Written Comments Submitted on the Codex Vitamin Issue by IAHF to the House Government Reform Committee ("Oversight" Committee)

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:57:37 -0500

IAHF List and Other Vitamin Consumers Across the USA and World Wide: What you have before you represents a 5 year investigation of the Codex Vitamins issue by IAHF with much appreciated assistance by allied groups world wide especially: The World Natural Health Organization http://wnho.org/Citizens Voice for Health Rights (Canada) http://www.citizensvoice.org , La Leva di Archimede (Italy) http://www.laleva.cc , The Norwegian Health Institute (Norway), Heilsufrelsi (Iceland), Mayday (Denmark and Sweden), Consumers for Health Rights (UK), Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy (UK), New Zealand Charter of Alternative Health Practitioners (New Zealand) http://www.healthcharter.org.nz/, The Life Extension Foundation (USA) http://www.lef.org , The National Health Federation (USA), California Citizens for Health Freedom (USA) http://www.citizenshealth.org/, People Against Cancer (USA )http://www.peopleagainstcancer.com/, American Preventive Medical Assn (USA) http://www.apma.net/, Patients For Alternative Medicine (USA) http://www.pfam.net, Washington Assn. Naturopathic Physicians (USA) http://www.wamp.org, Bolles Clinic Washington State USA http://www.bollesclinic.com/, Gary Null Inc USA http://www.garynull.com/, Chile Natural (Chile) http://www.chilenatural.cl/, Centros Eco and Naturistas Integrales De Chile http://www.geocities.com/ceniuschile, The Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research (Australia) http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/ , PHARMAPACT, (People's Health Alliance Rejecting Medical Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Conspiratorial Tyranny- South Africa) http://www.angelfire.com/biz/pharmapact/MAIN.html, Matthias Rath Inc Netherlands http://www.rath.nl

IAHF encourages American consumers to read these comments carefully and to submit your own comments to your Senators and Congressmen, as well as to Congressman Burton and the other members of the House Oversight Committee (See http://www.house.gov/reform/) If you wish to incorporate IAHF's comments into your own comments, feel free. You might want to tell your Congressmen what you think of all the commentary provided below, especially if you wish to call their attention to some specific part of it. If you have any new insight to share with IAHF on this topic, please do. IAHF's final comments might change slightly from what is presented here as this is a rough draft of the final comments which IAHF will submit in Washington on February 28th 2001, the scheduled day of the Vitamin Hearing.

Preface to the House Oversight Committee:


Written Comments Submitted to The House Oversight Committee by John C. Hammell, President, International Advocates for Health Freedom PO Box 625 Floyd VA 24091 USA 800-333-2553 jham@iahf.com reachable by phone from 2/17-2/23 via Forrest Fernung 219-753-2875,219-722-5157 or at the health food store where he works at 219-735-0342 Comments represent input from several IAHF vitamin consumers all 50 states and from around the world.

Several True Grass Roots Witnesses Desiring to Present Oral Testimony Will be Contacting the Oversight Committee In Light of These Comments

These comments can be accessed at http://www.iahf.com/ by clicking on the spinning green disk on the front page of the site.

These comments replace a gif file that used to be accessable from the front page of the site, and which did constitute protected first amendment speech, but IAHF has removed that gif file in the interest of a peaceful debate. IAHF notes that the husband of a cousin of John Hammell (Mike Kashtock, PhD) works at the FDA as a chemist keeping lead out of glass ware such as wine bottles, and Hammell is thankful for his cousins work, which benefits the public health. Hammell asserts that the previous gif file was put there merely to engage in harmless venting, akin to going into a video arcade, due to the frustration often caused by the actions of the Agency in question with regards to vitamin issues. Hammell asserts truthfully that he does not "hate" the Agency, but does wish for Congress to closely monitor them on the Codex vitamin issue by carefully following all links provided in the discussion below in order to fully grasp what is being said. John Hammell wishes to publicly credit the late Carl C. Pfeiffer, MD, PhD for saving his life via healing nutrients after mainstream medicine almost killed him with toxic pharmaceutical drugs.

Truly, the gif file on the IAHF site that has been replaced by these comments was protected free speech under the US Constitution, and it is hereby replaced by information gathered during a 5 year investigation of this issue by Health Freedom Activists from Around the World, by IAHF and allied groups. IAHF encourages Congress to listen to what these international vitamin consumers from Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Netherlands, UK, Australia, South Africa, Denmark and other countries have to say on this issue as discussed on the Gary Null Radio show, hear audio archives at http://www.iahf.com/ in the Media Section. Congress should carefully note the very large number of signatures on both petitions discussed herein, which constitute the will of the vitamin consumers of the world, including the USA. Collectively, we inform Congress,the EU Parliament, and the UN's Codex Alimentarius Commission's CCNFSDU that we, as free people under God, are answerable only to our Creator in terms of what we choose to ingest into our own bodies, since we regard our vitamins as gifts to us from our Creator: vitamins, minerals, amino acids, probiotics, herbs . We remind Congress that vitamins, minerals, amino acids, trace elements and hormones constitute the proteins that comprise each and every one of our cells...

IAHF COMMENTS TO HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE ("OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE") Chaired by the Honorable Dan Burton with full Committee Members listed at http://www.house.gov/reform


So..... Who ARE the GRASS ROOTS? Answer: The Grass Roots are the thousands of Well Informed Vitamin Consumers from Indiana and all the rest of the 50 states as well as from at least 100 countries who have seen the letters signed by Congressmen Burton, Paul, Cook, Stump, and De Fazio (D-OR) (bi partisanly signed letter signed by the Chair of the House Oversight Committee) see gif files at http://www.iahf.com/codex/letter1.gif and http://www.iahf.com/codex/letter2.gif

All of these people expect the US Congress to hold GENUINE oversight hearing on this Codex vitamin issue, and THAT means not DISENFRANCHISING witnesses representing the grass roots seeing as how the vitamin trade associations so heavily represent multinational pharmaceutical interests which the grass roots does not trust http://www.crnusa.org/2members.html As anyone can see, CRN membership includes Hoffman La Roche (fined $500 Million in '99 by US Dept of Justice for engaging in illegal price fixing in the sale of vitamin raw materials) BASF (fined $250 Million in '99 by US Dept. of Justice for the same crime) Daiichi Fine Chemical (fined a lesser amount for the same crime) These companies ripped off consumers and vitamin manufacturers for a 10 year period, showing a MOTIVE for their current machinations involving CODEX. CRN staffer John Hathcock,PhD, formerly of the FDA, developed the questionable, allegedly "scientific" methodology used by the NAS to generate the paper which Congress quite PROPERLY ordered FDA in their letter to NOT put on the table at Codex.

WHAT did these letters from Congress to the FDA Tell FDA NOT To Do, By WHAT Authority, and WHY?

Answer: They told Dr.Yetley, Chair of the US Codex Delegation NOT to put a pharmaceutically funded paper purporting to "establish" "SAFE UPPER LEVELS" for already SAFE vitamins (eg: 35 mg for niacin just because niacin causes flushing, a purely harmless thing that only means the niacin is working to improve the circulation, some sensitive people experience flushing at low doses, but most do not, and in any case it only means the capillaries on the surface of the skin are dilating so you feel a harmless "prickling" sensation, and a reddening of the skin that quickly goes away. I've been taking megadoses of niacin for over 20 years, and it would be WRONG if I had to get a prescription for it some day just because of the harmless niacin flush.

When I called the pharmaceutically funded National Academy of Sciences to query them on this, they told me the niacin flush was a "DRUG" side effect. WRONG. Under current US law, (DSHEA) which NAS appears to want to have repealed, NIACIN is quite correctly defined as a FOOD SUBSTANCE, and the fact that it causes this harmless flushing is IRRELEVANT, is a sign of NAS BIAS against safe dietary supplements, and its indicative of a JUNK SCIENCE methodology being employed to tar and feather safe substances, theres nothing "scientific" about taking a toxicology formula, originally intended for the evaluation of TOXIC pharmaceuticals, and extrapolating from it to the evaluation of SAFE vitamin products, but THIS is what NAS is doing... (they are ALSO calling FLUORIDE an "essential nutrient" despite its well known TOXICITY.)

ON WHAT AUTHORITY were these letters written?

Answer: By the WILL of the AMERICAN PEOPLE who expressed their views on the issue of HARM-onizing our dietary supplement laws to the highly and unecessarily RESTRICTIVE regulations being developed by the UN Codex Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) and by the EUROPEAN UNION, whose Parliament just voted on Wednesday 2/14/2001 to impose these scientifically fraudulent so called "SAFE UPPER LIMITS" on these ALREADY SAFE products over the direct objection of 14,935 vitamin consumers from 98 countries including a huge number of Americans http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/petition_index.html while an ADDITIONAL very well informed consumers from all walks of life and all 50 states have signed Gary Null's petition at http://www.garynull.com/issues/Codex/AboutCodex.htm calling for REAL oversight to occurr on the Codex Vitamin Issue

YEAH- but you didn't REALLY answer the Question:

On what LEGAL AUTHORITY AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN in 1997 did these 5 members of Congress sign these letters?

Answer, on a basis of the FACT that an AMENDMENT was made to the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 ("FDAMA") PL 105-115 Stat.2296 in Section 803(c)(5) which was INTENDED to change the HARM-onization language of that law to STOP the FDA from continuing to engage in the constant PROCESS of HARM-onization from threatening the public health of people all over the world through their pharmaceutically funded actions, against the express will of the American people and the Congress as legally established by SENATOR ORRIN HATCH in the statement made in the CONFERENCE REPORT of FDAMA where he reflected the fact that his phones were ringing off the hook (and the Senate Labor Committees FAXES were running out of paper and ink) when he SAID, on November 9, 1997 on page S12246 (see below) PROOF POSITIVE THAT FDA IS IN VIOLATION OF THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WILL OF CONGRESS OVER CODEX VITAMIN ISSUE:

(in addition to the Dear Colleague Letter circulated by Congressman Paul, based on the legal analysis of Suzanne Harris, JD we have a Conference Report with a Statement by Senator Hatch which clearly shows the Will of the People and the Will of Congress Against Harm-onization:

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1997--CONFERENCE REPORT (Senate - November 09, 1997) (See the sentence in all CAPS below, you only need to skim the rest) (Below Hatch's statement see Bob Lake's declaration from FDA of their intent to IGNORE what Hatch said here.)

[How I located this on the web: 1. http://thomas.loc.gov 2. Underneath Congressional Record click on "Text Search" Select 105th Congress ('97-'98) 3. Use "dietary supplements" as search word 4. Select Senator Hatch 5. Date search from 11/09/97-11/09/97 6. Select 5th listing: FDAMA Conference Report Nov.9, '97 Scroll down to Hatch p.S12246

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wanted to take this brief opportunity to commend Chairman Jeffords for a job well done--for producing a bill which will dramatically improve the way the Food and Drug Administration does business as we move into the 21st century.

That has been one of my top priorities during my service in the Senate. I am proud that we are having the opportunity today to vote on this historic legislation which will have so many benefits for my State of Utah.

Utah is the home to over 100 medical device manufacturers, and several pharmaceutical manufacturers as well. We also are the Nation's leading producer of dietary supplements .

The Utah Life Sciences Industries Association, the leading trade association for Utah device and drug manufacturers, has worked closely with the Congress in formulating this legislation, which will have many positive effects for Utah.

On behalf of our Utah drug and device manufacturers, let me thank you Chairman Jeffords, and our colleague in the House, Chairman Tom Bliley, for producing a bill which has encouraged the FDA to work in a more collaborative manner and to get the job done, to get it done professionally and expeditiously, without all the bureaucratic hassles we have experienced in the past.


Finally, I wish to thank all of the staff who worked literally through the night to make today's passage of the conference report for S. 830 possible. You can be proud of your work.



John Hammell wrote a letter to Bob Lake of FDA citing Hatch's Conference Report statement as representing the will of Congress and the will of the people regarding the amendment to FDAMA intended to protect against harmonization to a more restrictive international standard.

You should know that FDA is angling on the fact that most Judges ignore the will of Congress as expressed through Conference Reports, and other evidence such as Congressman Paul's "Dear Colleague" letter which prompted the amendment intended to protect us, and go strictly by the letter of the law itself as expressed in the statute. In FDA's response to my legal questions, Bob Lake clearly shows that the FDA feels that our amendment doesn't stop them at ALL, as was the express will of the people and the will of Congress, so if proper OVERSIGHT is to REALLY take place, Congress will have to LOOK at what FDA is saying, and take PRECISE MEASURES to remedy the situation in light of evidence that the Federal Statute which ostensibly protects our laws from harmonization in fact is nothing more than a paper tiger due to how the WTO's Dispute Settlement process works, and how we're roped into a constant process of harmonization due to Mutual Recognition Agreements, and the Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures Agreement.

Excerpt from STATEMENT OF L.Robert Lake, Director, Office of Regulations and Policy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA Made in response to legal questions of John Hammell of IAHF Lake's letter is dated June 16, 2000 The Original Letter Will be Submitted to the Committee

Lake's reaction here is to the amendment to FDAMA referenced by Senator Hatch in the statement cited above from the Conference Report:

"Ability of the FDA to Participate in International Fora Such as the Codex in Relation to Dietary Supplements Section 803(c) was added to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) by section 410(b) of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), Public Law No. 105-115, 111 Stat 2296 (1997). Paragraphs (1)through (4) of section 803(c) impose an affirmative requirement on the agency to, among other things, regularly participate in meetings with foreign governments to discuss and reach agreement on approaches to harmonize regulatory requirements. Paragraph (c)(5) of Section 803 merely negates that requirement with regard to dietary supplements saying, "Paragraphs (1) through (4) shall not apply with respect to [dietary supplements]." Thus paragraph (c)(5) operates solely to release FDA from the affirmative obligation established by paragraph (c)(3) of participating in international harmonization efforts with regard to dietary supplements. It does not prohibit FDA from participating in those efforts."

Lake Quoted FURTHER in Letter to Hammell (Original to be Submitted to House Oversight Committee) [THIS is the CLENCHER!]

With regards to your more specific questions concerning harmonization and international standard setting organizations such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX), the SPS Agreement provides that members may base their sanitary and phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist, or may introduce measures that result in a higher level of protection if there is scientific justification, or which a country determines to be appropriate in accord with provisions of the SPS agreement. SPS Agreement, Article 3(1) and (3). International Standards, guidelines and recommendations with regard to food safety are defined as those established by Codex. SPS Agreement, Annex A. A members food safety measure that conforms to Codex standard shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human or animal health, and shall be presumed to be consistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreement and the GATT 1994. SPS Agreement, Article 3(2)

Lake then states something that does not compute based on the aforementioned language, and Congress must probe this statement very thoroughly:

"As you can see members are free to deviate from Codex's standards to attain a higher degree of public health protection. In addition, the SPS agreement does not require a country to adopt any international standard at all. Therefor any standards established by Codex, including any relating to dietary supplements, would not require Congress or FDA to change US laws or regulations concerning dietary supplements. Finally, with regard to your questions relating to procedures before WTO panels, I suggest you contact the US Trade Representative who can explain in more detail how it coordinates resolution of issues (including food safety issues) before a WTO panel."

IAHF comments on Lake's comments: Look at what he says: "the SPS Agreement provides that members may base their sanitary and phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist, or may introduce measures that result in a higher level of protection if there is scientific justification."

THIS IS THE WHOLE KEY: FDA is ILLEGALLY HELPING Pharmaceutical interests, desiring to steal our vitamins to FALSELY DEFINE vitamin safety. THIS was why 5 members of Congress told Yetley not to put the NAS paper on the table at Codex. It falsely defines vitamin safety and thereby goes directly against DSHEA. It is not a matter of debate that the paper was funded by pharmaceutical interests and is therefor unobjective and this constitutes a conflict of interest that is unacceptable to the American people as declared by Senator Hatch in his Conference Report statement quoted above. The American people have CLEARLY spoken on this issue, and Bob Lake has shown us FDA's "artful" interpretation of the language, showing CLEARLY that FDA intends to IGNORE the will of the people.


NOW SEE: Alert/U.S. Sovereignty or World Trade Organization? http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update6.17.00.htm Note This Statement by the Congressional Research Service: "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)

(To frame this Congressional Research statement in context- The FDA is attempting to create an UNSCIENTFIC SAFETY STANDARD for vitamins, and the only legal OUT by which a country can legally agree to NOT harmonize its laws to a more restrictive international standard is on a basis of SAFETY, so by FALSELY defining SAFETY STANDARDS for vitamins, FDA is setting up the American people by empowering the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to Make an Adverse Ruling against our Vitamin Laws. Lake fully ADMITS this if you look CAREFULLY at the language quoted above"



CRN CLEARLY REPRESENTS PHARMACEUTICAL INTERESTS and it is WELL KNOWN that the CHAIR of NNFA's International Committee, Randy Dennin, CEO of Capsugel, Subsidiary of Warner Lambert, which was bought out by PFIZER, was the MAIN REASON NNFA endorsed the FDA's pro pharmaceutical position at Codex according to past NNFA President Joe Bassett. All the rest of the committee just blindly followed Dennin's lead, and THAT was a SERIOUS conflict of interest that went directly against NNFA's conflict of interest bylaw, Article 14.3, but the WOOL has been pulled over the eyes of the rank and file of NNFA, although the smaller companies are now STARTING to SEE THROUGH THE SPIN, and their NUMBERS will only keep INCREASING..... especially as IAHF is going to Anaheim and all the other trade shows from NOW ON to help them see the light...

YEAH- But what about 19 U.S.C. 3512 (a)(1) and (a)(2) which FDA, CRN, and NNFA all assert is protecting our domestic law? ANSWER: On PAPER this PAPER TIGER "protects" our domestic laws (including Proxmire Vitamin Act of '76 and DSHEA) but in REALITY, it does NOT If it DID, Congressman Ron Paul wouldn't have felt it necessary to introduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act in order to protect our domestic laws from HARM-onization, and 18 congressmen last Congress wouldn't have cosponsored if they didn't see a clear NEED to. The FACT is that Lake of FDA has stated in WRITING that the FDA is engaging in a constant process of HARM-onization and that is due to Mutual Recognition Agreements the USA has signed under NAFTA and via the Uruguay Round of GATT which created the WTO This EROSION of our SOVEREINGTY is the REAL REASON we need PROPER Oversight on the Codex Vitamin Issue.

BUT IS THERE ANY REAL EVIDENCE that we need the ASRA? Answer, ponder the images on this website for a minute and you tell ME because one picture is worth a thousand words!!! http://www.louisbeam.com/seattle.htm Here we see the POLICE STATE in action against the AMERICAN PEOPLE: we see demonstrators who were merely expressing their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS being kicked in the nuts, teargassed, and manhandled by body armor clad MULTINATIONAL CORPORATE GOONS who are trying to LINE THEIR POCKETS by making the laws the SAME world wide. In Seattle these goons opposed our first amendment rights, and our right to FREEDOM OF ASSEMLY. In Seattle, people from all walks of life, all ages, all sides of the political spectrum from Steel Workers to Microsoft Employees to Environmentalists to College Students to VITAMIN CONSUMERS alerted by IAHF protested the INTRUSION of the WTO, UN, and MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS on our AMERICAN way of life.


Answser: Check out the video footage of Rolf Grossklauss, the German Chair of the UN's CCNSDU as he FORCED me, a card carrying member of the American Media Association with a valid press pass to TURN MY CAMCORDER OFF and STOP VIDEOTAPING just one half hour into the Codex meeting in Berlin in 1998 after I had traveled to Germany on grass roots donations from vitamin consumers in the USA and other countries who all wanted me to put a videotape from the meeting on the web so they could see it too. You can see this video footage at http://www.iahf.com in the MEDIA SECTION, Check the video footage on Dr.Rath's website of the demonstration I participated in out in the street in front of the CCNFSDU meeting in Berlin last June after being WRONGLY thrown off the US delegation, and WRONGLY barred from the meeting by the German government as a member of the press in good standing by Bgvv Press Office Jurgen Kundke. I participated in Dr.Rath's PEACEFUL LAW ABIDING demonstration at which ZERO arrests were made because the CODEX process is NON transparent, as a member of the press I was excluded for no good reason at all See http://www.drrath.com/codex/usa/index.htm

YEAH- BUT AREN'T WE AT LEAST BEING REPRESENTED AT THESE CODEX MEETINGS BY A SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN? Answer: No. We vitamin consumers are being "represented" by Dr. Beth Yetley an UNELECTED BUREAUCRAT from the FDA, a government agency with a LONG AND SORDID history of ATTACKING the dietary supplement industry which is NOW trying to set us up for HARM-onization by FALSELY DEFINING VITAMIN SAFETY via a pharmaceutically funded paper that many very CREDIBLE CRITICS with GOOD SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS have carefully reviewed and found sorely lacking.....

After ignoring the letter signed by several members of Congress at http://www.iahf.com/codex/letter1.gif and http://www.iahf.com/codex/letter2.gif we see Dr.Beth Yetley of the FDA totally IGNORING the letter on VIDEOTAPE shot by John Hammell of IAHF at http://www.iahf.com in the media section and at http://www.louisbeam.com/seattle.htm we see the sort of scene that this lack of REAL representation can trigger......

Will Congress provide us with REAL oversight so that scenes like this won't keep RECURRING? Keep in mind what led to Hammell bringing his cam corder in to that pre meeting of the US Delegation the day before the Codex meeting started in Berlin. As a member of the US Delegation to the CCNFSDU, Hammell had been sent a copy of the US Draft Comments which FDA intended to put on the table at the Codex meeting. Referenced in them was a an NAS paper bearing the SUSPICIOUS TITLE " A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" (See http://www.iahf.com NAS PAPER where this elusive paper has been posted for the world to read.)

While the FDA had always previously sent copies of all documents referenced in their draft comments very CURIOUSLY they chose to NOT send me THIS paper, so just 2 weeks before the meeting was to start in Germany, I hadn't received a copy of the document, so I called the FDA and talked to Yetley, but she PRETENDED to not know the URL where the paper could be downloaded in full off the web, so I was not able to download it. So I quite PROPERLY requested that the FDA send it to me by OVERNIGHT MAIL given its length (over 40 pages) since I wanted to send it out to some medical and scientific experts for their scrutiny since it had NEVER UNDERGONE A PUBLIC COMMENTS PERIOD OF ANY KIND, WAS NEVER REFERENCED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, and SINCE NOT EVEN I, A MEMBER OF THE US DELEGATION had been sent a copy.

BUT DID FDA OVERNIGHT IT TO ME? Noooooooooo!!!! It was sent on the Slow Boat To China, predictably enough... It got here just ONE WEEK before I went to Germany for the Codex meeting, and in that time, I got it reviewed by the former Editor of the Journal of Applied Nutrition: Brian Leibovitz, PhD who pronounced it PSEUDOSCIENCE

QUESTION: But wasn't Leibovitz once on the payroll of Twinlab, and didn't that bias HIM? Answer: Leibovitz' dad was once the financier for Armond Hammer, and Leibovitz never took a CENT in pay from Twinlab during the more than 20 years that he formulated their fine products. He lived on a TRUST FUND and his devotion to science was PURE. He committed suicide this past year in large measure due to emotional pain he felt stemming from his ability to see exactly HOW our vitamins are being STOLEN from us by pharmaceutical interests. Leibovitz lamented The Codex HARMonization situation, and the fact that the FDA MEDWATCH program constitutes FRAUD in that the FDA is going on a basis of ANNONYMOUS UNCONFIRMED CASE REPORTS in an effort to DEMONIZE safe dietary supplements.

You can see Leibovitz expert scientific assessment of the bogus methodology employed in the NAS paper in his Editorial: "The ABC's of Confusion as a Weapon" at http://www.iahf.com/leibovitz/jon.html#CONFUSE Leibovitz truthfully contends that even WATER can be dangerous at SOME level, drink enough WATER and you will BURST YOUR STOMACH WALL, but he pointed out that we don't see the pharmaceutically funded NAS developing "UL"s on WATER since they don't see any NEED to POLITICALLY CONTROL water, since it doesn't cut into the sale of their patented prescription DRUGS the way SAFE VITAMINS do, so they don't have to try to DEMONIZE water, "only" vitamins.... This is REALLY an effort to bring back the DYKSTRA REPORT so that vitamins "won't act as a disencentive to pharmaceutical drugs in the marketplace" (Gary Dykstra's infamous Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which followed passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 was what prompted the GRASS ROOTS REVOLT that led to passage of DSHEA, and now FDA and their pharmaceutical allies in CRN are trying a BACK DOOR play in order to REPEAL DSHEA via HARM-onization to more restrictive International Standards....

WHAT ARE THE CRITICISMS OF THE NAS PAPER TITLED "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" other than Leibovitz Editorial?


See the List of 1000 scientific references documenting the science behind dietary supplements at the end of these comments- if the Committee needs MORE references, Gary Null Inc http://www.garynull.com has the largest collection of peer reviewed studies documenting the science behind dietary supplements in the world. Null's collection of such studies exceeds the collection at the National Institutes of Health.

Rick Malter, PhD has written "The NAS Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Upper Intake Levels for Nutrients: A Critical Review From a Psycho-physiological Perspective" that you can read at http://www.iahf.com/nas/nasrebut.html This paper was published this past year in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine http://www.orthomed.org/jom/jom.htm For more information on Orthomolecular Medicine see http://www.orthomed.org/ The term "orthomolecular" was first coined by the late Linus Pauling, PhD, the only man in history to win two completely unshared Nobel Prizes. He coined the term in an article in Science Magazine in 1968 to describe what he correctly termed a new scientific breakthrough that would end up permanently changing healthcare, to enable people to be healthy so they wouldn't have to fork over big bucks to see doctors. Needless to say, this idea angered the medical establishment, but is loved by the grass roots, including all the vitamin consumers who helped pass DSHEA, which is currently threatened by HARM-onization to grossly restrictive international standards fast under development in the EU: [See latest documented news from the EU below, the EU Parliament just passed the totally unscientific "UL"s over there, flat out ignoring the will of vitamin consumers world wide who are very tired of this form of paternalism]

Also see The Perils and Pitfalls of Harmonized Food Supplements at http://www.iahf.com/nas/20001128.html by Bill Sardi of Knowledge of Health Inc.

See "NAS Study To Attack Vitamin Safety: Spur CODEX Harmonization Between EU and US: Theft in Progress" by John Hammell http://www.iahf.com/nas/20001201.html where Alison Yates (the same person at NAS who termed fluoride an "essential nutrient" according to Prof Paul Connett, PhD <ggvideo@northnet.org> of St.Lawrence University and of the International Society for Fluoride Research who caught NAS selectively IGNORING their OWN safety data on fluoride, http://www.fluoride-journal.com/ ) has announced that NAS will begin their LASTEST pharmaceutically funded spin campaign against vitamin safety.

Note that NAS is being aided and abetted in this dubious waste of taxpayers money by pharmaceutical interests dominating the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogues "Dietary Supplement Working Group" (a totally non transparent group that includes Hoffman La Roche, which was fined $500 Million for engaging in illegal price fixing in sale of vitamins in '99 by the US DOJ

See http://www.crnusa.org/shellnr112000.html Note that Peter Heer of Hoffman La Roche is one of CRN's spokespersons on this issue: Note statement to harmonize US vitamin laws to the very restrictive laws fast under development in the EU [evidence below of EU Parliament's pro "UL" vote on Wednesday]

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 jcordaro@crnusa.org or Peter Heer–Europe peter.heer@roche.com.

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:58:27 +0100
To: John Hammell jham@iahf.com
From: Josef Hasslberger sepp@lastrega.com
Subject: Fwd: European Parliament vote
Dear all,

the two attachments are

1) the reasoning of medical and pharmaceutical interests who wanted to keep the directive "on target" so as to not include anything that could be remotely thought of as a medicine, such as any ingredient with a "physiological function".

2) an evaluation of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 14/2/2001.


here is what I have been able so far to gather of the results of the vote in the European Parliament on the food supplements directive, on 14 February 2001.

The directive inched into a slightly more positive direction, but our major concerns, which are the almost insurmountable hurdle of medicinal/scientific approval for new substances and the uncertainty of what will become of allowed dosages, remain unchanged.

The next round will be played in the Council of Europe, to which national health ministries send their experts. This is expected to last about four months.

Depending on the outcome of discussions in the Council, which will result in a "Common Position" of the member states on the matter, the proposed directive may then go back to the Parliament or, if the Common position is identical to or almost identical to the version voted by the EU Parliament, then the directive could go directly on it's way to approval.

Consumers will now have to target their national health authorities, and possibly national parliaments, while the discussions on the common position are going on.

The Council is not losing any time. Already on Thursday 15 February, a meeting of the Council was to be held, for the permanent representatives of each country (not the national ministerial experts) to discuss the outcome of the vote of the day before.

Kind regards


(Attached files Josef sent opened here show that the EU Parliament is paternalistically totally ignoring the will of the vitamin consumers of the world, dubiously "led" by a the EU Pharmacists association, since they obivously wish to steal the health food stores business:

CP and PGEU are concerned for the consequences the adoption of certain amendments proposed to the Plenary on the Muller Report (AS-0025/2001) might have on Public Health. Please find attached a short statement which clarifies the issue and explains the reasoning of our concerns.

In order to protect Public Health we believe it is essential to vote against Amendment 33, and consequent 34, 35 and Amendment 44 and consequent 46, 47

Yours sincerely

Lisette Tiddens Engwirda Gretha Assved
Secretary General Secretary General

The doctors and pharmacists of the European Union, represented by the Standing Committee of European Doctors (CP) and the Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union (PGEU) agree upon the following policy in order to protect public health.



The Directive on Food supplements is before the European Parliament for its first reading. In the current review of the food legislation the Commission tabled on May 2000 a proposal for a directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements. The Environment Committee of the EP has approved an amendment concerning the definition of substances covered by this Directive. The amendment reads as follows:
Art. 2(b) which defines what is nutrients
(i) "Vitamins as listed in point 1 of annex 1" (the list will be drawn up by the Scientific Committee on Food)
(ii) "Minerals as listed in point 1 of annex 1" (the list will be drawn up by the Scientific Committee on Food)
(new text:)
(ii) Other ingredients with a nutritional function which in accordance with Article 4(4) are included in Annex I.

The amendment was a result of a compromise. The original text of the amendment was reading:

(ii) Other ingredients with a nutritional or physiological function which in accordance with Article 4(4) are included in Annex 1.

The Environment Committee has decided for a compromise on the grounds of public health protection because otherwise the amendment would have significantly broadened the scope of the Directive and would have undermined the original goal of the Directive. This compromise is again under discussion and amendments to broaden the scope of the Directive by adding "ingredients with physiological effect" will again be up for vote in the Plenary.

CP and PGEU are very concerned about this. Our two organisations support the compromise adopted by the Environment Committee that does not endanger the objectives of this directive and recommend to the Plenary not to further amend this point. The consequences of this addition would have severe negative impact on Public Health. The effect would be the exact opposite to the original intent of the Directive.


The Directive was meant to clarify the area of food supplements by increasing transparency and consumers confidence. The Directive sets certain requirements to be fulfilled by those products (doses, labelling, notification etc.) and to clarify the status of certain borderline products by setting a clear distinction between medicine and food supplements. (Footnote: So far it is possible to have products which are considered medicines in certain Member States and food in others.)

To achieve this the Commission decided to draft a Directive applicable to FOOD SUPPLEMENTS defined as substances with a nutritional effect. The set of provisions established by the Directive was meant to respond to these categories of products with certain criteria. Adding the word "physiological" would include products which would require different provisions in order to keep the same guarantees for Consumers and for Public Health Protection, in fact it would include medicinal products.

Directive 65/65/EEC defines medicine as "any substance or combination of substances which might be administered . . . with a view to making a medical diagnosis or to restoring correcting or modifying physiological functions".

This definition, widely recognized, would be conflicting with the proposed addition.

Doctors and Pharmacists are concerned about the possible addition and the consequences it might have.

Last but not least, the addition of the word "physiological" would also create a high degree of uncertainty among European citizens because products considered medicines in certain Member States could "switch" into this category. This would have impact also on Public Health Protection and would confuse European citizens.


In order to keep the original aim of the Directive, to respond to the concerns of Public Health Protection the Scope of the Directive should stay as was defined by the Commission, or eventually, as was approved by the ENVIRONMENT Committee of the EP. The inclusion of "ingredients with a physiological function" would pose European Citizens at risk and should therefore be rejected.



1) CP members are 17 National medical associations (Named) of the EU member states and the EFTA countries as well as 14 observers and associate members NMA's from other European countries, many of them applicant countries to EU. The CP represents 1,4 million doctors within the EU/EEC. http://www.cpme.be

2) The Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union or PGEU exists was founded in 1959 and has the national organisations of pharmacists within the 15 member states as member, plus 11 countries as observer member, all in all PGEU represents in around 600.000 people working in community pharmacies.


IAHF Notes See This: The EU Supplement Industry Conclusions Drawn from the Vote of the EU Parliament over the EU Vitamin Directive: Note Vitamin Industry concern over "whitewashing" on the "UL issue" by the (so called) "Scientific Committee on Food" of the EU Parliament- they're just as pharmaceutically biased as the NAS is. Note THIS QUOTE below: "and the setting of upper levels of dosage is still in the hands of the SCF and the Commission in a procedure of little transparency." No transparency?? Check out http://www.iahf.com Media Section, video footage of Grossklauss forcing me to shut my Cam Corder off when I am a licensed member of the American Media Assn with a Valid Press Pass

Decisions of the European Parliament on the food supplements directive

The plenary session of the European Parliament (EP) discussed and voted on the food supplements directive as proposed by the European Commission and on amendments as proposed by the Parliament's Environment Committee, on 13 and 14 February 2001.

Reports available so far indicate that industry (ehpm) successfully countered a last minute heavy lobbying by pharmaceutical and medical interests, who asked the Parliament not to extend the concept of food supplements to products containing substances with a physiological function, arguing that this would confuse consumers and would make some products that are today sold as medicines "switch category" to become food supplements. (The text of the medical/pharmaceutical arguments is available as a separate file).

With regard to substances missing from the "positive" lists in the annex, the Parliament apparently voted to create a list of possible additions to be put into a sub-annex and ask the Commission and the Scientific Committee on Food to expedite the examination of these substances.

Amendments to article 5 of the proposed directive (on how to set upper safe limits for supplements) were all rejected.

The next stage in the process of approval of the directive will be meetings of the Council of Ministers (the member state authorities) who, among themselves, must now reach a Common Position.

Apparently if the member states representatives reach a Common Position that is more or less identical to the decisions reached by Parliament, there will be no second reading in the EP. If instead the Member states position is different, the directive will have to return another time to the Parliament for discussion.

Some of the amendments accepted by the EP are:

1) The definition of a food supplement in article 2 was amended to include "other substances with a nutritional or physiological function" as permitted ingredients in food supplements.

(The original proposal by the Commission stated that only those vitamins and minerals listed in the annex could be used in food supplements)

2) Such "other ingredients" would however in any case have to be included in the annex to the directive, "as soon as the necessary scientific data is available".

3) A new part B of annex II is created, and the Commission is asked to ensure that nutrients and ingredients contained in food supplements marketed in the EUprior to the date of adoption of the directive and listed in this new part of the annex "undergo scientific evaluation as soon as the necessary documents are submitted" and are then moved (or not) to the actual annex, after examination by the SCF.

4) Combination products have been expressly acknowledged as existing, and "supplements containing substances other than those covered by the directive should be subject to national laws. Products containing both vitamins or minerals and other ingredients should be subject to the directive only in respect of their vitamin and mineral content." However: "Specific rules concerning other nutrients or other substances in food supplements should be laid down as soon as adequate scientific data is available".


Although industry is apparently very satisfied with the result, we are still at the mercy of the Scientific Committee on Food for the scientific evaluation of substances (even asking them to evaluate not only vitamins and minerals but other ingredients as well) and the setting of upper levels of dosage is still in the hands of the SCF and the Commission in a procedure of little transparency. The two major concerns pointed out in our letter to Members of the EP have not been removed by the amendments adopted by the Parliament in their Valentine's day decision.


See http://www.tradewatch.org GLOBAL TRADE WATCH Following specific examples:

The Coming NAFTA Crash: The Deadly Impact of a Secret NAFTA Tribunal's Decision to Open U.S. Highways to Unsafe Mexican Trucks New Evidence Suggests that a NAFTA Ruling Allowing Mexican Trucks Access to U.S. Will Expose the Public to Significant Threats


See Mutual Recognition Agreements http://www.harmonizationalert.org/MRA/mra.htm

Public Citizen Comments on Pharmaceutical Annex to the U.S.-EU Mutual Recognition Agreement
IAHF shares agreement with Public Citizen over this comment

"The very notion of equivalence allows for imprecise, subjective comparisons that are not appropriate when dealing with issues as important as public health and safety. However, given that equivalency decisions between nations are moving forward, we urge exacting criteria for making equivalence determinations. A standard or a regulatory system should only be declared equivalent if it provides precisely the same or greater level of substantive protection for public health and safety and after there is an appropriate opportunity for public comment." IAHF Notes that FDA dislikes transparency, and tried frequently to hide what they are in fact doing. IAHF maintains that FDA is trying to HIDE their efforts to harmonize US Dietary supplement laws to the grossly unscientific so called "UL" standard under rapid "development" in the EU

FDA Response to Public Citizen Comments

IAHF is concerned by THIS statement: "FDA stated that this "may result in harmonization or congruence of requirements resulting in strengthened consumer protection, more effective regulatory approaches, and reduced regulatory burden on each side of the Atlantic" (see Federal Register, November 6, 1998" IAHF notes that FDA has some very strange ideas as to what constitutes "Consumer Protection" IAHF contends that FDA regards NAS's Risk Assessment data on "UL"s including the 35 mg UL on niacin to be "good for the public health" IAHF contends that a large number of clinicians with experience in recommending niacin for their patients would disagree strongly with this statement, and feels that Congress should discuss this matter with the Editorial Board of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, see http://www.orthomed.org/jom/jom.htm because as a medical Journal ONLY JOM would be in line with the findings of DSHEA, which is the will of the people, the law of the land, the law IAHF contends FDA is trying to repeal via HARM-onization, along with the Proxmire Act of 1976 which preserves our access to high potency vitamins.

Additional Evidence that Our Laws are being Undermined by HARM-onization and that our SOVEREIGNTY is being UNDERMINED and that CONGRESS MUST STOP THIS or else Congressmen will be IGNORING on their OATHS of OFFICE:

Alert/U.S. Sovereignty or World Trade Organization? http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update6.17.00.htm Note This Statement by the Congressional Research Service:"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)

(To frame this in context- The FDA is attempting to create a PHONE SAFETY STANDARD for vitamins, and the only legal OUT by which a country can legally agree to NOT harmonize its laws to a more restrictive international standard is on a basis of SAFETY, so by FALSELY defining SAFETY STANDARDS for vitamins, FDA is setting up the American people by empowering the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to Make an Adverse Ruling against our Vitamin Laws"

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 planning...no 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

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/icc.htm HCR 23 To Keep the USA from Being Part of the International Criminal Court- Unless we steer clear of this, American citizens will find themselves hauled before a court that totally ignores our protection under the United States Constitution

International Criminal Court Legislation

H.C.R. 23 - Write to Your Rep.




1st Session

H. CON. RES. 23

Expressing 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.


February 8, 2001

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations.


Expressing 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.

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense;

Whereas former President Clinton's designee signed the International Criminal Court Treaty on December 31, 2000;

Whereas the term 'crimes of aggression', as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action, thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, like United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the United States Government;

Whereas the people of the United States are self-governing, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others;

Whereas the treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial;

Whereas the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids;

Whereas the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a party is not bound to a treaty unless it has consented to be bound;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty breaks substantially with accepted norms of international law because it extends its jurisdiction even to the nationals of countries that do not sign and ratify the treaty;

Whereas the International Criminal Court would be empowered unilaterally to investigate, try, and punish certain crimes, contrary to the current international norm of affording countries the primary responsibility for punishing these crimes;

Whereas approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that `[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States', and vested powers cannot be transferred;

Whereas each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution;

Whereas in order to make a treaty, the United States Constitution requires the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate and the concurrence of the Senate by a 2/3 vote; and

Whereas former President Clinton signed the International Criminal Court Treaty but expressed his intention not to submit the treaty to the Senate, thereby rendering his act procedurally inadequate and unconstitutional: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty; and (2) President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.

Every WTO Dispute Settlement decision has gone against the Environment, Public Health, Safety: Many examples can be found at http://www.tradewatch.org A decision to "HARM-onize" our dietary supplement laws to the highly restrictive EU Vitamin Directive or to Codex would directly undermine DSHEA..

THE TABD http://www.tabd.org is clearly seeking to harmonize our laws to the EU's and they've flat out stated this in a press release show in these comments. The TACD (Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue http://www.tacd.org ) includes several groups that have publicly vowed to repeal DSHEA including Center for Science in the Public Interest (Bruce Silverglade), and Public Citizen (Sidney Wolfe) as well as a European group that also expresses the pharmaceutically biased view of a Dietician called "BEUC". These groups do not speak for the American people as expressed under Proxmire or DSHEA, and true oversight on this issue must extend to a careful examination of these bodies as well. IAHF notes that while we agree with Public Citizen's accurate assessment of many issues pertaining to harmonization, and cite some of their information in these comments, we find Sidney Wolfe's attitude toward DSHEA to be blatantly contrary to Global Trade Watch's overall mission to safeguard America's sovereign laws.

Yetley was caught on video at the pre meeting of the US delegation BLATANTLY IGNORING the will of the people and the will of Congress as clearly expressed herein. The document signed by the Chair of the House Oversight Committee and other members that she BLATANTLY ignored can be seen at http://www.iahf.com/codex/letter1.gif and http://www.iahf.com/codex/letter2.gif

The videotape of Yetley ignoring the letters can be seen at http://www.iahf.com in the Media section along with a Videoclip that shows Grossklauss, the German Chair of the Meeting FORCE John Hammell, carrying a valid press pass from the American Media Assn, to turn his camcorder off. This clearly illustrates the non transparency of CCNFSDU meetings, and THIS is why a large DEMONSTRATION was held AGAINST the meeting led by Matthias Rath, MD lf Almelo Netherlands. See the videofootage and photos from this demonstration at http://www.drrath.com/codex/usa/index.htm

NOTE TO CONGRESS: Dr. Rath holds a U.S. patent on a nutritional protocol that completely PREVENTS and CURES the world's number one killer disease: Heart Disease: Rath correctly points out that the largest sector of pharmaceutical sale lies in the sale of heart drugs, many of which are quite TOXIC

United States Patent Rath et al. Date of Patent: Jan.11, 1994 Patent Number: 5,278,189 PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF OCCLUSIVE CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE WITH ASCORBATE AND SUBSTANCES THAT INHIBIT THE BINDING OF LIPOPROTEIN(a) ABSTRACT A method is provided for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular ... http://www.drrath.com/menue/news_content/uk/aktuell-uk/united_states_patent_patent_numb.htm

As Dr.Rath correctly points out, Germany has a long sordid history of committing pharmaceutical genocide against the people of the world. He correctly notes that IG Farben, the Drug and Chemical Cartel comprised of Hoechst, Bayer, and BASF fueled Hitler's war machine.

Clearly, with Dr.Rath's Patent on a nutritional protocol involving the use of common vitamins such as C, E, etc, we see that what has been called "Heart Disease" is not a disease at ALL, its just a simple VITAMIN DEFICIENCY!!!

Could THIS be the REAL reason why the FDA is attempting to help pharmaceutical interests STEAL our vitamins using JUNK SCIENCE to FALSELY DEFINE vitamin safety in order to SET US UP for HARM-onization???

Question: Does the US Congress have the INTEGRITY necessary to conduct GENUINE oversight on this issue?

IAHF maintains that it WILL have the necessary integrity if it invites witnesses capable of truly representing the American people, and several good witnesses are ready and willing to testify right now. IAHF maintains that CRN does not represent the will of the people as clearly discussed above, and NNFA doesn't either because the Chair of their International Committee which determined their position on the Codex vitamin issue is CEO of Capsugel, subsidiary of Warner Lambert, which was bought out by Pfizer.

Although these companies pay LIP SERVICE to supporting US law, many of them are actively joining forces with FDA to set us up for HARM-onization to the grossly restrictive vitamin standard under development now in the EU, and at Codex as documented above.

IAHF asserts that Congress MUST take REAL steps to STOP FDA from attempting to violate the will of the people, as clearly expressed on this matter of HARM-onization

With thanks to Tamara Mosegaard from Vitamin Freedom Group Mayday in Denmark;