AUGUST 1st 2005 - EEC Ban on our supplements came into effect ....
NEW EEC directive which removes some 300 common vitamins and minerals from the shelves came into effect in Europe in August 2005, including the UK.
It is a desperate situation. Please write to your MP's imploring them to take this up in the Commons and fight this evil directive. You will not be able to buy all the common supplements you are now taking, and it will be a criminal offence if you are caught importing them. Many therapists, nutritionists and smaller health shops that rely on the sales of these items, will no longer be able to operate. It is so unbelievable that most people cannot believe it is true. IT IS and it is worse than you can possibly imagine. For more information or to make a donation to help fight this please go to www.healthchoice.org.uk
LATEST UPDATE FROM CONSUMERS CHOICE....
Background
Launched in 1996 as a short-term response to the then impending EU Food Supplements Directive, Consumers for Health Choice (CHC) has become the most effective campaign vehicle in the natural healthcare sector. CHC has taken the message of consumer choice directly to the decision-makers of Westminster, Whitehall & Brussels and is recognised by politicians and regulators as responsible, tenacious and the true voice of the consumer. Approaching our tenth anniversary, CHC is not only stepping up the action, but is also determined to keep the public better informed by way of a regular news letter – which will also advise on how consumers can help CHC fight adverse legislation on health matters. Vitamins & Minerals, Herbals and Health Claims are all key issues on CHC’s current campaign agenda.
The Food Supplements Directive (Vitamins & Minerals)
The good news is that Caroline Flint MP, the new Minister for Health, seems firmly on our side. In November, CHC held a reception in the House of Commons; essentially to thank MPs and Peers for the help they have given us during the past year. The support received by CHC from both Houses has been unprecedented, with Parliamentary Questions and Motions regularly emerging. As a direct response to the pressure exerted by CHC at all political levels, the Minister announced that the Government would lobby Europe for a “two tier” position previously recommended by the Food Standard Agency. The achievement of such a position would secure the highest possible levels for vitamins and minerals throughout Europe, whilst defending the right of the UK to set higher safe levels if required.
The Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive 2004/24/EC was implemented in the UK on 30th October ’05. CHC played a key role in moving this topic up the political agenda whilst the legislation was being developed in EU, but there are many problems with it – not least because registration is only allowed for a product that can demonstrate a minimum of 30 years use – 15 of which must have been in the EU. Most manufacturers of herbal remedies are divided on this issue, with some wanting the Directive to tightly control the market so that their licensed products can flourish, while others recognise that many safe and popular products could be lost and smaller specialist companies destroyed – essentially because the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is treating herbs as pharmaceutical drugs and demanding excessively high fees to examine / register each individual product. The average cost of a single registration application is more than £40,000 (£1 million if they have 25 products) – beyond the capability of small specialist herbal companies.
Consumer safety is paramount. But we are also determined to keep safe herbal remedies available to consumers and so are piling pressure on MHRA to keep fees at a realistic level. With the co-operation of supportive MPs, CHC has achieved a cross-party Early Day Motion, No: 1103, now signed by 81 MPs, asking MRHA to ensure that practical solutions are found in order to minimise burdens upon business and maintain consumer choice - without compromising safety. MHRA could be more flexible and agree to keep as many herbs as possible available under food law; they could also make grants available to very small companies to help with costs of compliance. If they feel unable to grant financial assistance, MHRA could seek EU financial support.
CHC has long argued that consumers need quality advice in order to make informed choices. The fact that manufacturers of supplements and herbal remedies sold under food law are prohibited from providing even the mast basic advice to consumers about the products benefits has always seemed ridiculous, and a disservice to the public. To a large part, when choosing health products, consumers have to rely on (often inaccurate) information in the print media, often written by journalists who have not sufficiently researched the subject.
We were initially hopeful that the proposed regulations, due to be adopted in July this year, would end this anomaly but they seem to create more obstacles than they remove. The latest version of the proposed new law Position has just been published and will be discussed in the European Parliament this month. Unfortunately, the proposals carry with them much of the same difficulties that we have all experienced with FSD. A major concern is that the proposed regulations are not confined to the actual packaging of the product. They include the package, brand name, advertising, in-product leaflet, and marketing arrangements - would all require prior approval – a huge burden on the manufacturers in terms of time and costs.
Some of the most popular and recognisable Brand names that imply a claim could be banned – even if the packaging made no claims. All health professional and some health charity endorsements would be banned with the likelihood that valuable revenue streams to charities will dry up and consumers will be denied the means to make healthier food choices.
To find your MP: Telephone 020 7219 4272 or log on to www.locata.co.uk/commons
To find your MEP: Telephone 020 7227 4300 or log on to www.europarl.org.uk/uk.meps (choose 1 or more from the list for your region)
Further Information
If you would like to make a donation – or have questions on this Report to Consumers, please contact:
Sue Croft, Director, Consumers for Health Choice, Southbank House, Black Prince Road, London, SE1 7SJ
Email: sue.croft@healthchoice.org.uk
Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:42:43 -0700
Please read the following excellent but sobering article and spread it far and wide. Thanks to Myra Elaine for the following:
September 3, 2001
OPERATION CURE.ALL -- WHOSE CURE?
by Ruth James
Something very disturbing happened this week. The long arm of the government got longer. Going by the name of Operation Cure.All, the FDA and the FTC have launched a joint campaign to cure themselves of all competition.
Apparently, the growing popularity of alternative medicine and sales of health products are putting a dent in big medicine's pockets. So much so, that they've launched a serious campaign on and offline against it.
The government's proclaimed goal is protecting the health of citizens. To that end, testimonials are basically deemed unsubstantiated and deceptive unless they follow stringent rules and legalities set up by the government.
One of these rules is that testimonials and endorsements must be backed up by "competent and reliable scientific evidence" (i.e., scientific tests, analyses, research, and studies). While this sounds commendable, what does this really mean?
It means that unless there are clinical studies, research, tests and analysis behind even the most mundane statement, it cannot be used. Most of us are not qualified to do scientific research, nor do we have the money to hire a scientist to do it for us every time we want to give a testimonial.
The government requires that testimonials cannot imply that they treat, cure, prevent, or mitigate any disease. What makes it difficult is that exactly what is permissible and what is not is extremely complex and baffling. The average person could not possibly understand the 50 pages the FDA takes up explaining the regulations and all their intricacies without a skilled lawyer.
In addition, there are only certain ways testimonials can be structured, called "structure/function" rules. In most cases, a genuine statement from an average person would not fill the criteria of "structure/function." Even if someone were aware of the stringent rules that applied, it would be very difficult for anyone but a skilled lawyer to give an acceptable testimony.
Since very few testimonies are legal, this nearly completely and conveniently eliminates using them. As an added burden, if all the correct documentation exists and the testimony is structured correctly, a report must be filed with the FDA within 30 days of using the testimony. It appears the government has found a way to tie the hands of Internet health companies so that testimonies about their products cannot be heard.
Another one of the new regulations is under the guise of 'deception.' While I agree that advertising should not be misleading, it is now illegal for health websites to mention the name of a condition, such as 'headache,' 'arthritis,' 'heart disease,' or even 'pain' anywhere, not only in testimonials. Symptoms relating to diseases also cannot be used because they IMPLY a disease condition. Even a factual statement such as, "According to the National Cancer Institute, ingredient X protects smoker's lungs," is considered an impermissible disease claim.
Basically, no relationship can exist between a supplement and a disease condition. Even natural states such as pregnancy, menopause and menstrual cycles qualify as diseases! All I can say is, its going to be very hard for health websites, including mine, to explain their products in anything but the most watered-down terms.
The other major area of concern is that the FDA has taken the position that Internet advertising qualifies as labeling, and therefore falls within its scope of its authority.
So, if someone makes a claim that a supplement will treat, cure, prevent, or mitigate a disease, the supplement loses its status as a supplement and is then categorized as a drug.
And all drugs must pass the FDA's review process to ensure that they are safe and effective for their represented uses. This is a rigorous and incredibly expensive and lengthy review process that nobody really wants to go through - not even the drug companies! But until it is completed, the FDA considers the product to be an unapproved new drug, which may not be marketed. And putting some teeth into their decree, the FDA has the authority to seize the product if it is distributed to the public.
Now that's power! Designed to make Internet health marketers shake in their boots, no doubt.
The FDA and FTC take the position that they have the jurisdiction to control freedom of speech for the sake of protecting public health. They argue that 'deception' is misleading the public. They are doing their best to discredit promotions that use words like "exclusive products," "secret ingredient" or "ancient remedy" -- claiming that these are meaningless scientific terms.
As far as I know, nobody was ever trying to call them scientific terms. They are marketing terms, pure and simple. They were never meant to be scientific. I mean, would you mistake "secret ingredient" or "ancient remedy" for a scientific term? You'll find these terms in many books on headlines and sales letters. I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to go searching for them in a researcher's study. Why is the government implying there is deception here?
The government gave their approval for drug companies to advertise their prescription medications in TV commercials and in magazine ads. TV viewers are blasted with them every night. But they want to make sure that information about natural products is suppressed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on here.
The FDA claims it is afraid that "people could cancel their surgery, radiation or chemotherapy in favor of herbal cures that cost hundreds of dollars." I'd like to ask if the government has totaled up the cost of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy lately? These established medical treatments total up into the tens of thousands, not hundreds, per person. But I don't see the government concerned about these skyrocketing costs.
After all, there's a whole industry out there profiting from it. Think of all the hospitals and cancer centers in existence with all the equipment they purchase and all the people they employ. Think of all the companies that manufacture this specialized equipment. And think of all the medical schools and nursing schools that train doctors and nurses to use it. Think of the drug companies that manufacture chemo and all the money they make from it. And don't forget the insurance companies.
When you think of all this, you can get a picture of just the 'cancer industry' alone. Yet the government is afraid a few people might spend a few hundred dollars on natural substances? No, they are afraid the cancer industry might lose money. They are afraid that since the sales of health items are increasing, they are losing their edge - that their brainwashing of the public is growing thin. Hence, they have come out with a new campaign of fresh ideas for re-brainwashing the public.
Also targeted is a device that delivers a mild electric current that purportedly kills the parasites causing such serious diseases as cancer and Alzheimer's. I tried such a device personally. Did it work? No. But I'm glad I had the freedom to try it and find out for myself. The mild electric current didn't hurt me and the cost was insignificant. It DOES work if used properly for long enough, I have over 500 cases of amazing results using this machine. It delivers a Herz frequency, i.e. a radio wave and is so harmless that the argument from scientists is that it cannot work, and yet the US government is desperately trying to ban it because it is so effective! Judy
The FDA and FTC are also concerned that those with HIV or AIDS could use St. John's Wort as a treatment for the disease. And that St. John's Wort is known to interfere with proven HIV/AIDS medications. I seriously doubt that very many HIV or AIDS patients would use St. John's Wort as their sole treatment. But if they do, why should the government prohibit them? Why shouldn't they have the choice?
I picked up an issue of 'People' magazine the other day. I was astounded when I opened to a very convincing full-color, two- page ad placed by the government discrediting what they called 'unsubstantiated and undocumented' claims by health companies. They urged readers not try any health product without discussing it with their doctor first and going to the government website.
Discussing it with your doctor? We can pretty well predict how that will turn out. How many doctors know anything about all the health products available? How many doctors even know anything about nutrition, considering doctors are only required to take one course on nutrition? How many doctors are interested in anything natural, considering they are trained to dispense drugs, and are given bonuses and incentives to do so (even all-expense paid vacations to exotic locations for 'training')? How many doctors even care that the medicine they give you for your heart may damage your nerves or your liver?
Several times, I have refused medication due to side effects. I was treated with utter disgust and contempt by the doctors and their staff. A friend of mine cancelled surgery on her nose for a skin problem, only to receive an irate call from her doctor who blamed her for negatively impacting his income!
Not only that, but I have seen many of my friends and relatives go through chemo. I've seen what it can do to the body and the brain. And I've seen too many young women die horrible deaths shortly after starting chemo. And still others died the second time around, because the chemo-treated cancer returned.
Yet the only three legal treatments for cancer in this country are chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation.
Does the government require doctors to give you the rates of failure with chemo or the side-effects of radiation? Does the government even require the doctors to tell you that there were 17,000 deaths from Aspirin alone last year? How about the fact that doctors are the third leading cause of death in America today?
That's right, according to the "Journal of the American Medical Association" Vol. 284 July 26, 2000, things like unnecessary surgery, medication errors, negative effects of drugs, etc., cause almost as many deaths as heart disease and cancer.
This comes to a total to 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes! Iatrogenic means it was caused by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. And these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort!
Doesn't this beg the question, "Is treatment from a doctor safe?" Yet I do not see the government addressing this issue in any way.
It is a known fact the US health care system is the most expensive in the world, yet the quality of health in the US rates poorly. In a recent comparison of the health care in 13 countries, the United States ranked an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. In another study by the World Health Organization of 25 industrialized countries, the US ranked 15th.
This prompts me to ask, who is the government protecting? And why?
I'll never forget one brave woman with cancer that I knew who chose to die naturally, without chemo or radiation. She died in peace, surrounded by her loving family, with all her wits about her. In contrast, I remember the horrible deaths of my friends who received full doses of chemo and died anyway. They had loving families too, but they did not die gracefully or in peace. The chemo had affected their mental (and emotional and physical) faculties and they lost touch with the world long before it seemed right.
And then, I read about how 'required' food labels, mandated by the FDA, are concealing a hardened killer - trans fat, found in snack foods. The labels are not required to mention trans fat. Yet trans fat is considered worse than saturated fat by some scientists. It elevates bad cholesterol; lowers good cholesterol; increases triglycerides; and makes blood platelets stickier, increasing the chance of clots. Even if the saturated fat content of a food is low, the trans fat content can be very high.
Back in 1999 a cost-benefit analysis done for the FDA estimated that labeling trans fat would save $3 billion to $8 billion annually in averted heart disease costs. And labeling would save from 2,000 to 5,000 lives a year. But the FDA has not yet required industrial trans fat to be listed on labels. This means the labels are actually MISLEADING heart patients, diabetics, athletes and millions of other consumers who watch their fat intake.
But the FDA has been reluctant to require labeling. Aren't they concerned that 'Nutritional Facts' labels on foods are misleading? Perhaps their logic is, why should they bother the big snack food manufacturers? After all, they insure the hospitals get plenty of patients. And nobody knows about trans fat anyway. It's so much easier to target the health food and supplement industry. It's so much easier to declare that websites are a form of 'labels' and slap on regulations. And its easy to discredit a smaller industry that is concerned about real health.
Every time the FDA attempts to require that nutritional supplements be obtained by prescription only, there is tremendous public outcry. Petitions are circulated, letters are send in, calls are placed. The government is forced to back off due to public indignation. Now, they have found a way to gain a stronghold. They have found a way to slip suppression of nutritional information past the public. They are hoping you never know of this. And that you don't notice what is not being said so that they can creep a little further, with each new regulation, into taking your health choices away until they are eventually controlling all your health decisions.
Ask yourself, whose health is the government really concerned about? Yours or the pockets of the drug and medical industry? Don't let them take your choices away from you.
----------------------------------
Right now there is no coalition to fight the new regulations. There is no
advocate to represent nutritional companies in Washington DC. If we don't speak
out individually and collectively, the government will take further
infringements upon our freedom of choice in health. If you would like your voice
to be heard, please contact your federal representatives and complain. You can
find the names and contact information of your representatives here:
http://www.house.gov
and your senators here: http://www.senate.gov/
FTC Announcement Ruth James rjames@therealessentials.com ======================== Ingri Cassel, President Vaccination Liberation - Idaho Chapter P.O. Box 1444 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 (208)255-2307/ 765-8421 vaclib@coldreams.com "The Right to Know, The Freedom to Abstain" www.vaclib.org
Copyright (c) 2003-2004 - Judy Cole - All rights reserved.