Supercession of American Supplement Regulations by WTO

[Vash]

From the January 2005 Idaho Observer:


----------------------------------
----------------------------------

HEALTH FREEDOM ALERT


While Americans are preoccupied with stories and images of wars and tsunamis abroad, largely unreported is a cataclysmic domestic event that may hit home by August, 2005.

by Wallace Heath, Ph.D.

Your right to choose what vitamins, minerals and other supplements you want to take may end in August, 2005. After August, U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex Alimentarius (stringent food/ supplement regulations) is setting the food and nutritional supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. Codex standards are to be enforced by the WTO and will supercede U.S. law. The U.S. president and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO treaty was signed. Violators of Codex and other WTO-sponsored international laws will be punished by WTO trade sanctions.

Codex drastically restricts our free access to vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. The International Codex Commission met secretly in November, 2004, and finalized "Step 8 (the final stage)" which is scheduled for implementation seven months from now. Under Codex, no supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use; any potency higher than RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance - minimal strength) is a "drug" requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies (over 5,000 safe items now in health food stores will be banned, terminating health food stores as we now know them); Codex regulations enforced in the U.S. will be internationally binding; new supplements will be banned unless the developer is willing to endure a very rigorous and expensive Codex approval process.

Codex standards, as currently enforced in Norway and Germany, caused the price of zinc tablets to rise from $4 per bottle to $52; echinacea, an herb used for immune system enhancement, rose from $14 per bottle of 100 capsules to $153. Both zinc and echinacea are only available by prescription since they are now classified as "drugs." Vitamin C above 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg are only available by prescription. Essential amino acids such as arginine, lysine, proline, and carnitine; essential fatty acids (such as omegas 3, 6 and 9) and other essential supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, will NOT be available for purchase unless prescribed by a licensed physician. These Codex rules are not based on real science. They are regulations influenced by pharmaceutical giants who have used the Codex model to take control of vitamins and supplements in order to protect the lucrative pharmaceutical drug industry.

In 1993 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and drug corporations tried to put all supplements under restriction and prescription, but over four million outraged Americans demanded that Congress and the President protect their freedom to purchase essential health supplements without a prescription. As a result, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was passed in 1994. But unless health-conscious consumers worldwide get involved, DSHEA will be trumped by Codex and the World Trade Organization.

What can be done at this late hour? (1) Spread the word as much as possible by making copies of this article and sharing with others on talk radio shows, (2) Go to the following websites, become fully informed and contribute what you can to this life saving cause: www.iahf.com, www.alliance-natural-health.org , www.ahha.org (3) Contact your legislators, telling them to oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX restrictions with U.S. laws harmonizing with them, in effect repealing DSHEA. (4) Support H. R.1146, The American Sovereignty Restoration Act that repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws so that WTO sanctions and CODEX will not apply to the U.S. (6) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can mobilize their significant numbers to inform their representatives in government. (7) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural Health (ANH - see web site above). It has succeeded in challenging many Codex directives in World Court. The ANH challenge in the European Court of Justice is due to be heard on January 25, 2005. ANH is also leading initiatives to offset proposed limits on dosages and health claims through Codex legislation.

These critical events in Europe are ever more likely to lead to restrictions in the U.S. and elsewhere, as there is considerable political and commercial pressure for trade harmonization and regulation at a global level.

Decide NOW what it?s worth to protect your right to natural healthcare.

Codex and the FDA are attempting to "protect" us by controlling supplements in the same way they do prescription drugs. With the latest Vioxx scandal, a drug that was FDA approved, do you trust their approval methods? A study of prescription drugs by three medical scientists was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998?Vol. 279, No. 15, p. 1200: "?Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR?s) was found to be extremely high." Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients per year (290 per day) die from ADR?s and 2,200,000 need more hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs, properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals?none were considered malpractice. This is the number four cause of death in the U.S. When combined, these account for 7 percent of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to the deaths on 9-11 occurring every 10 days.

Due to the pharmaceutical/government controlled media, if a death occurred due to consumption of an over-the-counter nutritional supplement, the news would be on every front page. There is no need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn?t the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crashing a 757 every day?

[red5angel]

the sky is falling the sky is falling!!!!!

[Vash]

Perhaps the sky is not falling, but the ceiling certainly is getting lower.

[PangQuan]

lame...

[Samurai Jack]

Oh yeah. That's going to go over well. Hasn't the world court figured out that the U.S. isn't interested in it's B.S. regulations? Ohhhh, I'm soooo scared! The WTO is going to levy trade sanctions against the U.S.A.? The biggest, richest, don't-give-a-f*ck-what-the-rest-of-you-think- we're-invading-Iraq-cause-we-want-thier-oil country in the world? That'll be the day. We only signed up with the WTO in order to solidify our position as top dawgs in the economic food chain in the first place. The WTO ain't going to weaken it's position by ****ing off it's strongest supporter. Hell, we ARE the WTO.

I don't doubt that they'll try to do it, but it will fail miserably.

[Starchaser107]

is there a plan B though?

[Knifefighter]

You might be surprised at how many people accidenatly ruin their livers, hearts and kidneys from oversupplementation. I've personally known two people who died as a result of this. People who thought they were improving thier health.

[Vash]

It's a lack of study as regards health subjects which leads to misuse/outright abuse of nutritional supplements. The resulting problems are then blamed on the supplements themselves, and not the uninformed user.

[SPJ]

WTO becomes the Czar of the 21 century.

However, everything is negociated and agreed upon by memember countries. I think.

The governments are losing control or autonomy of their own fates.

The borders of nations are disappearing fast.

--

Good or bad?

:confused:

[Starchaser107]

globalization is neither good nor bad , at the same time it is both.
has anybody here ever dwelled on the fact that "The American Way" and "The New World Order" are the same thing... haha, America means "The New World"
I'm sorry I'm not trying to cause trouble, but I just find it a strange similarity.
carry on.

[David Jamieson]

The US has not been playing on a level field with many of the countries involved in the WTO.

Did you know that the US will charge tariffs on imported products and then give that money to the internal american industry that competes directly with the exporter of the goods in order to weasle out of obeying the rules that they themselves helped to write.

For those of you who know a little something about economics, not only is this unfair practice, it hinges on illegal and if you think it doesn't, then check your tax bill because the US is getting called on it to the tune of billions of dollars in retalliatory payouts after losing their hearing on the matter.

There's capitalism, then there's capitalist pigs!

lol

p.s Samurai Jack, I wonder when you are gonna realize the US is deeply involved in the writing and enforcement of the regulation of the wto, the imf etc etc. It is when they seek to manipulate those rules in thier favour where it becomes apparent that the forces of industry are...well, you make the call, I'm going with dirtbags. :p

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
There's capitalism, then there's capitalist pigs!

And then there's socialism, which is what's going on in this case.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Samurai Jack
Hell, we ARE the WTO.

Originally posted by Kung Lek
when you are gonna realize the US is deeply involved in the writing and enforcement of the regulation of the wto

The WTO has already sanctioned the US (for example, for the very issue Kung Lek raised). The US is typically one of the strongest voices against WTO developments (for example, during the Doha Development Agenda in Cancun, etc.).

[Christopher M]

Regarding the original article, there seems to be some essential information missing. The Codex Alimentarius was established in 1963. The WTO doesn't enforce the Codex, it uses the Codex as a standard for international consensus on food for when member countries enter WTO disputes on the matter. The upcoming changes (August, 2005) are an internal EU agreement, and not in any sense actions by the WTO or US.

These points completely dismiss the underlying argument here. The FDA thing fails as an attempt to link this to the US -- it's completely unrelated (in fact, the event in question occurred before the WTO existed).

If there is a problem with supernationalism here, the agency of that problem is the EU. But for some reason, no one has mentioned them.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by SPJ
The governments are losing control or autonomy of their own fates... Good or bad?

If the issue is the WTO, the only thing governments are losing is the ability to make the world, particularly developing countries, poor, in order to give their own economies a short-term and unsustainable economic boost. This is an overwhelmingly good thing -- in fact, it's probably the only effective, and certainly the most effective, tool we have for fighting poverty at the global level. For example, the Doha Development Agenda will put $200 billion USD a year into the economies of developing countries (4x what they have ever received in aid), and decrease the number of people making less than $2 USD a day by 500 million. Again: overwhelmingly good.

[Vio]

People are goin a lil crazy with supplements

These consume those things like nothing else

[mickey]

ahhh, zee plan wurked, zee plan wurked.


I really think the government presence in our lives is more than enough. I really do not want to have to deal with a whole new system that the government is beholding to. Who in the hillbillies are these people in the WTO?

If we did not vote for them we should not have to listen to them. Then again, we have been operating without our Constitution for some time now and it makes it easier for controls like these to be put in place.

mickey

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by mickey
ahhh, zee plan wurked, zee plan wurked.

Well it turns out that the article is misleading, as I pointed out in my previous reply.

[David Jamieson]

The WTO itself is supported by the US, or anyone for that matter when the regulations favour the interestes of the parties concerned.

In truth there is no such thing as free trade and there are myriad reasons for that. Mostly it is greed or self interest, but there are many reasons.

I don't agree with other things that take place such as government funds bailing out private industry. If a business cannot function, then it should die. That's business in my opinion.

There are operations that are run like businesses that are forced to do so because of the environment they function in. A good example is a doctors practice. Should that doctor really have to be concerned with the Business practice or should the efforts be focused on healing and preventing? Where I lived, the Doctor has no choice but to be both doctor and business man. Those who lean more heavily to the business side of things usually leave the country because Canada is fairly socialistic when it comes to Doctoral and Legal Practice. Architects and engineers get a better shake as far as professions go.

There's some good points in Capitalism and there's some good points to Socialism. A blended solution is the solution. Too much leaning towards Capitalism and you will have a huge gap between wealthy and poor and no middle clas to speak of in a relatively short period of time. In which case the Governmnet would dry up because it wouldn't have the tax base it enjoys anymore (the middle classes pay most of the taxes in Canada and I think in the US as well). The middle class as is now exists mostly because of socially oriented policies in government.

Corporate welfare is another no-no although not disimilar to the point above about gov bailing big biz. And yet in practice, this happens alot in North America.

anyway, I think the WTO gains support when it serevs the interests of the country in question that is balking at the trade questions on the table. The uS have been practicing the same sort fo thing I mentioned earlier for years. NOw that it is a legal problem for them, they are of course going to go against it. The same as the Kyoto accord issues that the US gov has. Apparently they are not concerned with Global warming because it will ultimately interfere with someones pocketbook and trickle down.

But, if and when a plan B such as alternative fuels, the infrastructure to support them and the industry to manufacture the peripherals, well , i am just guessing but if the US had the only electric car on the market the would be pushing that Kyoto accord like it was the end of the world.

That's business though and you will find that the dollar will often supercede ethics and morals no matter what. Which brings us back to greed. Vicious circle ain't it?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
The WTO itself is supported by the US, or anyone for that matter when the regulations favour the interestes of the parties concerned.

Absolutely. But this isn't really supporting the WTO, right?


In truth there is no such thing as free trade and there are myriad reasons for that.

Absolutely. But the WTO is trying to change that.


Should that doctor really have to be concerned with the Business practice or should the efforts be focused on healing and preventing?

Well, the medical industry as a whole should definitely be concerned with business values, most particularly economic efficiency.


There's some good points in Capitalism and there's some good points to Socialism. A blended solution is the solution.

No: capitalism is the solution. :p


Too much leaning towards Capitalism and you will have a huge gap between wealthy and poor and no middle clas to speak of in a relatively short period of time.

I completely and fundamentally disagree. In classical socialist theory, note that there is no such thing as a middle class -- it's entirely a product and goal of capitalism.


Corporate welfare is another no-no

Absolutely: corporate welfare is another ploy from the socialist playbook.

[David Jamieson]

capitalism doesn't speak to how care is given to the old, teh infirm, the very young, those who can't help tehmselves etc etc. It will speak to it if there is profit, but what of those people who cannot afford the services but need them?

This is where socialism works and capitalism fails. There is a trade off in there somewhere between the two ideals.

We don't have to look too far back to a time when there were only the wealthy, the working class/the serving class and the poor. The diversity that there is now is much more acceptable on the whole although it still needs work.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
capitalism doesn't speak to how care is given to the old, teh infirm, the very young, those who can't help tehmselves etc etc.

Capitalism is a system of distributing resources, it neither speaks nor fails to speak of such things, which are rather the potential goals of a given system. For example, capitalism is one kind of answer to the question "How do we distribute resources to care for the old?"


but what of those people who cannot afford the services but need them?

'Only those who can afford services will get them' is not a required feature of capitalist systems.


We don't have to look too far back to a time when there were only the wealthy, the working class/the serving class and the poor.

That's true; but this has nothing to do with capitalism.


The diversity that there is now is much more acceptable

Absolutely; and this diversity is a result of creation of the middle class, which is in turn a product of capitalist thought.

[David Jamieson]

Chris-


cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

key to this is the part where it says:

"development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

ergo, the development won't be there for those who cannot afford it and so, it simply won't exist. problem solved in a capitalists eyes. That is also a trouble with Capitalism when it is taken as a philosophy (which it surprisingly enough does!) as opposed to a system of economics (which is what it really is). If one can find a philosophy that will work, but conflicts with the capitalist system, if they choose the capitalist system, the philosophy no matter how righteous will not gain ground.

A socio-economic system is the requirement. Capitalism works to an extent, but when it comes to taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, it has no safeguards in itself as a system to protect those people. Whereas other economic systems do, but then, they all have a fault here or there. It's a delicate dance and my personal opinion is that capitalism is stepping on the toes of it's partners all too often.

[mickey]

"zee plan" was to get people on this forum to notice Vash's thread.

I went as far as to contact the people that I purchase supplements from. They are well aware of it. As to what they and other companies will do as an aggregate, I do not know.

I do not know about some people, but when our country surrenders to a governing authority, I find it problematic and I find it to be a violation of our basic freedoms.

Here is a sci fi reminder of what can happen long term if we continue to sit back and watch things happen:

"SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!....PEOPLE!!!!"

We are not that far from this.

mickey

[David Jamieson]

we all surrender to government authority everyday regardless of the society we live in mickey.

some of it through social agreement (pay your property taxes, drive on teh right side of the road, general traffic rules and common behaviours in public...for the most part)

and some of the stuff we do, we have to submit.

You must go to school for instance, it is illegal to not attend elementary or middle school. I believe you are allowed to drop out of highschool if you choose to do so.

Income tax.

Old age pension.

and so on. You must work and pay in by government authority whether you get any benefit from your tax dollar or not.

Not to mention the vast waste of your tax dollars that is practiced and without any consultation of the public whatsoever outside of a vote every few years that are usually run on only a couple of issues that fit with the zeitgeist and have little to do with actually taking a look at the system that is corroding badly.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
"development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Standard dictionaries are not at all adequate references for technical knowledge. I reiterate: "Capitalism is a system of distributing resources, it neither speaks nor fails to speak of such things, which are rather the potential goals of a given system."

And this is equally true of socialism.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by mickey
I do not know about some people, but when our country surrenders to a governing authority, I find it problematic and I find it to be a violation of our basic freedoms.

"Well it turns out that the article is misleading, as I pointed out in my previous reply."

[David Jamieson]

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

I think both these descriptions are adequate to the thread. Just so's it's clear. :p I mean, it's not like we were talking details anyway.

[Christopher M]

Well, that definition is consistent with the points I've made, so sure. Although, as an aside, that second part about Marxist-Leninist theory is actually wrong.