Positive Health Online

Latest: EU Food Supplement Directive: The tide is turning…

As supporters or interested parties of ANH, you may well have been confused by the conflicting media concerning the European Court of Justice ruling, handed down on the 12th July.

The mass media responded to a hail of press releases issued very soon after the judgement was handed down at around 10.00 am UK time. Within minutes of receipt of the judgement, our team was able to quickly see that although the EU Food Supplements Directive had not been invalidated, there were some important concessions in the judgement. The Court seemed to have reached the ultimate compromise: it was allowing the EU Institutions to avoid major embarrassment over an invalidated Directive, yet it still had to deal with the very significant problems that the Directive was going to pose to the availability of food (dietary) supplements, particularly those that contained ingredients identical to those found in foods.

Given that we knew that we disagreed with the sentiments that were contained in the ‘end of the world’ scenario releases that had travelled around the world early last Tuesday morning, we held off making a release until we had confirmed our preliminary analysis with our leading EU barrister, Paul Lasok QC. This enabled us to go out with our upbeat press release later in the day, but of course, it missed most of the news, because the wires were saturated with the earlier salvo of
negative releases.

We have now had a further 2 days to really dig into the judgement, and we are now solidly of the view that there are very substantial gains made as a result of the ruling. The essence of this you will find in our press release below (also on the Latest News on the ANH website). However, there is a lot of work still to do to help the EU institutions, competent authorities as well as the industry understand all of the complex implications, and to reach mutual agreement over the interpretation. We may also need to push for changes in the EU Member State laws which have been transposed from the EU directive itself.

So – all in all – we see a clear win for consumers, a clear win for practitioners and a clear win for the leading-edge of the innovative industry. These are the key groups that matter to us, because it is with these interests that we spearhead the revolution in healthcare that we all know is within our reach, where the use of natural products, in combination with positive changes to lifestyle, is at the heart of the resolution of most of the chronic disease and drug side-effect problems with which societies around the world are now burdened.

We find ourselves in a minority with our interpretation, but this is not a new feeling for us. This is how change begins.

We again wish to extend our huge gratitude to all of you who have allowed us to get this far – for believing in what we are trying to achieve. Please remember, that the road we are on is a long one and one on which we have to remain if we are to see the bright light of nutritional health management as the mainstay in future healthcare. Only with your support, can we continue.

In Health,
Dr Robert Verkerk, Executive Director
Alliance for Natural Health
info@alliance-natural-health.org
www.alliance-natural-health.org

ECJ Ruling Secures Future For Vitamins And Minerals
After further detailed analysis of the ECJ judgement with its expert EU barrister Paul Lasok QC, ANH anticipates that following the ECJ verdict:

•    The vast majority of vitamin and mineral food supplements will not be banned on 1 August;
•    The Directive now does not apply to natural forms of vitamins and minerals normally found in the diet;
•    Where it is necessary to be on the positive list, gaining admission will now be a much simpler, less time consuming and more affordable process than was previously the case;
•    The burden of proof for showing an ingredient to be unsafe will now lie with the regulator and not the manufacturer.

This successful outcome is, effectively, what ANH has been working towards for over three years.

The initial media reaction on Wednesday to the judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the Food Supplements Directive (FSD) was one of disappointment. Yet the Alliance for Natural Health hailed it as a victory. ANH’s specialist EU lawyers have now given a more considered interpretation of the ruling and still maintain that ANH has achieved the key objectives it has been working towards in relation to the FSD over the past three years. Crucially, it is highly likely that most vitamin and mineral supplements will continue to be available. Here’s why…

It is not a simple question of whether the FSD was lawful or not. The devil, as always, is in the detail. ANH challenged the lawfulness of the FSD because to ANH it appeared to have draconian and quite unnecessary consequences for the food supplements industry and for consumers. In upholding the lawfulness of the FSD, the ECJ has clarified what exactly the FSD actually means and has clearly restricted the scope of the application of the ban on non-FSD compliant nutrients. There are very significant and positive details within the judgement that will be beneficial to the millions of consumers who use vitamin and mineral supplements for their health and are key to everything that ANH has been campaigning for all along.

At the heart of the FSD is the ‘positive list’ of vitamin and mineral ingredients that are permitted. On 5 April 2005 the ECJ’s Advocate General described the procedure by which ingredients are added to the positive list as being “as transparent as a black box.” Because of the FSD’s lack of clarity and restrictive interpretation by regulators, it was widely understood that to get an ingredient onto the ‘positive list’, manufacturers would have to go through a very time consuming, onerous and costly process for them to prove that each nutrient was safe. This might have cost more than £250,000 per ingredient. With many innovative, leading-edge supplements containing sometimes upwards of 30 ingredients each, this burden upon many leading-edge manufacturers, typically being small companies, would effectively lead to them being put out of business. This would be the case even if the products included natural sources of vitamins and minerals that had been part of the human diet for thousands of years.

However, the judgement of the ECJ has now gone a long way to make the ‘black box’ more transparent, and to require (although not define) simplified procedures for getting ingredients onto the ‘positive list’. In summary, the analysis of the ECJ’s judgement by ANH’s legal and scientific team indicates:

1.    Bans of natural vitamins and minerals not on the positive list that are “normally found in or consumed as part of the diet” will now not occur. This coupled with the natural health industry’s response in submitting large numbers of ‘simplified dossiers’, the wide-reaching bans that were anticipated to come into force on 1 August 2005, are now unlikely to occur;

2.    There must be a greater degree of clarity on what information companies need to submit to admit an ingredient on to the positive list. This is likely to be considerably simpler, shorter and less expensive than previously feared, making it easily viable for companies to get ingredients on to the approved list;

3.    Once an ingredient is submitted for inclusion in the positive list, it cannot be refused unless the regulator finds the ingredient to be unsafe. If the regulator believes the ingredient should be rejected, it will have to undertake a full risk/safety assessment, based on “the most reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of international research,” that will then prove the ingredient (or dosage) to be unsafe. This transfers a considerable burden of proof from the manufacturer to the regulator, principally the European Food Safety Authority. Furthermore, any rejection can then be challenged in the courts.

ANH is very confident of the validity of its view, but is aware that as a result of the ECJ’s judgement, a controversy about the scope of the FSD has emerged. ANH says that the ECJ has limited the scope of the FSD to vitamins and minerals obtained from non-natural sources, while other bodies maintain that naturally sourced vitamins and minerals are covered by the FSD.

Commenting, Dr Robert Verkerk, Executive Director of ANH, said:

“The fact that the necessary requirements for admission to the positive list have been fundamentally changed now means that the vast majority of high quality and innovative vitamin and mineral food supplements will now, with relative ease and limited expense, be able to join the positive list and thus not face a ban.

“These changes to the positive list have been at the heart of what the ANH has been campaigning for over the last three and a half years and indeed, formed the major part of its legal challenge to aspects of the Food Supplements Directive.

“In achieving this, ANH has therefore gained a very significant victory for consumers, practitioners, retailers and manufacturers in protecting their right to buy, supply and produce safe, innovative and leading-edge food supplements across Europe.”

While some organisations have relied more on emotional outcry, calling for an all-or-nothing annulment of the Food Supplements Directive, this has never been the case with ANH. All it has wanted is sensible regulation, which is why it has worked ‘at the coalface’ in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg, with leading scientists, medical doctors and experts in EU law.

ANH has always been committed to the Food Supplements Directive properly doing its job as it provides a ‘safe harbour’ for food supplements that maintains them as a category of foods and prevents them from being considered as medicines.

In light of the judgement, ANH is ready and willing to work closely with the European Union Institutions and Competent Authorities in Member States, providing its professional expertise to ensure that the processes in the Food Supplements Directive are indeed based on good law and good, leading-edge science, which have been central to ANH’s approach from the outset.

A quick reminder on why ANH has been the driving force in challenging this legislation.

•    ANH was formed in 2002 specifically to contest the Food Supplements Directive, two weeks before it was due to be approved in the European Parliament. Few even knew of this controversial EU legislation at this time;
•    ANH raised media awareness of the issues at the time, including the positive list and the prospect that thousands of food supplements could disappear;
•    ANH brought the landmark legal challenge to the FSD in the European Courts;
•    ANH provided the technical, scientific and nutritional data in support of its challenge, also sharing its information with other parties involved in mounting a parallel challenge

Without the efforts of this small, spirited organisation, the situation we are in today, where most food supplements should remain freely available, would not have happened, as the Directive would have been misunderstood and applied incorrectly.

On the basis of this interpretation of the ECJ ruling, the ‘David and Goliath’ challenge brought by the Alliance for Natural Health should have a positive outcome for the millions who choose the leading edge in natural healthcare.

What is at Stake
Had the ban on vitamins and minerals been implemented without the restrictions imposed now by the ECJ:

•    Over 5000 products would have disappeared from the shelves of UK health stores as a result of the ban removing access to over 300 vitamin and mineral ingredients (out of a total of about 420). These include, among others, the main natural forms of Vitamin E, several forms of vitamin C, the key natural form of folic acid, MSM and a range of minerals such as vanadium, silicon and boron, all being products which millions of consumers choose to take as part of their regular health regime and have done so without any ill effects for many years;

•    An individual’s freedom of choice to take safe natural health products would have been removed – 40% of the UK’s population take vitamins and minerals;

•    Products would have been banned with absolutely no scientific justification. Many of the world’s leading scientific and medical experts in nutrition support the absence of any proper basis for the proposed bans;

•    Further legislative proposals by the EU are due to be considered by the European Parliament later this year and next. These include restrictions on herbal products, on maximum dosages of vitamins and minerals and restrictions on health claims of foods. Again, the ANH is working to help positively shape such legislation using its mantra of ‘good science and good law’.

Further Information

Alliance for Natural Health
www.alliance-natural-health.org
Dr Robert Verkerk, Executive Director  Tel. +44 (0)1252 371 275
robv@alliance-natural-health.org
David C. Hinde, Solicitor, Legal Director  Tel: +44 (0)20 7738 1640
davidh@alliance-natural-health.org
IKON Associates, (PR advisers to the Alliance for Natural Health)
Adrian Shaw  Tel: +44 (0)1483 535102  Mobile: +44 (0)797 990 0733
adrian@ikonassociates.com
Paul Donkersley  Tel: +44 (0)1483 535101  Mobile: +44 (0)796 764 6046
paul@ikonassociates.com

Surprise Move Sees Controversial EU Directive Upheld

Two British trade bodies have called upon the Prime Minister to intervene in Europe following the defeat of their challenge to the European Union’s controversial Food Supplements Directive in the courts today.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg ruled that despite earlier indications it would overturn the measure, the directive is indeed compatible with community law.

Due to come into effect in August, the directive threatens up to 5,000 commonly consumed products on sale in the UK. Together these contain more than 200 nutrients, used safely in specialist supplements for many years but not on the Directive’s ‘positive’ list of permitted substances.

Lawyers for the Health Food Manufacturers’ Association (HFMA) and the National Association of Heath Stores (NAHS) argued at the ECJ in January that the EU had no power to make the controversial directive.

In April, the Advocate General, a high-ranking official appointed by the Court, reviewed the arguments presented by both sides and concluded the Directive to be incompatible with community law.

The HFMA and NAHS argued implementation would impose an unnecessary burden on British business and there were no reasons to believe it was necessary to protect consumers’ welfare.

They also said the directive violated the central community principle of subsidiarity, meaning decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level – in this case by competent authorities in the UK – and was an unlawful restriction on the freedom to trade.

The challengers say the disproportionate regulatory costs will result in severe difficulties for many smaller, more specialist supplement suppliers hit hardest by the conditions of the directive.

David Adams, director of HFMA, said: “We’re extremely disappointed with today’s verdict. However, whilst thousands of safe and popular supplements are threatened either because their ingredients are not listed or because the potency levels of the supplements are higher than other countries are used to, action can still be taken to preserve consumer choice in the UK.

“We call on the Prime Minister, who currently holds the EU Presidency, to deliver now on his stated commitments and go to Brussels to get the legislation rewritten in such a way that the UK is allowed to permit onto its national market products which otherwise lie outside its restrictive scope. There is still a golden opportunity to bring great news to millions of supplement users”.

Andrew Lockley, head of public law at national solicitors Irwin Mitchell, is legal advisor to the HFMA and NAHS.

He said: “The implementation of this directive will negatively affect consumers and the health food industry, not only in the UK but across Europe. The ECJ exists to do justice in the EU, but today’s verdict fails to recognise the shortcomings of this directive or protect the interests of consumers and businesses.”

Also part of the legal team opposing the directive were Rhodri Thompson QC and Sam Grodzinski, barristers at Matrix Chambers, London.

Further information

Andrew Lockley, Irwin Mitchell Solicitors  Tel: 0114 274 4658 or 07889 023335
lockleya@irwinmitchell.co.uk

Natural Gallstone Removal

This fail-safe method of removing gallstones worked for me! And I now have a green gallstone preserved as proof.

It’s so simple that surgery seems criminal, especially considering you may be minus a gallbladder! Another fine example of hacking from allopathic medicine! Talk about primitive or what! Talk about a rip-off, according to the ref. cited, a number of doctors know about this but still don’t use it. Who are the quacks here? Disgusting!

Drink daily (one litre per day with or without meals – any way you like) fresh apple juice (I used organic apple juice). This will soften the stones to such an extent that you can squash them with your fingers.

On the 6th day, skip dinner. At 9 pm take 1 or 2 tablespoons of Epsom salt dissolved in 1-3 tablespoons of warm water.

At 10 pm shake together half-cup (4 Oz) unrefined, cold pressed olive oil and 2 oz lemon juice and drink.

Immediately go to bed and lie on your right side with your right knee drawn up toward your chin. Remain in this position for 30 minutes before going to sleep, to help olive oil drain. Another Epson salt solution may be needed during the night, so prepare before going to bed. Next morning you will pass green stones as large as your thumb without feeling a thing.

In my case they where about the size of a pea. At first I thought nothing had happened as the stool was mostly water and I did not observe anything, just yellow (bile?) oily stuff. And I thought the procedure did not work. Needless to say I was very disappointed. However, I had to go again and this time it was still very watery but less yellow and I saw some lumps floating here and there. At first I thought it was some particulate matter and almost ignored it since from my first experience I was not expecting the method had worked – but was curious to see what the lumps were, so fished one out and low and behold, after rinsing, it was a green stone! Must have been at least a dozen or so and probably there were many the first time hidden below the yellow liquid.

WOW – now I am believer. Also seem to have more energy a nice unexpected side benefit! It’s so easy and enjoyable to do – think will make it an annual event. Should keep the liver tiptop especially the energy benefit.

So far I have done this four time. My last time included red stones. For some it can take 10 to 20 time before a change in stone type is observed.

Reference

What Doctors Don’t Tell You. Letters to the editor (recipe: from the Dulwich Health Society England). March 1997.
Source: Chris Gupta chrisgupta@alumni.uwaterloo.ca
www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/

Pitfalls of a Vegetarian Diet?

In the article Pitfalls of a Vegetarian Diet (Positive Health Issue 85) Feb 2003), Penny Crowther is correct about the importance of beans and tofu (it IS made from Soy Beans), but I’m so surprised of the ignorance of people who don’t realize that a human body is so much more efficient than cattle or any other animal. It just points to the another important reason why knowing where we came from is important.

Do you know about the health study done in 1979 that found out that Seventh-Day Adventists live at least seven years longer than the general population? That’s because that almost all of them ate more grains, nuts and legumes than most people. There is now, it started in 2004, another study to find out why they live longer. The study, so far, has found out that the length has moved from seven years to longer. How much longer will be printed in the final report. There are several Health and Wellness Centers all over America and probably other countries that know a lot more about health and wellness that the general field of medicine does not know yet.

For example, do you know that sunshine produces serotonin in the brain and serotonin produces the sleep and anti-stress hormone Melatonin at night? You need Melatonin to sleep. Do you know that MSG and Aspartame makes the electrical charge between the brain cells misfire and die? The Health and Wellness Centers actually take patients and turn their bad health around, even making them healthy? Do you that Melatonin will cure the Post-Partum Depression?

BJ Gheen
Mistymom65@comcast.net

Further Development of Cancer Hypothesis

Since my article in Positive Health in April 2005 (see Issue 110) regarding the link between and imbalanced Autonomic Nervous System and cancer development (an imbalance to the ‘sympathetic’ side predisposes to solid cancers, an imbalance to the ‘parasympathetic’ side predisposes to blood-based cancers), I have been tracking down further relevant research. Whilst the Bulgarian study I referred to in April is stunningly strong evidence for the hypothesis, I cannot find a second study that confirms their findings, although there is much ‘hear-say’ evidence. The Bulgarian study used the ‘heart rate variability’ measure to define an ANS imbalance, which is meant to be reasonably reliable but is difficult to set up for a ‘well’ population.

However I have recently found some research that used the ‘at rest heart rate’ to see if that was linked to cancer development. The ‘at rest heart rate’ is linked to the ANS balance, but weakly because other factors such as heart or artery problems, and drugs such as nicotine, also affect it. Plus the value in itself varies according to how stimulated the person being measured is by the experimental process, making the measure imprecise. The results of these studies were inconclusive as one study found a slight link between cancer and a high heart rate, but the other did not. As my theory says that a low ‘at rest heart rate’ should also be linked to some cancers (blood based cancers) these studies would not necessarily spot the link if they just looked for a correlation between a high heart rate and cancer.

Nevertheless, looking at the detailed results they did show some people getting cancer from the middle of the ‘at rest heart rate’ spectrum which, despite the imprecise nature of the measure, caused me some concern as it is the first evidence that did not seem to fit with my hypothesis. One reason for this could be a very high carcinogen load, but another relates to a refinement of my hypothesis. The refinement relates to the fact that yet other research has found a clear and strong link between chronic inflammation and cancers subsequently developing in these specific tissues.

This fits in very closely with my hypothesis, because the reason the ANS imbalance led to solid cancers is due to the exclusion of cancer-fighting cells, such as macrophages, from tissues that have been under long term (chronic) imbalance, i.e. stressed and some tissues slightly chronically inflamed. Therefore chronic inflammation caused by separate reasons than the ANS will also provide the environment for cancers to develop, for the same reason, giving an explanation for the ‘at rest heart rate’ inconclusive results.

I think that another worthwhile avenue to develop is Dr Chris Busby’s second hit hypothesis for cancer initiation. Dr Busby (in Wings of Death) gave a very convincingly explanation for the observed leukaemia clusters around nuclear sites and why some (blood-borne) cancers are linked to radiation levels (strontium 90 being a major villain, rather than the gamma radiation). But I think that his theory can fit the wider area of many other types of cancer and carcinogens. I need to see if I can find research into specific carcinogens and see if the double hit theory explains why they are carcinogens and why other substances are not. The second hit hypothesis is that a cell can be damaged once and self-repair, but if it is damaged by a second hit whilst it is in recovery mode from the first hit, then the cell cannot reverse or restart the repair process so the cell’s self-repair only partially works and a damaged, potentially cancerous, cell results. Whether the cancerous cell starts to divide and initiates a full blown cancer or is destroyed early on fits in to my hypothesis that it depends on the body’s metabolism – the ANS balance – and whether the specific tissue housing the cancerous cell is chronically inflamed.
I would appreciate any comments.

John Spottiswoode
Managing Director of Food Cures Ltd
john.spottiswoode@btinternet.com
www.foodcures.net

Scientific Study Launched To Shed Light On EU’s ‘Black Box’ Regulation Of Food Supplements

On 5 April 2005, the European Court of Justice’s Advocate General, Leendert Geelhoed, provided his Opinion on a legal challenge filed by the Alliance for Natural Health which concluded that the EU Food Supplements Directive was invalid under EU law. The Advocate General stated that the procedure for admitting ingredients to a ‘positive list’ had the “transparency of a black box”. The Court’s ruling, which will take into account the Opinion of the Advocate General, will be issued from the Court in Luxembourg on the 12th of July,

Unless the legal challenge is successful next month, the Food Supplements Directive could potentially ban, as of 1 August 2005, up to 75 percent of vitamin and mineral forms currently on the European market including many of those found naturally in foods. Due to the devastating impact this would have on consumers as well as practitioners and industry, the Alliance for Natural Health, the lead party in the legal challenge of the Directive, has today commissioned, under the sponsorship of the International Nutritional Company (INC BV, Netherlands), an independent group of professional risk analysis scientists to evaluate the overall regulation of food supplements in the EU. The study will focus in particular on developing a new and appropriate scientific risk assessment methodology for vitamins, minerals and other micro-nutrients.

The study, entitled Food Supplements and European Regulation: Black box or level playing field rationality?, will be led by Dr Jaap Hanekamp and Professor Aalt Bast, of the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland (HAN) Foundation, which has previously provided definitive risk assessment studies to assist governments on key human health issues such as nitrates in food and drinking water and antibiotic growth promoters in livestock.

Dr. Hanekamp, CEO of the HAN Foundation, said today:

“In view of the procedural problems that the Directive poses for industry, it is essential to develop a straightforward, rational, transparent, and scientifically coherent benchmark methodology to regulate food supplements cost-effectively within a European, or even a global, level-playing field in which assessment and management are explicitly linked.”

INC spokesman Bert Schwitters comments:

“Nutrients deserve our fullest credit because they are essential to life. Their safety must not be evaluated by applying the methods traditionally used in dealing with chemical and pharmaceutical compounds. Nutrients are our safest and most economic means to maintain and restore health. In terms of public health “too little” poses a far greater risk than “too much.” Evaluating nutrients’ safety must be done in a scientific and balanced way that pays respect to the fundamental fact that we cannot do without them.”

Dr Robert Verkerk, executive director of the Alliance for Natural Health, added:

“It is essential that the issue of food supplements regulation is looked at by a leading independent group of risk analysis scientists with a blank sheet of paper, before any amendment to the Directive is finalized and before the international guidelines on vitamin and mineral food supplements are finalized through the UN’s Codex Alimentarius Commission in July. The HAN Foundation scientists are perfectly set to provide a fully independent, bias-free view on this complex area and it would benefit governments and the UN, as well as consumers, practitioners and industry, to await the findings of the study, due in around 9 months time, before any further regulations or guidelines are finalized.”

The Alliance for Natural Health has submitted a detailed report to the Food & Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization of the UN, which are developing a so-called “nutrient-appropriate risk assessment” system for food supplements likely to be adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is in turn about to finalize international guidelines on vitamin and mineral food supplements in its meeting in Rome between 4th and 9th July.

Dr Verkerk also noted:
“The implications of getting risk assessment wrong are horrendous. You could actually deprive very large numbers of people from taking nutrients that improve their health. The cost of this could be very great. And in our opinion, and that of medical doctors practising clinical nutrition and other scientists around the world who have endorsed our proposal, the existing risk assessment systems being used by Regulators are deeply flawed. We badly need a new model that takes into account both risks and benefits of food supplements. This approach is central to the remit of the HAN Foundation scientists.”

The Alliance for Natural Health believes that the results of the study will greatly facilitate legislation being developed for food supplements in Europe as well as globally, and will reduce the likelihood of future legal challenges.

The HAN Foundation study, commissioned and overseen by the Alliance for Natural Health, has been sponsored by International Nutrition Company (INC), the Netherlands-based worldwide supplier of natural products originally developed by Professor Jack Masquelier in France.

Further Information

Dr Robert Verkerk, Executive Director
Alliance for Natural Health
Tel: +44 (0)1252 371 275  Fax: +44 (0)845 280 4910
info@alliance-natural-health.org
www.alliance-natural-health.org

Dr Jaap Hanekamp, CEO
Heidelberg Appeal Nederland
Tel: + 31 79 346 0304  Fax: + 31 79 346 0643
jaapchan@euronet.nl
www.stichting-han.nl

Topical Patch Solution For Spinal Disc Problems

I have decided to invest my time and a little money in carrying out a small sample on some locals around where I live and practise homeopathy, whilst running a healthfood shop. I am conducting a small trial to see if these patches are able to provide the relief that a friend of mine in Japan has received. I already have the 5 people who are trying products for either 1 – 3 months and the results do look encouraging. I know there are many other people who suffer with joint disorders, so wondered if you are able to help me put it to Positive Health readers.

The patches are used to treat chronic joint conditions ; including osteo-arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, herniated disc (intervertebral cartilage cushions between the bones which have collapsed – and the cushioning material (like the soft center of a lozenge) has migrated out through the channels in the bone to hit the nerve behind it (excruciatingly painful) often surgery being the only known option.

Acutes: Bone Fractures, Bursitis, Inflammation Stage Tendinitis, TMJ, Tennis Elbow, Rotator Cuff , Groin injury, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Sprains and Bruises.

The products, originally from China, are already tried/tested and being sold in the US, and a number of other countries. Treatment is by way of patches using Chinese herbs and some oral medicine in chronic cases.

All comments or support gratefully received. Look forward to hearing back from you.

I am told these patches,
“…will avoid surgery (interverterbral titanium implants) at Watford General and as most people have no idea what a disc hernia is, until either they or someone in their family gets one. Then they find out, of course – and thinking that surgery is a viable option to relieve the agony (it isn’t).” Howard (Japan)

Andy Lowe, Licensed Homeopath
Tel 01923 85 6766  Mob 07973 675 477
lowepath@tiscali.co.uk

What Kind of People? by Michael Levy.

What kind of people would give scientists $333,000,000 to spend on sending one rocket into deep space, so that it can smash into a comet 82,000,000 miles away, while 30,000 people a day die in Africa from poverty?

Is it more important to derive small pieces of information on earth’s creation/evolution from the comet’s explosion rather than help the 44 million people without medical insurance in the USA?

Maybe there would be far fewer deaths from poverty, illness and malnutrition if human beings could relocate that simple natural package of awareness they embraced when mortals took their first steps on earth. Instead of probing inside a comet, perhaps scientists and politicians should probe into their own minds and find compassion and caring for all the people living on planet earth.

Before the launch of the next rocket to outer space by ‘brilliant’ scientists, to blow up another comet, maybe the kind people of the USA will stand up and be counted to voice their opinion… Help the poor people of earth before helping science run amok with tax payers money.

Michael Levy  Tel: 001 954-785-8439
MIKMIKL@aol.com

Codex Guidelines on Food Supplements Approved in Rome

In a retrograde step for health freedom, the text for the Codex Guidelines on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements was accepted on 4 July 2005.

Alliance for Natural Health comment
The text has now been accepted after some 10 years of deliberation. The specific methodology for risk assessment is as yet not finalized, so there is still some room for reducing the final and global impact of the Codex Guidelines.

On America’s Day of Independence, it appears as if the US government delegation did little to protect its the independence of its own people – at least in the area of health choices.

And it seems that few countries have fully appreciated that these Guidelines are a slippery slope to global guidelines and subsequent regulation for all natural health products, which could interfere with the future availability of traditions of botanical medicine, some of them thousands of years old.

And here’s what happened; many thanks to Diane Miller for her rapid reporting from the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting in Rome…

National Health Freedom Coalition: Codex Full Commission adopts Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements in final form July 4, 2005, Rome Italy. by Diane Miller JD.

Minutes ago the full Commission of Codex Alimentarius adopted in final form, the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. This adoption is the Step 8 adoption, the final stage of adoption for the international Codex guidelines. The Codex Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements guidelines are now official and no longer in draft form.

The Commission, attended by over 85 of the 171 Codex countries, adopted the guidelines by consensus method. There was brief discussion before adoption taking in comments from a small number of countries and two NGOs.

Australia requested adding the word “only” in Section 1.3 between the words “apply” and “in”. The sentence would then read “These guidelines apply only in those jurisdictions where products defined in 2.1 are regulated as foods.”

Australia’s comments were followed by request from Venzuela and Spain to clarify the Spanish translation.

Venezuela was followed by China. China stated that every government in making decisions about vitamins and minerals should take into account the dietary limitations of their own countries, that governments can select vitamins and minerals according to the customs and habits of their country. China also pointed out that there should be definitions of the sources of vitamins.

Columbia spoke up and commented that Vitamins and Minerals are intended for deficiencies and are recommended for health reasons and said that there has to be no exaggerated use of minerals.

Egypt commented and offered a clarification saying that vitamin and minerals can be considered if daily needs are not being met.

After the countries were heard, the Chairman recognized NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). National Health Federation (NHF) a world wide consumer organization with NGO status at Codex was recognized to speak. Attorney Scott Tipps of NHF stood and requested the guidelines not be adopted but rather be sent back to committee. He raised 3 important points justifying why the guidelines should be sent back to step 5; however these were not supported by other delegates. Learning that it would not, he consulted with Australia and Australia repeated their request for amendment. The Chair recommended adoption of the amendment and there was no dissent. Then the Chair recommended the guidelines be adopted at Stage 8 in their final form and that China submit their substantive amendment requests to the committee at their next meeting. There was no further comment or dissent from any country and the guidelines were adopted.

Further Information

Alliance for Natural Health info@alliance-natural-health.org
Please support new petition on www.alliance-natural-health.org;
www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/viamins%20to%20be%20banned%20worldwide…htm;
www.coalitionforhealthfreedom.org