It soon could be CRIMINAL to purchase health supplements

In July 2005, the WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, will meet in Rome to finalize its international controls on vitamins, herbs, natural healing methods and even food production. With the exception of 28 ultra low dose supplements (can only be 15% of the amounts naturally occurring in foods), it will be illegal to manufacture, buy, sell, recommend or use any other natural supplements. Only synthetic supplements produced and patented by international pharmacedical companies will be allowed. Anything beyond the 28 listed nutrients will require a medical prescription. Natural health practitioners will be banned as well.

This ominous regulation is called CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, which in Latin for "food code." It also will outlaw all organic, free-range and biodynamic farming while mandating that all animal feed be treated with antibiotics, hormones, and growth stimulants. Stunningly, CODEX will override the law of any country that is a member of thw World Trade Organization. Canada, Australia and all of Europe already submitted to CODEX.

On August 1, 2005, seventy-five percent of the natural substances currently available in health food stores and pharmacies in Europe will become illegal as a direct result of CODEX according to Rima E. Laibow, MC who has studied the entire 15,000 plus page CODEX. She says even a dose of vitamin C about 200 mg will be as illegal as heroin, as will Gulucosamine Sulfate for arthritis, Red Yeast Rice for cholesterol and even cod liver oil.

It you want to learn more about the World Trade Organization's CODEX,
healthfreedomUSA.org or healthfreedomrights.com tells of global corporations, who carefully avoid public notice, have quietly instigated CODEX for their own insatiable greed.

To oppose CODEX we must bombard US senators and congressmen with letters or faxes before they vote on this issue in May or June 2005.
Large corporations control are media and government, they should not be allowed to control our health.

:mad: :wow:

www.healthfreedomUSA.org or www.healthfreedomrights.com

Really, every now and then I see something so absurd on this site... "The WTO is going to outlaw vitamin C!" Honest to Christ... Send this one to Snopes!

And I talked with the owner who is making everyone aware as they come into the store. She asks all of us to get in touch with congress to stop this.

Debunked on snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/vitamins.asp

It's a good idea to research these things before posting them and representing them as true. This didn't pass the smell test for an instant, and sure enough, it's just an urban legend.

This is like the ultra-progressive response to the ultra-rightwing neo-libertarian cranks...

This was voted down by congress a few years ago, and they are once again trying to get it passed.

And the prior bill that was not passed proposed to regulate only certain supplements that can be dangerous (e.g., ma huang). There was never an attempt to regulate or ban vitamins and the like. Please read the snopes.com article in its entirety -- they do a fine job, as usual, of debunking a false rumor.

to all her patrons? She believes it to be true for some reason. I thought I was helping her out. I'm really suprised of the attitudes of people at this forum.

Sorry if you don't like my "attitude," but I'm interested in determining the truth, even if it might not be what I'd like to believe. If you can prove it's not a hoax, as by citing the bill that is allegedly before the current Congress, then I'll gladly accept it as true. But snopes.com is a highly reliable source for determining whether a rumor is true, false or unsubstantiated. I'm sure the health food store owner believes this to be true, but I'm a firm believer in getting independent confirmation of such things. I see no harm in that.

was the people making jokes, that's uncalled for. I posted something that I thought was legitmate, and people make jokes.

http://www.codexalimentarius.net

Uh-oh.

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/eol/e/wto03/wto3_26.htm#note1

also:

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/eol/e/wto03/wto3_27.htm

The SPS Agreement recognizes that there may be varied ways of ensuring food safety or animal and plant health protection in different countries, but provides that WTO Members should accept each other's regulations as equivalent whenever the same level of human, animal or plant health protection is achieved. Thus, mutual recognition agreements acknowledging the equivalence of health protection measures enforced by different approaches are negotiated on a bilateral or regional basis, and can help, for example, overcome any lack of international standards.



Burden of proof



In the negotiation of such mutual recognition agreements, the exporting country has the burden of demonstrating that its domestic sanitary requirements are at least as good as those of the importing country in that they achieve the same level of health protection. In doing so, the exporter must supply relevant information that the importer may need to form its judgement, including access to its health authorities, facilities, equipment and procedures. If the exporter's measures are found to provide the same level of health protection, they should be accepted as equivalent by its trading partners.



Bilateral consultations



The concept of equivalence requires countries to develop confidence in their trading partners' health and safety standards without compromising their own health objectives. Bilateral consultations and the sharing of information are essential to the successful negotiation of equivalence agreements. For example, if Country A is concerned with foot-and-mouth disease in Country B, the latter must cooperate by letting experts from Country A visit its farm operations and inspect its meat processing facilities.

This is just crap.

Again, this is the craziest hoax ever.

I've seen it before and it was attributed to a LaRouche conspiracy type site.

Having said that, given the Bush Criminal Empire's ties to the pharmaceutical industry worldwide, none of this would really surprise me if it happenned eventually, but I sincerely doubt they could implement such a fascist plan by August 1.

In any event, to pararaphrase NRA gun-nuts, they'll get my natural medicines when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

I've included articles from the natural products industry as well as the federal government and other sources. It does not appear that natural supplements will be banned in the U.S., though restrictions in some countries will occur.



Global Efforts to Standardize Supplement Regulations
by Steve Myers (Health Supplement Retailer Magazine)

Gaining knowledge about the regulations that manufacturers, retailers and consumers encounter abroad helps U.S. retailers compare their experience with their foreign counterparts. This can result in a better understanding of where the current U.S. dietary supplements regulations stand globally….

The biggest movement to create harmonized or uniform health food standards is the Rome-based Codex Alimentarius ('food code') Commission (CODEX)…

Fortunately for the U.S. supplement market, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) cannot be influenced or changed by Codex or any other international law, according to CFH. Under DSHEA, U.S. law regulates dietary supplements as a special class of products. "Although FDA is required to review U.S. regulations against any newly developed Codex guidelines, dietary supplements were specifically exempted from regulatory change from this process by inclusion of a special proviso in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) in 1998," Riedel said.
Other countries, however, can be heavily influenced by CODEX standards.

"Even though World Trade Organization (WTO) signatory countries are pledged to attempt harmonization of their domestic regulations to international standards, protection of national citizens takes precedence," explained Riedel. "Countries may apply a different standard, if such standard can by validated by science and law. Variant national regulations will still be the norm."

http://www.hsrmagazine.com/articles/041feat3.html

Guidelines Completed. Now What?

Report from Suzan Walter, president of American Holistic Health Association, on her attendance November 1-3, 2004 at the session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses in Bonn, Germany.

It's over. After more than a decade of wrangling, the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements as drafted by CCNFSDU have been completed and sent on for final adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) at its summer 2005 session. While governments may submit comments to the CAC by March 31, 2005, the formal finalization is expected to be merely a formality.

International "harmonization" of regulations continues.
The completion of debate on the Guidelines this year was not surprising, as the last of the major areas of disagreement were addressed at the 2003 session. What is significant is that because there are so many related matters that remain to unfold, it is not possible to state with assurance exactly how the Guidelines will impact us in future years.

The official Codex position, according to what was stated from the podium at the CCNFSDU session, is that Codex documents are not mandatory. Member countries decide how they wish to use them. The error of omission from this public position is that Codex signed agreements with the World Trade Organization (WTO). These agreements give the WTO the right to use any Codex document as an international trade standard. Therefore, the Guidelines can be used as a mandatory international trade standard by the WTO dispute resolution system. This is definitely not the impression that the CCNFSDU chair was giving to the assembled 280 assembled delegates from 62 countries and 25 non-governmental international organizations. ..
http://ahha.org/codexwalter2004.htm

CFSAN/Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (US federal government)
March 2005

Responses to Questions about Codex and Dietary Supplements

Many U.S. consumers have expressed concerns about the development of the Codex Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. Some are concerned that these Guidelines, if adopted by Codex, will restrict consumers' access to the wide range of vitamin and mineral supplements of varying potencies legally sold in the United States. Others are concerned that the Guidelines will limit the amount and type of information on the labels of dietary supplements sold in the United States. Still others believe that the Guidelines will require dietary supplements to be sold as drugs in the United States.
We hope the responses below help you understand why the adoption of Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements by Codex will not restrict U.S. consumers' access to vitamin and mineral supplements or impose any restrictions that go beyond those established by U.S. law. We also hope the responses help explain why the U.S. participates in the Codex process and how you can keep abreast of Codex activities.
· What is Codex?
· What work has Codex undertaken on vitamin and mineral supplements?
· What is the scope and content of these Guidelines?
· What has been the U.S. position on these Guidelines?
· Why won't these Guidelines restrict U.S. consumers' access to vitamin and mineral supplements?
· The Guidelines also include packaging and labeling provisions for vitamin and mineral food supplement products. Would vitamin and mineral supplements sold in the U.S. be required to comply with these?
· If the U.S. is not trying to harmonize its regulatory framework for dietary supplements with Codex, what are the benefits of our country participating in the process of developing these Codex Guidelines?
· How can I keep abreast of the work of Codex?
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscodex.html


Articles and Meetings on Codex (from Natural Health Alliance--this group made a presentation at the Natural Products Expo in Anaheim, the biggest trade show in the US for the natural products industry)

· Paul Taylor's article from Bonn 2005 (PDF, 111.87 kbs)
Paul Taylor's article from the Dr Rath Foundation website
· Suzanne Harris on Codex 2004 (PDF, 132.95 kbs)
Suzanne Harris' article following the Codex meetings in Bonn and Paris, November 2004
· Natural Products Expo 2005 Annaheim (PPT, 9,662.50 kbs)
Presentation at Codex meeting, 19 March 2005
· Suzanne Harris: Codex on US law (DOC, 36.00 kbs)
A fascinating take from a JD and seasoned Codex observer
· USLs to maximum levels: why risk assessment urgently needs review (DOC, 54.00 kbs)
Summary tables of showing the extremely low maximum levels derived by the German BfR using risk assessment protocols contained in Codex texts and the EU Food Supplements Directive
· ANH risk assessment consultation report to FAO/WHO (PDF, 403.98 kbs)
Download the ground-breaking report by the ANH to FAO/WHO nutrient risk assessment project, submitted December 2004 and widely endorsed by leading doctors and scientists

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?Action=archive&categoryID=9


Codex Alimentarius — An Emerging Threat

February 2005

The Greatest Threat to Freedom of Choice in Health Care that this Century has Ever Produced • by Helke Ferrie
http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/node/view/310