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" jham@iahf.com
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.


http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/news.asp?id=3921
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 http://www.petition450.org/english/default.html, 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 http://www.petition450.org/english/default.html

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 http://www.drrath.com/mr-publishing-internet/network/health_system/uk/busting_cartell.htm

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 http://www.crnusa.org/shellnr112000.html ]

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 http://www.petition450.org/english/default.html

"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 http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/envi_clai/envi_clai03_en.pdf

See IAHF's analysis of this bogus paper in the article titled Fuse is LIT:
Save Vitamins in EU & Globally at http://www.iahf.com/codex/20001022.html

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. http://www.io.com/~patrik/gulfwar2.htm