How About Some Good News?

May 1st, 2007

Before I tell you what I think might be the best news we have had in a long time, let me ask your indulgence: right now, because of the strength with which people all over the world are resonating with our message, We have 10,647 non-spam emails in our email box. 6,736 are unread. So please rest assured that if you have sent the Natural Solutions Foundation (or me, for that matter) an email and have not gotten a reply it is because we are still plowing through the huge mass of very welcome communications. Every email received by the Natural Solutions Foundation gets answered by a real, live, caring and involved person. Just understand that it may take a bit of time.

As long as we are talking numbers, here are a few more:

179,358 people have sent comments to the FDA through our comments page on the dangerous FDA Guidance. A total of 426,506 folks have tried to send comments through that page but could not for technical (or other) reasons. That is a lot of people responding to this major threat to their health freedom. And, despite what is floating around the internet, it IS a major threat. One prominent health site, Mercola.com, citing the assessment of his “$500 an hour lawyer” poo pooed the idea that there is any threat from the Guidance. They are dead wrong. High fees don’t make an assessment right (or wrong) One usually high priced lawyer looses every case.

Here is what ONE of our lawyers, also high priced, who happens to be in agreement with our other high priced lawyers, wrote on his comments area:

I note that Gavin posted my Threat Assessment regarding the FDA draft CAM
guidance on this blog. The draft was “issued” on 12/26/06, though FDA waited
until 02/26/07 to give notice in the Federal Register, initially allowing
little time to reply. That’s now been extended to 05/29/07. Apparently, some
people, not used to reading the bureaucratic-speak in the draft, don’t
appreciate the potential harm in codifying bad law, thus they consider my
views controversial.

Since comments are limited on this blog [REL notes: he refers here to the health site he was posting on], here is a link to a blog entry of
mine about how the FDA CAM guidance, Codex, the NAU etc. are linked and how
all need attention, since eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Please
see:

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php/?p=367

As stated therein, “All of these multiple assaults are, of course, connected.
They are connected in philosophy, proponents and beneficiaries. Their
proponents refuse to allow us the freedom to make our own choices, deeming
that their political power gives them the authority to decide for us. We have
had enough of such deciders. They have given us a medical system that kills
hundreds of thousands each year…”

Please consider all views with an open mind. I for one refuse to disallow
anyone’s efforts to preserve and enhance health freedom, and I refuse to
condemn anyone for disagreeing with my reading of the threat inherent in the
anti-CAM guidance.

Despite the circulation of information on the web saying that the Guidance is not significant, the Natural Solutions Foundation, based on the assessment of our legal team, continues to ring this alarm bell. And the public continues to respond! Remember that the comment period has been extended to May 29 and it is vitally important to make sure that we flood the FDA with our strong commitment to maintaining our access to natural health options.

According to Alexa.com, which tracks internet use, the rank of www.HealthFreedomUSA.org in the US is 17,490 (22,832 in Canada) and 45,631 globally among all the sites that they track! They also say that 3 out of every thousand people using the internet visited our site yesterday! Clearly, the health freedom bell is ringing.

It may, just may, have rung at Codex. True, there were blankets ready to muffle its sound, but sitting in the (seemingly endless) meeting yesterday of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling a rather astonishing thing happened.

You may recall that the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (which administer Codex) told Codex in July of 2005 that they wanted it to find ways to implement the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health (GS) and that the Codex Committees on Food Labeling (CCFL) and Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Purposes (CCNFSDU) were tasked with doing just that. You may also recall that both of those committees dragged their feet, played parliamentary games and otherwise dodged that particular responsibility.

But this year, when the Agenda item dealing with implementation of the Global Strategy came up, it was NOT put to the end of the meeting. Instead, representatives from WHO and FAO spoke on the GS and the WHO representative, Dr. Margaret Cheney, laid out what WHO proposed. I had a hard time not whooping with excitement!

WHO wants food global labeling which includes information and statements specifically designed to allow consumers to protect their health by reducing their risk of the non communicable diseases (NCDs) of under nutrition (Cancers, CardioVascular Disease and Stroke, Diabetes and Obesity) AND it wants these labels to contain information on the — fasten your seat belts — dietary management of these diseases!

That means that WHO wants consumers all over the world to know that nutrition, food, nutrients can make them sick, protect them from getting sick, or help them get well if they are sick! That is the very information that the US government does NOT want people to have. It is the very information that CCFL does not want them to have. It is the very information that the US-supported definition of “advertising” — ANY information which is likely to reach the public and change beliefs or action about diet — does not want to allow people to have.

The WHO drew a line in the sand and the teams began to line up. Lots and lots of countries tried to explain why their consumers did not need, should not have, could not have, could not afford, could not understand, would not use, could not handle, information about nutrition on their pre-packaged food labels. Others, including the US, said that we do have mandatory labeling on pre-packaged food and that it really does help consumers to make their food choices.

Now the battle will be WHICH foods are included, which characteristics of foods will be included (total energy, added sugars, transfats, [synthetic ones from partially hydrogenated oils or natural ones or both], etc. Every lobby, every special interest group and those countries that they control, will be fighting for turf and protection for their interests. But some countries and organizations will be fighting for their people and for the right to make informed choices. We’ll see who lines up on which side! You can be sure I will keep you posted!

On another note, at the reception held by the Government of Canada for the CCFL attendees at the magnificent Museum of Civilization last night, the US Codex Point, made it a point to introduce his wife to General Stubblebine and me saying, “I want you to meet Dr. Laibow: she gives me a hard time!”. His wife said, “Yes, I’ve heard the stories!” and we had a very pleasant chat. I guess it was a bit like two attorneys who are arrayed on diametrically opposite sides of an issue still finding a way to maintain civility. Neither Dr. S. nor I changed sides, but we had a meaning conversation (including a discussion about the definition of advertising and its dangers) and opened a door for more conversation. It would be really nice if the health freedom community could engage in that civility. We had a meaningful and possibly productive conversation last night and did not waste any energy on enmity. We focused on the issues and apparently actually heard each other, at least a bit.

If the various factions of the health freedom community which choose to act without civility decided to stop slinging mud at each other and wasting energy on such infantile behavior, we would be able to get a lot further. There are real enemies out there. The Natural Solutions Foundation believes that those in the health freedom movement who spend their time attacking anyone — and everyone – who differs from their current position by the least jot or tittle are wasting the most precious resource that we have in this battle: awareness.

Unless, of course, that is their intent.

You will notice that the Natural Solutions Foundation NEVER attacks any one. We take positions, we take action, we alert and we report but we never savage or impute motivations to anyone. And we accomplish forward movement. That’s the goal.

We are, as I like to say, the ones we have been waiting for. That does not mean that we are the ones we have been waiting for to attack. At least not to us!

Stay tuned.

Today is another day of deliberations for the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (where, by the way, the juices served at breaks has fructose, added glucose and artificial flavors and colors). The munchies last night were deep fried so delegates could get their trans fat fix. The coffee break snacks are nothing but commercial carbs: not a protein molecule or veggie in sight. So much for walking the talk at Codex. I will keep you posted.

Don’t forget to mobilize your circle of influence to send in their comments on the dangerous FDA Guidance, send letters to the editor, etc. Your comments on S 1082/H 1082, the FDA Revitalization Bill of 2007 need to be heard, too.

This is the health freedom battle and it is a battle worth fighting.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

Oh, yes, don’t forget that health freedom isn’t free. Make your tax deductible donation now! If you already have, “thank you!”
REL

Posted in Activism, CODEX Consequences, Miscellaneous, Promising Developments | No Comments »

How to Kill Health Freedom: Hit ‘Em High, Hit ‘Em Low

April 30th, 2007

Health Freedom Threats: Hit ‘Em High, Hit ‘Em Low!

Right now the American Public is being whipsawed: first the dangerous FDA CAM Guidance (Complimentary and Alternative Medicine/Modalities) which threatens to turn all health practices into medicine which only physicians could practice and the foods and supplements supporting natural health into unlicensed drugs – and, yes, there is a real danger to your health freedom despite a good deal of internet chatter to the contrary!) and now the sudden advancement of Senator Ted Kennedy disastrous bill, S 1082 (“the FDA Revitalization Act of 2007”, plus the identical House bill) from Committee to the floor of the Senate for a vote in the immediate future without public hearings.

It would be easy to succumb to “health freedom vigilance fatigue”, which is, I believe, exactly what the intended effect is supposed to be. There is even speculation that Senator Kennedy moved this bill forward so rapidly BECAUSE the American public responded so vigorously to the CAM Guidance and are presumed to be preoccupied with it. (By the way, we have already sent xxx comments on this dangerous extension of the law by the Office of Policy and Planning and the public comment period has been extended to May 29, giving us lots more time to get lots more comments in.) But, while we were busy with that assault, it looks like the Big Pharma folks decided to sneak this one through. And, by the way, although the Senate version is up for an immediate vote, it is the members of the House who will either vote it up or down ultimately so giving these elected officials your direction is critical NOW.

Who cares? You do. Kennedy’s dreadful bill could get the FDA into the business of not only regulating drugs and medical devices, which is does now very, very badly, but also into the business of licensing and selling them, too. Contained in the same bill is the opportunity for this agency (already thoroughly corrupted by its dependency on lucrative “user fees” from drug companies which provide a substantial portion of the FDA’s operating budget now) to increase these fees and, thus, increase its unsavory, unethical and all-too-often deadly reliance on the drug companies’ financial support of an agency which is mandated to be their watch dog but which has become their lap dog. This bill increases the financial incest between the regulated and the regulators. Given the corruption of the FDA and the fact that mainstream medicine-document reality that properly prescribed drug are the principal killers in every developed country in the world, this bill threatens to make a disastrous situation even more fatally toxic.

The FDA is already the governmental marketing branch of Big Pharma. What ever has possessed Senator Kennedy to make matters worse? Although there is are small sops to consumer well-being like forbidding advertising of new drugs until they have been in use for two years, the provisions of this bill are, in general, significantly hostile to FDA agency health and US public health. Read about S 1082, then take action.

Customize the letter, enter your information and click to submit your comments. Do it now.

Now for the report on today’s Codex Working Group on Production, Processing, Marketing and Labeling of Organic Foods
April 29, 2007 Ottawa, Ontario

What do you think? Should the definition of “organic” include crops grown with a fertilizer produced by surface-mining a rock (environmental degradation, non renewable resource) from Chile (non local resource), pulverizing it, (environmental degradation), soaking it in water to dissolve the nitrates out and crystallizing it after evaporation (highly processed material) and then applying that to soil where is absorbed very rapidly so that soil microbes do not get a chance to act on it and turn the nitrate into a mineral source from organic biomass?

The debate between Chile (the major producer of inorganic natural sodium nitrate) and everybody else was hot, heavy and highly emotional. Damage to the soil (Thailand), better options closer to the soil (EU), lack of organic integrity (Norway), rejection by the public (Switzerland) and a host of other arguments ranged passionately against Chile’s position that although it was derived from a ground-up rock from far away, it should be organic anyhow until, finally, the Chairwoman decided that despite lack of consensus the recommendation would be made to the full Codex Committee on Food Labeling to not allow Chile’s sodium nitrate to be used as an organic fertilizer. Chile was very unhappy with this decision, of course.

Then, in almost the next breath, New Zealand’s proposal that the use of synthetically derived ethylene gas be permitted to ripen kiwi fruits was approved. Hmmmm. You cannot use a synthetic fertilizer (although plants need nitrogen to grow) but you can use a synthetic gas to ripen fruits since plants make a small amount of it shows a wild inconsistency. There was no more consensus (what ever that means) for the first decision than there was for the second but the deal was apparently done before the discussion took place.

IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, tried using science to make the point that Chile’s fertilizer was not OK but did not bother to even try to do so for the use of a synthetic gas to ripen a supposedly organic fruit. What the hot debate was about on ethylene was whether the approval should be put in paragraph 82 or table 4 or section 3 of table 2 or……

Net result: it is OK to ripen kiwi fruit synthetically and pretend that they are organic. Stay tuned next year for permission to ripen all tropical fruits that way since, as Brazil said, the process of gas ripening makes the tropical fruit trade economically viable. But does that make the fruit organic? Not in my book.

Tomorrow the Codex Committee on Food Labeling begins its formal work. There are several really dangerous provisions up for discussion (all supported by the US through the FDA, of course. But there are a growing number of countries that are not so sure about the wisdom of just following the multinational’s best friend around the block any more. I will keep you posted. Stay tuned.

Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

Posted in Activism, CODEX Consequences, Legislation to Oppose | No Comments »

Organic Food Labeling Standards Comments Submitted by Natural Solutions Foundation

April 29th, 2007

The Natural Solutions Foundation submitted comments to the United States Codex Office and the the FDA prior to the April 10, 2007 public meeting on US policy pertaining to the 2007 Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL). One of the important items on the CCFL agenda is the Draft revised Guideline for organic food standards.

These same comments have been presented to health friendly (and potentially health friendly) nations attending Codex as well as to the US. Documents like these do double duty: we have been told that they have been influential in shaping national positions both inside Codex and at home. The Natural Solutions Foundation comment document on Fluoride, for example, was not only very helpful to a number of countries in allowing them to take a stand directly opposite to that of the US during the 2006 Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) and bring about a ban on its use in formula for normal babies, but the information in that document was strong enough to spark national debate on a ban on fluoride in a number of countries following the meeting in Chiang Mai (Thailand).

During the first day of the CCFL Working Group meetings (April 28, 2007) prior to the meeting itself (April 30-May4, 2007) here in Ottawa several countries thanked us for our comments and stated that they were helpful to them in focusing their policy. This included some small countries new to the Codex process. The Working Group will meet today on this topic and its recommendations will be presented to the full CCFL during that committee’s meeting. Stay tuned to this blog for up to the minute information on Codex from inside one of its key meetings.

Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
NATURAL SOLUTIONS FOUNDATION

Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III, President
Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director

April 8, 2007

Comments by the Natural Solutions Foundation on Codex Committee on Food Labeling Agenda Item 4(A) CX/FL 07/35/5, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods DRAFT REVISED ANNEX 2: TABLE 3 (PART 1 & 2)
(CL 2006/49-FL & CL 2006/12-FL, ALINORM 06/29/22 – APPENDIX III) and all subsequent Agenda sub items referring to Labeling of organically produced foods

The Natural Solutions Foundation strongly opposes the addition of sodium or potassium nitrates or nitrites in any food produce by organic means and labeled as “organic food” or “organically produced food” and urges the United States to oppose its use domestically and internationally. Permitting nitrates and nitrites, well-known and universally recognized carcinogens and co-carcinogens, to be added to organic food destroys any meaning the phrase might have and betrays consumers who trust the concept conveyed by certification of foods as organic. Allowing the addition of universally acknowledged toxins to organic foods betrays the consumer and constitutes false and misleading information which the FDA is tasked with eliminating in the food supply, not fostering.

Furthermore, the human and economic costs of preventable cancers induced by the introduction of unnecessary toxins into food which consumers pay a high premium for because they believe that such food is free from precisely those types of toxins is unacceptable.

Nitrates and nitrites are synthetic compounds added to meats, especially processed meats like bacon and sausages, for two purposes. These compounds aid in the maintenance of an attractive red color in processed meats like bacon, ham, sausage and similar products. This attractive color is associated by consumers with freshness and wholesomeness so this additive prolongs effective shelf life. In the absence of this additive, processed meat turns grey long before it decomposes or spoils. Since consumers are more willing to buy red meat than meat which has turned gray, the additives are extremely popular with producers.

The second purpose for which they are used is to retard the germination of botulinum spores to prevent the occurrence of botulism. However botulinum spores germinate very slowly. Refrigeration, proper hygiene and, if desired, the use of salt in the curing process, retard the growth of botulinum spores much more successfully than nitrates/nitrites and do so without their significant health hazards. Foods prepared in this way could fairly be labeled as organic (provided they met the other requirements of such labeling) while foods with nitrates and nitrates in no way meets any meaningful definition of that term.

Canada and the US regulatory agencies have both demonstrated their awareness of the dangers presented by nitrates/nitrites: both have lowered permissible levels for use in foods. However, since even miniscule doses of nitrites can form potent carcinogenic nitrosamines, lowering permissible levels is not an effective health measure. This problem poses a severe health hazard because nitrosamines are so powerfully carcinogenic at tiny doses.

Organic foods are, by their nature, free of synthetic and chemical additives. Consumers expect that organic foods have no non-food, chemical preservative, artificial coloring agents or similar additives which are not produced spontaneously through the natural process of preparation. When consumers spend premium prices because they want to consume foods which have not been altered or adulterated by industrial food sourcing or processing techniques, they believe that they can eat organic food without the impact of additives, synthetic colors, preservatives, hormones or other non-food components. Nitrates and nitrites are well known to consumers as chemicals which carry significant risks when consumed either before additional cooking or after it.

Consumers are well aware that baby food manufacturers have voluntarily withdrawn nitrates/nitrites in baby food following the 1995 statement at the 44th meeting of FAO/WHO that “nitrite should not be used… in foods for infants below the age of three months.” According to FAO/WHO, babies are especially venerable to methemoglobin. In addition, fetal hemoglobin is more easily changed to methemoglobin so consumption of nitrite by pregnant women can reasonably be expected to pose a danger to the fetus. Nitrates impair the oxygen carrying capacity of hemoglobin, turning it into methemoglobin which cannot carry oxygen. Nitrite in large doses has been fatal for adults. Consumers who are particularly sensitive to this transition, who have profound anemia or suffer from other conditions which impair oxygen transport and seek to avoid nitrites expect that they are doing just that by purchasing organic sausages and preserved meats.

Several other serious and potentially lethal problems attend the use of nitrates/nitrites. Nitrates are associated with increased miscarriages, fetal deaths and birth defects in laboratory animals. Consumers are looking for food without added hazards when they purchase organic food and have the right to expect it.

Parents may spend the extra money for “safe” bacon and sausage for their children since babies and children are especially vulnerable because of their lower blood volume and greater susceptibility to the conversion of hemoglobin to methemoglobin.

Consumers sensitive to, or aware of the dangers of, nitrites may make significant efforts to avoid it only to find their efforts thwarted by a counterintuitive inclusion of dangerous synthetic additives in supposedly organic foods.

Numerous studies show that nitrite alone can cause cancer. However, an even more serious cause for concern is the well documented potential for nitrates/nitrites to cause cancer through the formation of nitrosamines, especially quaternary nitrosamines, formed when nitrites react with secondary amines. These secondary amines occur naturally in protein-containing foods such as the meat of the sausage or bacon to which they have been added.
Nitrosamines are among the most powerful carcinogens known. Numerous studies confirm the strong relationship between nitrate and nitrite intake and cancer including colorectal adeno carcinoma, prostate and breast, stomach cancers in humans. Animal studies make it clear that even minute amounts of certain nitrosamines can produce cancers.
Studies have found a correlation between nitrosamine-contaminated foods and childrens’ leukemia and brain cancer According to Dr. William Lijinsky, former director of the Chemical Carcinogenesis Program at the Frederik Carcinogenesis Center (Maryland) said in his US Senate testimony, “There is evidence to show that nitrites in meat are the most dangerous food additives today and that they are major contributors to cancer… producing cancer in 24 species of animals tested at the Frederick Cancer Research Centre.” Dr. Lijinsky, an internationally recognized expert in the biological impact of nitrates and nitrites, went on to state, “Most of the deaths [from cancer] are due to the foods people ate thirty to forty years ago.”
Adding known carcinogens to organics food is deceptive and misleading and must be avoided by the US and by all members of Codex both on principle and for health reasons.

Consumers and their government representative in many countries recognize that nitrates and nitrites have no place in organic foods. For example, Costa Rica says (CL 2006/49-FL) in its written comments on this issue,

“We must take into consideration that, in addition to accepting the additive [nitrate/nitrite], its use must comply with the organic production guidelines criteria, meaning they must not violate the principles established in those Guidelines. Therefore, … In the case of additives for use in animal origin foods, and particularly in the case of Sodium Nitrite (INS Nº 250) and Potassium Nitrate (INS Nº 252), it is important to note that these substances are known to present a risk for human health as they generate nitrous N compound that have been shown to be carcinogenic in experimental animals, some of them being mutagenic and others teratogenic, as well as having high levels of their salts associated with a higher incidence of stomach and esophagus cancers. Due to the aforesaid, our position is that the use of these substances in organic foods of animal origin violates the principles of organic production and, therefore, our country does not accept their inclusion in this list.”

Norway bans all nitrates and nitrites in all foods, organic or not, noting that proper hygiene and handling eliminate the need for the substances in food altogether noting,

“[250] [Sodium nitrite] For food of animal origin: Not accepted especially for prod. Group 8.2.2. Heattreated [sic], 8.2.3, 8.3. and 9.2.4.1 Should not at all be used for colour [sic] retention. Could doubtfully be used as a preservative. It is possible to produce products without these additives. This requires good hygiene, and HACCP should be in place. There are health concerns about using this additive. The Norwegian consumers do not expect to find this additive in organic products.” [Emphasis added]

252 Potassium nitrate The above mentioned categories are not included for 252. See 250

301 Sodium ascorbate See comments to 250 and 252 The use of this additive is linked to the use of nitrate/nitrite and should therefore not be used.”

Similarly, Thailand states in its written comments, “It is acceptable for us to exclude the use of any kind of nitrate/nitrite from the organically produced food, especially food of animal origin such as sausages.”

Likewise, Germany has banned both substances in the foods.

The Natural Solutions Foundation believes that nitrates/nitrites have no appropriate place in the human food supply and that permitting their use in foods which are labeled “Organic” is totally unjustified and represents a profound betray of the trust placed in regulatory agencies by consumers. Hence, the Natural Solutions Foundation strongly urges the United States to instruct its Delegate to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling and all other Codex meetings and committees to vigorously oppose the use of nitrates and nitrites in human food under any circumstances and most especially, to preserve the meaning of organic food by using all means at its disposal to make sure these dangerous compounds are not permitted in organic foods.

Dated: April 8, 2007
Respectfully submitted,

Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army, Ret.)
Rima Laibow MD

For: Natural Solutions Foundation
www.healthfreedomusa.org

Posted in CODEX Consequences, CODEX Industries, GMOs | No Comments »

Day 1 @ Codex Committee on Food Labeling Score: US 1, Consumers .5

April 29th, 2007

Codex Working Group on Labeling of Pre-Packaged Foods
Ottawa, Ontario

Labeling of pre-packaged food may not sound very sexy, but it is of extreme importance to consumer decision making and to the economics of Big Agribiz/Big Food. Less food in the food being sold, more permissible deception, more fillers, additives and contaminants means more money for low integrity food producers. Consumers’ interests were not very well served today at the first of two Working Groups.

There is certain sameness to all of Codex meetings: they are all long, exceedingly detail oriented and, if you are not watching the political, economic and corporate scenery very, very closely, mind-numbingly dull. Time after time, while the minute details receive excruciating attention, examination and discussion, the provisions which could actually protect people, exclusively referred to as “consumers” on Planet Codex, are left for last, and, fascinatingly, time after time get taken up with [literally] seconds to go before the end of the meeting. Oops! No time to discuss them. Translators have to leave. SO sorry!

Today’s Working Group was an excellent example of this industry-friendly, consumer-unfriendly process. We started the day with a report for consideration on the Quantitative Ingredient Disclosure (QUID) labeling of pre-packaged foods. QUID labeling means that foods have to declare what percentage of what food they are made with so consumers have more information and more choice about what they buy.

Who is the leader in the Codex anti effective QUID movement? The US, of course. My observation was that the representatives of the US beverage, grocery manufacturers and frozen food industries appeared pretty happy with the way their helpful regulatory friend, the FDA, handled the whole thing. The FDA’s Dr. Barbara Schneeman was, is serving, as she so often does, as the US Delegate to this session.

The US has been quite strongly opposed to QUID but other countries, like the EU, Norway, Switzerland, are very fond of QUID labeling which helps consumers. If, for example, you want to buy salmon rolls stuffed with scallops you would find out from a QUID label that one brand contains 8% scallops in the stuffing while another brand contains 16% scallops. You could then decide whether the extra money for the second brand was worth it to you.

It is not hard to figure out that manufacturers do not want the responsibility, the expense or the revelation of how little real food they put into pre packaged foods.
There were two sections in the document (a draft amendment to another document) under discussion today which were, in fact, quite protective and helpful to consumers. When the one day workshop convened this morning to work on the draft amendment before sending it back to the full Codex Committee on Food Labeling for consideration next week the Chairman of the Working Group had prepared a proposed amended draft report for the Working Group to consider based on the submitted country and organization comments. In that document the two really helpful items were struck out without discussion or debate.

An NGO (Non Governmental Organization) called “IACFO” or International Association of Consumer Food Organizations, pointed out that the majority of comments from nations and organizations were positive about these two items and questioned why they were struck out of the report. The Chairman said that there would be plenty of time to discuss them. IACFO returned to this comment again and again. The Chair’s response was the same each time: there will be plenty of time for full discussion.

Well, I am sure you have guessed the end of the story. As the meeting was adjourning and the translators had to leave, there were about 2 minutes available for discussion of the two consumer-friendly items which the Chair had slated for elimination. No effective discussion was possible, obviously.

Same song, different verse. That is how it is done at Codex. Consumer-friendly items get short shrift but the “democratic fantasy” of full discussion and decision by consensus is maintained. The big win for consumers today was that the NGO succeeded in keeping the items alive so that they might, just might, get a full discussion in another forum, some other time.

One more thing about QUID: there was a rather ferocious debate in which the concept of having to indicate the amount of food in the name of the food was beaten down. For example, the amount of corn in corn flakes or rye in rye bread does not have to be “QUIDed”. Nor does the amount of sugar added. Nor does any food additive or contaminant require QUIDing. Nor the amount of radiation the food has received. What gets QUIDed in international trade will be those ingredients which give the food its special characteristic or commercial value. That does NOT include the foods that, to my mind, the consumer actually buys the food for and believes he/she is buying. Nor does it include the food or non food items (e.g., water, fillers, un-named ingredients) which manufacturers add without mentioning them.

In short, QUID, a potentially useful system to alert and inform consumers about their food stuffs, has been watered down by the resistance of the US and its friends to favor the commercial interests of the food industry, leaving the consumer literally in the dark. Norway, Ghana and a few other nations, along with IACFO did their best but the weight of the US was behind this outcome and so the results were predictable.

Tomorrow the Working Group will focus on Organic Standards. The Natural Solutions Foundation has prepared a formal submission on the topic which we have made available both to the United States Government in time for their pre-CCFL (Codex Committee on Food Labeling) meeting on April 10, 2007 and to various health friendly nations. You will find it in its entirety in the blog post called “Codex Organic Standards Comments by Natural Solutions Foundation”

Stay tuned for a day by day report on the CCFL meeting this week. We’re here for you!

And remember to spread the word on the urgent need to submit public comments during the extended comment period on the dangerous (but often soft-pedaled) FDA Guidance on CAM (which either means “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” or “Complementary and Alternative Modalities” – the difference is huge!) We’ve got 166,704 comments in already. If each person motivates 10 others, we will have enough to stem the tide of this dangerous attempt to eliminate all natural procedures, practices and products.

Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

Posted in CODEX Consequences, CODEX Industries | No Comments »

Guest Blog from Ralph Fucetola, JD. Please read and share widely.

April 28th, 2007

Today, Saturday, April 28, 2007, the Working Group on the Proposed Draft Amendment for the Labeling of Prepackaged Food will meet in the Ottawa Congress Center, Ottawa, Canada. On Sunday, April 29, the Working Group for the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods will meet. Both meetings are a single day long each year. Both sort out thorny issues n dry as dust terms. But that dust, like the rest of Codex, contains the seeds of the future health of the planet within it. Each Working Group meets for a one day meeting held each year before the start of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling which is hosted by Canada in Ottawa annually.

After the meeting tomorrow I will fill you in on what takes place. What is going on at Codex is vitally important to your health and your planet. BUt what is going on at Codex is also going on at home, too.

Ralph Fucetola, a regulatory lawyer, has written a beautiful guest blog which follows. Please read it and pass it along to everyone in your circle of influence. It is a really important piece. By the way, Big Pharma’s agenda knows neither national borders nor compassion for the vulnerable. Senator Kennedy’s new bill shows neither sense nor respect for your rights. The FDA Guidance shows neither respect for your health nor your health freedom.

We, the people, are neither amused nor hoodwinked and are once again standing and roaring that we control our freedoms, we, not merchants and not politicians, and certainly not bureaucrats or doctors.

Here is Ralph’s Guest Blog:
A Natural Solutions Foundation Guest Editorial

www.vitaminlawyernews.com
FDA CAM DRAFT GUIDANCE INFORMATION
Docket No. 2006D-0480 – http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/E7-3259.htm

1. Guest Blog for NSF – 04/28/07
2. FDA CAM Threat Assessment – 04/26/07
3. Comments to FDA regarding CAM draft Guidance – 04/06/07

A Natural Solutions Foundation Guest Blog Entry
See: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php/?p=367

Don’t be Duped: Multiple Assaults Need Multiple Responses

Our Health Freedom is threatened again. It’s been going on for centuries,
this struggle between healers and bureaucrats. Even back in the age of Henry
the 8th the surgeons of London got a law passed effectively outlawing their
herbalist competitors by granting themselves a monopoly, and, a couple years
later, after many herbalists were brought before the courts, the King had to
intervene, obtaining Parliamentary approval for what is now known in the
Common Law as The Herbalists Charter, to protect traditional methods of
healing and allow their practice “without suit, vexation, trouble, penalty
or loss…”1 As recently as the start of the Twentieth Century, one state
Supreme Court noted, “”The state has not restricted the cure of the body to
the practice of medicine and surgery — allopathy, as it is termed… that
would be to limit progress by establishing allopathy as the state system of
healing, and forbidding all others. This would be as foreign to ours system as
a state church for the cure of souls… To restrict all healing to that one
kind — to allopathy, excluding homeopathy, osteopathy, and all other
treatments — might be a protection to doctors in surgery and medicine; but
that is not the object of the act, and might make it unconstitutional, because
creating a monopoly.” 2

Just such a monopoly was created. For convenience, we can call it the Big
Pharma Cartel. It has money and powerful friends in government – who often
play bureaucratic “musical chairs” among agencies, big companies and
universities. They use that power to harass, jail and even kill their
competitors. We honor the memory of doctors Wilhelm Reich and Dinshah Darius,
among other victims of this witch hunt (as we honor the memories of those
earlier victims of witch hunts who were often Wise Women and Healers.).

In America, after decades of sporadic and arbitrary attacks on health food
stores, holistic doctors and alternative practitioners, a powerful groundswell
of public opinion surged in the early 1990s. People demonstrated at FDA
offices around the country, converged on Washington, flooded Congress with
letters and faxes. Those were heady days, when the political establishment
first took note of what has come to be called the Health Freedom Movement. The
result was congressional passage, without any negative votes, of the Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). That law was supposed to
protect the right of nutrient purveyors to make truthful and not misleading
claims about the nutritional benefits of their products for the normal
structure and function of the body.

This did not, however, stop the attempts of cartel and its friends in power.
Numerous times since then efforts have been mounted in the media, through
cartel-financed schools and journals, and in the government, to discredit all
dietary supplements and all Complementary and Alternative Modalities (CAM).
The usual process includes fake science, smear and innuendo. In recent years,
add to that, very sophisticated attacks on web sites offering products or
information about nutrition and CAM.

The battle is being fought in each state, where now discredited
“quackbusters” attacked doctors wanting to practice advanced CAM
techniques; in the federal government where important therapies that can
benefit many people, such as the responsible use of silver in health 3, are
under attack; and on the international level where “harmonization” means
reducing our Freedom to some bland bureaucratic “minimum daily
requirement.” On the international level Codex Alimentarius, the World Food
Code, is the chief bureaucratic mechanism to undermine organic standards,
prevent people from knowing what foods are genetically modified – and which
are not – and otherwise make the Big Pharma Cartel agenda international
policy. Regional bureaucracies, such as the EU, NAFTA and the ominous North
American Union play an important role in imposing the harm of harmonization.
4

Recently, even the Journal of the AMA, JAMA, included a highly suspect
“meta-analysis” of carefully chosen “studies” to claim that taking
vitamins could be bad for your health! This article was strongly criticized
by Life Extension Foundation5 and others in the field, but the mass media
covered only the fake science, not the response. Literally tens of thousands
of good scientific studies prove the value of supplementation. It has been
suggested that those who trust the AMA and FDA should certainly not take any
vitamins, especially the mega doses many of us have used for decades. Then in
a few years, we’ll see who is still around to continue the argument!

Yes, at each turn, the attacks of the cartelists and bureaucrats have been met
with stiff public resistance. The attempt to water down organic standards gave
rise to a tidal wave of protest. The original FDA “structure and function”
regulation in 1999 was successfully opposed and the final rule was rather more
friendly to nutritional products. The public outcry in each of these cases was
similar to what is happening now with the FDA’s surreptitiously promulgated
CAM draft Guidance (“issued” on December 26th; no public notice until
February 26th; initially only a short comment period). The grassroots of the
Health Freedom Movement caught fire when the people learned that FDA’s
bureaucrats, under the guise of “just restating the law” were actually
setting the basis for handing over our supplements and alternatives to the Big
Pharma Cartel. 6

But the song continues, and big government representative Ted Kennedy, has
just introduced S-1082, a bill that may gut our Health Freedom. Curiously, we
had heard this bill was dead before submission and would not be submitted. As
soon as the current public outcry reached a very high level, along comes the
senator, with a bill intended to divert attention from the other
anti-supplement bills, Codex, the NAU and the anti-CAM guidance.

It is time to Kill the Kennedy Bill in Committee! While we won’t be diverted
from our vigilance of the FDA anti-CAM maneuver, it is important to react to
these other assaults on Health Freedom. We would like to see this bill killed
in committee. Better to knock it out in congressional committee than allow it
to waste our time. While comments directed at the FDA over its anti-CAM draft
guidance was the proper response, as required by the Federal Register notice,
this back-door effort by the senior senator from Massachusetts should be met
with a flood of messages to the chairman and the members of the oversight
committee that must approve the bill before it goes before the entire Senate.
That will be our strategy in the coming weeks. Of course, if we cannot stop it
in committee, it may be necessary to attempt constructive engagement with the
committee and senators, to amend the bill to protect supplements. Just this
step, according to postings on April 28th on the blog at Mercola.com, has been
suggested by leading nutrition attorney Jonathan Emord JD.

All of these multiple assaults are, of course, connected. They are connected
in philosophy, proponents and beneficiaries. Their proponents refuse to allow
us the freedom to make our own choices, deeming that their political power
gives them the authority to decide for us. We have had enough of such
deciders. They have given us a medical system that kills hundreds of
thousands each year. We reject the philosophy that “the leader is always
right;” that we should just shut up and take all the prescriptions Big
Pharma sells. We know that the cartel that benefits from all these rules and
regulations has plenty of money and jobs to bribe politicians and bureaucrats.
None of that matters when the people are alerted and vigilant! We assert our
“Right to heal and be healed.” 7 We will not be duped by false leaders,
naysayers and nitpickers. We are “mad as hell and won’t take it anymore!” The
time has come to assert thatfundamental right. We need, in both law and
fact, for this basic human right to be respected. We need an end to the power
of the cartel and its bureaucratic allies. And all this will come to pass
using the tools of modern communication, which will prove, I believe, in the
end, more powerful than cartels and politicians.

It does, however, depend on you. You need to support organizations like the
Natural Solutions Foundation, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, which shows continuing
leadership and, in fact, broke the FDA anti-CAM guidance story. Like everyone
else who unmasks the face of the Big Pharma Objective, they are currently
being smeared and defamed through disinformation and innuendo. Don’t be duped
by disinformation any more than you are by bad science. It’s up to you to see
through to the core of truth and to make your voice heard. It is time to
dream of a world where each person has the right to heal and be healed. That
is the dream we need to have, for our dream to come true.

Ralph Fucetola JD
www.vitaminlawyer.com

Notes

1. See the Charter at http://home.earthlink.net/~lifespirit23/herbcharter.htm

2. North Carolina’s Supreme Court in State v MacKnight, 42 S.E. 580, 1902 at p
582.
3. See: www.silverfacts.com
4. See Dr. Laibow’s Nutricide at www.globalhealthfreedom.org
5. See: http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/consumer_alert_020307.htm
6. See “Take Action” at www.healthfreedomusa.org
7. See: http://www.lifespirit.org/wiltondec.html

Posted in Hall of Shame, Legislation to Oppose, The Law & CODEX | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »