other companies implicated in this crime of planning a fall back takeover plan such as Codex combined with other regulatory schemes including the one in the EU, and peripheral harmonization campaigns such as the one by pharmaceutical interests in Australia to force New Zealand to harmonize its very liberal vitamin regulations to Australia's far more stringent ones? Ron Law, Executive Director of NNFA New Zealand has already accused Simon Petman, IADSA and EAS of being caught in a hopeless conflict of interest due to enormous pharmaceutical influence within the trade associations EAS represents. He has raised this very real question in email correspondence with both Petman, and IADSA Chair Randy Dennin, (employee of Pfizer): "When kava came under attack in the media just before the critical committee level vote on the EU Vitamin Directive when there was still a chance to kill it, why didn't IADSA issue a press release to defend Kava especially when the attack on Kava cast doubt on the safety of all dietary supplements and could have adversely impacted the effort to kill the Vitamin Directive?"

This is a very valid question, especially when Petman had no good answer to it, and especially when Ron Law provided Dennin with all the risk analysis data on Kava necessary to put together a very solid press release. Adding additional fuel to this controversy about IADSA's true allegiances were Law's questions about why IADSA was clearly doing nothing to assist NNFA New Zealand with any protection against harmonization to Australia's far stricter regulatory model which clearly threatens to drive many small New Zealand manufacturers out of business? These questions have NEVER been answered to either Ron Law's satisfaction or my own, and it is very clear from what Petman is saying here that his mission is to assist pharmaceutical interests in taking over the dietary supplement industry. Americans had better take particular note of the fact that Dennin and Petman are both members of the Dietary Supplement Working Group of Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue, a group which has publicly vowed to harmonize American dietary supplement laws to the EUs. [See press release titled U.S. and European Leaders Agree on Principles to Harmonize Dietary Supplement Regulations ]

Perhaps after reading this small to mid sized vitamin companies within NNFA USA will quit NNFA and form their own trade association, one that does not belong to IADSA since IADSA is clearly on a mission to destroy the dietary supplement industry by encouraging a pharmaceutical takeover just as is happening right now in the EU and in New Zealand. Via TABD and Codex, the USA is scheduled to be next......Clearly none of the US vitamin trade associations are acting in the best interests of their rank and file memberships, to say nothing of consumers who are being abandoned in the USA just as they are in the EU and in New Zealand and other countries by regulatory schemes that only serve the interests of the large drug companies in suppressing unwanted competition.

The European Commission also welcomed the decision to approve the legislation. "The aim of this legislation is to put consumer safety and informed consumer choice first, and to solve the problems manufacturers currently face in marketing their products due to diverging national rules," said David Byrne, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection.

Uh huh. Sure. As if dietary supplements ever posed any safety problems that legitimately require this level of regulatory overkill. This directive is just an extension of the corruption that pervades the EU see articles and videotape at

"Consumers across Europe will have a wide range of safe products available from which to choose, which is not the case in quite a few member states today. The aim of the directive is not to ban food supplements as some lobbies have misled consumers to believe. Some people find they need food supplements to compensate for their inadequate intake of essential vitamins and minerals. Labels must give them clear information about how to use and how not to use them. We also must make sure that the chemical substances used to produce vitamins and mineral supplements are safe and subject to independent scientific assessment."

"These principles of food safety and transparent information as outlined in the White Paper on Food Safety apply here as they do to all other food products. It must however be clear that a varied diet remains the best approach to achieving good health.

Uh huh, sure. The European Commission hired PR firm Hill and Knowlton (which has done spin control for the CIA and Tobacco Industry) to write a paper titled "Study on Nutritional Health and Ethical Claims in the European Union" intended to serve as the "basis" for the EU Anti Vitamin Directive. This article is a concise analysis of the 486 page paper which can also be viewed in pdf format at

See IAHF's analysis of this bogus paper in the article titled Fuse is LIT: Save Vitamins in EU & Globally at

Hill and Knowlton who generated this phony white paper has done a huge amount of work for pharmaceutical interests and for the CIA. Hill and Knowlton manufactured consent to get the USA to enter the Gulf War by fabricating a fake news story that invading Iraqui soldiers entering Kuwait had yanked babies off of incubators in a hospital, leaving them to die on a cold cement floor. The got the niece of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA (who was attending college in the states at the time and wasn't even located in Kuwait) to pose before a camera, pretending to be a nurse in a Kuwaiti hospital who had allegedly seen this, but it never happened. It was a fake news story. Hill and Knowlton is famous for generating fake news, fake white papers, and other manipulation in order to assist the special interests in their corrupt endeavors.

(3).On May 20, 1999, CRN member company Hoffmann-La Roche pleaded guilty to leading in an international conspiracy to fix the prices of vitamin raw materials and was sentenced to pay a record $500 million criminal fine.

(4). In 2000 CRN & TABD (Trans Atlantic Business Dialoge) comes right out in public and openly states their intention to harmonize American vitamin laws to the draconian standards under development in the EU and at Codex: Note that Peter Heer of Hoffman La Roche is a chair of the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue's Working Group on Dietary Supplements which issued this press release that CRN posted on their website: Note statement to harmonize US vitamin laws to the very restrictive laws fast under development in the EU and at Codex.

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:

1.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.

2.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.

3.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.

4.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

5. Matthias Rath discusses the TIMING on the pharmaceutical effort to fix the prices of vitamin raw materials: the pharmaceutical conspiracy followed as a result of a lecture that he gave at Hoffman La Roche in 1990 wherein he presented his and Pauling's data proving that cardiovascular disease can be successfully prevented and treated very inexpensively using their nutritional protocol. Rath had hoped Hoffman La Roche, the world's largest supplier of antioxidant raw materials would assist him in disseminating this good news. Privately they congratulated him on his discovery, but told him they could not promote it due to not wanting to undermine the sale of their patented prescription drugs. What they did, however, was to create the vitamin cartel, to fix prices of raw materials knowing that they could not stop public awareness of the value of vitamins so they might as well try to capitalize on it somehow. At the same time, they realized they needed a long range strategy for getting control of the vitamins and began planning strategies for globalization so as to harmonize vitamin laws world wide.

Busting the vitamin Cartel

by Matthias Rath, MD

On May 20, 1999, the media bomb detonated: The pharmaceutical multinational corporation Hoffmann-La Roche, BASF, Rhône-Poulenc and other multinational pharmaceutical companies admitted to have formed a so-called "Vitamin-Cartel" to conduct criminal price fixing for vitamin raw materials. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide were defrauded for almost a decade and had to pay higher vitamin prices because of this criminal activities. The US-justice departement declared that this Vitamin-Cartel was the largest cartel ever discovered and named it an economic „conspiracy". Roche, BASF and the others cartel members agreed to pay almost a billion dollars in fines for committing these crimes.

While the magnitude of these fines made headlines around the world, the events that triggered the formation of this criminal cartel remained obscure. Until now. The background of this illegal Vitamin-Cartel is the scientific breakthrough documented in this book in relation to vitamins and prevention of cardiovascular disease. Already in the beginning of 1990 I informed the Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company Hoffmann-La Roche about these discoveries. On June 2, 1990, I send the summary of the discovery that heart attacks and strokes are – similar to scurvy – the result of vitamin C deficiency to Prof. Jürgen Drews, head of Roche research world-wide and member of its executive board.

Roche is the world´s leading manufacturer of vitamin C raw material. The Roche executives realized immediately that my discovery will boost their international demand for vitamin C and create a multi-billion dollar market for vitamin C and other viatmins. In order to get further information from me, the executives of Hoffmann-La Roche signed a confidentiality agreement and invited me to represent the new understanding of heart disease at their global headquarter in Basel, Switzerland. However, Roche decided not to promote this medical breakthrough, despite the fact that they acknowledged it as a breakthrough. The reasons they gave to me in writing: Roche did not want to finance the dissemination of this understanding of heart disease for all their competitors and they did not want to compete with other in-house pharmaceutical drug developments, such as cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Thus, while they refused to promote this medical breakthrough that could have saved millions of lives, this pharmaceutical companies turned around and decided to conspire in form of a vitamin Cartel in order to take advantage of this medical breakthrough anyway. Roche apparently invited BASF, Rhone-Poulenc, Takeda and other manufacturers of vitamin raw materials to criminal price fixing on a global level. The fraudulent profits these companies made from their criminal practices are estimated over 100 billion dollars over the past ten years. Compared to that, the fines these companies had to pay are nothing less than peanuts.

Not only the US government should receive compensation for the damage these companies have done, but vitamin companies and above all consumers world-wide should sue these companies in class action law suites all over the world. This is even more urgent, since these companies have harmed millions of people twice: First, they refused to promote and disseminate the live-saving information on the use of vitamins in order to prevent heart disease, thereby causing millions of heart patients to die unnecessarily over the past ten years. Second, they caused financial damage to literally every vitamin consumer on earth.

My correspondence with the Roche executives also proves the statements by Hoffmann-La Roche as a lie that the leadership of Roche did not know about these criminal activities. The opposite is now clear: The executives of Roche, BASF, Rhône-Poulenc and others did not only know about these crimes, they were the organizers. The mangers responsible for these crimes up to the highest levels of these companies have to be prosecuted and held responsible for their actions. But already today everyone can call those companies and their leadership as criminals, who distinguish themselves from a street robber only by the magnitude of their crimes. The criminal activities of this vitamin Cartel have opened millions of people the eyes even further about the „business with disease" maintained by the pharmaceutical industry. The scandal of the vitamin Cartel has only just begun but it has already become another major nail in the coffin of the pharmaceutical industry.


5. On March 20, 2001, Karl Riedel, co chair of NNFA's International Committee testified before Congress stating that US Domestic Dietary Supplement Laws are not subject to harmonization to international standards being developed in the EU and at Codex. His statement was not true. His co-chair on NNFA's International Committee was Randy Dennin, CEO of Capsugel, subsidiary of Pfizer. Just two weeks after Riedel testified, Dennin chaired a meeting of IADSA in Capetown, South Africa titled "Toward a Global Regulatory Model"

If Riedel were in fact telling the truth, that US dietary supplement laws weren't being set up for harmonization to an international standard, then why would Dennin Chair a meeting intended to help pharmaceutical interests (including Pfizer) to develop a "global regulatory model"? Something is obviously not consistent here, obviously Riedel misled Congress- we ARE being set up for harmonization- it does not happen DIRECTLY, but Congress can be coersced into changing our domestic laws under the threat of trade sanctions by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body if we DON'T harmonize our laws.