NEW Laws vs Supplements - Supplement Dose Limits

[Guest guest]

-

*§ HH_Newsletter §*

Saturday, June 15, 2002 8:52 PM

[HH_Newsletter] NEW Laws vs Supplements - Supplement Dose Limits

 

 

http://doctoryourself.com/supplement_limit.html

 

THE PERILS AND PITFALLS OF " HARMONIZED " FOOD SUPPLEMENTS

A Statement Regarding the Establishment of Tolerable Upper Limits and Dosage

Harmonization of Food Supplements

by Bill Sardi BSardi

The dietary supplements sector-working group of the Trans Atlantic Business

Dialogue (TABD), composed of manufacturers of nutritional supplements, has

agreed to " harmonize the regulatory framework for vitamin and mineral food

supplements on both sides of the Atlantic. " (Statement from the

http://www.crnusa.org website) The fact that the food-supplement industry has

embraced the idea of " maximum levels " for food supplements is of serious concern

to every health-conscious consumer.

 

There are a number of concerns regarding the establishment of " maximum levels "

for nutritional supplements. These are:

 

1. The establishment of " tolerable upper limits " may assume there are no health

benefits, and only undesirable side effects, beyond a certain point of

consumption. No mention is made of a therapeutic range. For example, some heart

disease patients take 3200 units of vitamin E, which exceeds current maximum

recommendations.

 

2. The establishment of " tolerable upper limits " for developed Atlantic nations

is likely to be adopted as a world standard, since consumers in many undeveloped

countries consider western-made products to be superior. However, the

nutritional needs of human populations vary. Factors such as age, sex,

geography, skin pigmentation, season, health habits (tobacco and alcohol

consumption), nutrient soil levels, cultural dietary practices, dependence upon

processed foods, prescription drug usage, individual health status and other

factors may not be encompassed by a one-size fits all " upper limits " standard.

For example, the safe range for vitamin D consumption is not likely to be

sufficient to prevent immune system dysfunction among Blacks living in northern

climates in winter months (dark skin pigmentation reduces natural vitamin D

production). Likewise, the safe upper limit may not accommodate the! need for

folic acid by fertile Caucasian females living in equatorial climates (solar

ultraviolet radiation significantly reduces folic acid levels among

light-skinned individuals).

 

3. There is concern that " tolerable upper limits " will be intentionally set at

levels that will be below therapeutic dosages. Consumers are fully aware that

pervasive pharmaceutical interests, which exert influence through corporate

ownership or material supply, may sway " upper tolerable limits " in food

supplements so as not to compete with prescription drugs. The public is aware

that the biological action of virtually every prescription drug can be

duplicated with nutritional supplements and that the therapeutic effect of many

nutrients depends upon dosage.

 

4. The fact that a profit-minded group of manufacturers is entrusted with the

establishment of such an important standard is questionable on its face.

Manufacturers may not represent the interests of consumers who desire to use

food supplements as part of a health maintenance regimen. The validity of an

" upper limits " standard may later be called into question should the public not

have a voice in their formation. For example, a court recently threw out the

well-publicized food pyramid when its authors were found to have conflicts of

interest with food suppliers. Without notice or ample opportunity for public

comment, the National Academy of Sciences recently introduced tolerable upper

limits for antioxidant vitamins. These maximal limits were apparently

established without scientific consensus (see the report below on vitamin C).

 

5. The establishment of " tolerable upper limits " is likely to be based upon

outdated or inaccurate information. Recently published scientific studies

indicate the daily dosage levels for vitamin B12, vitamin D, iron, calcium,

folic acid, and other nutrients may need to be re-evaluated. There is concern

that the latest science may not be included in the development of the maximum

nutrient levels.

 

For example, much of the information provided in nutritional textbooks,

regarding vitamins A and D is outdated.

 

Consumers are mistakenly warned by the US Food and Drug Administration that

excessive vitamin A supplementation can produce a toxic liver buildup. However,

an estimated 30-60 cases of vitamin A overdose are reported annually, while over

a million older Americans report symptoms of night vision problems due to a lack

of vitamin A. Cases of liver/vitamin A toxicity often involve alcoholics and

others who have liver disease. Vitamin A toxicity is completely reversible. The

US FDA has only chosen to warn doctors and consumers of the potential for

vitamin A overdose without a balanced reporting on vitamin A deficiencies. The

only reported case of mortality from vitamin A toxicity involved a hunter in

Canada who consumed bear liver, which provided over 1 million units of vitamin

A. There is concern over birth defects with high-dose vitamin A supplementation,

but conflicting studies are still a puzzlement.

 

Due to the potential risk of liver buildup, the US FDA restricts vitamin

supplements to no more than 1000 international units of vitamin D per pill.

However, blood levels of vitamin D do not even rise till 5000 units is consumed,

and the full-body skin exposure to midday sunlight in a mid-equatorial zone in

the summer would produce 10,000 units of vitamin D, which completely confounds

any notion that vitamin D is toxic. Toxicity from vitamin D does not begin till

40,000 units of vitamin D are consumed daily for an extended period of time.

[American Journal Clinical Nutrition 69: 842-56, 1999] Doctors used to inject

50,000 units of vitamin D for therapeutic purposes. Vitamin D3 is the proper

form of vitamin D for human nutrition. The inferior form of vitamin D, vitamin

D2, is provided in milk. [Am Journal Clinical Nutrition 68: 854-88, 1998]

 

6. The exclusion of certain nutrients from the " maximum level " list may unfairly

infer that they are not necessary for human nutrition. There is evidence that

certain nutrients should be added to the list of essential life factors. This

list may include nutrients such as lutein, sulfur, phytic acid/inositol

hexaphosphate (IP6), essential fatty acids, and others.

 

There is no daily requirement established for essential omega-3 fatty acids,

even though 8 in 10 Americans do not consume adequate amounts of these fats.

Omega-3s are required for maintenance of the nervous system (myelin sheath),

production of hormones, reduction of inflammation, lining of the retinal

photoreceptors, control of triglycerides and regulation of immune system. An

estimated 20 percent of Americans do not exhibit detectable levels of omega-3

fatty acids in their tissues. Essential omega-3 fats have been removed from

eggs, meat, grain and even fish. This is largely a result of the use of feeding

pens for domesticated animals. Chickens, turkeys, hogs and steers are all fed

corn meal rather than foraging in the wild for foods that are a source of

omega-3 fatty acids. Grass-fed animal meat will provide a significant amount of

omega-3 fatty acids, whereas animals sent to the feeding pen two weeks prior to

slaughter will provide little or no omega-3 fatty acids and plentiful amounts of

saturated fat. [http://www.eatwild.com]

 

The widespread use of processed grains also eliminates omega-3s from the human

food chain. Cereals and grains are engineered for storage, not human nutrition.

 

Finally, the practice of fish farming prevents fish from acquiring the

phytoplanktons that are the source of omega-3s for waterborne animals. The

result is an omega-3 nutritional deficiency that is of epidemic proportion.

Nearly every human being now must supplement their diet to acquire maintenance

levels of omega-3 fatty acids. For health officials to ignore this nutritional

deficiency is akin to ignoring outbreaks of pellagra and beri beri over a

century ago.

 

The need for omega-3 fats is particularly critical among newborns, even more so

among preemies. Currently, infant formulas do not provide these essential fats,

though the Food & Drug Administration is soon due to make a statement regarding

the provision of omega-3 fats in infant formulas.

 

There is also no daily requirement for sulfur, a mineral required for the

production of glutathione, the major antioxidant produced within all living

cells (plants, insects, animals, humans). Glutathione consumption from foods

ranges from 25-125 milligrams per day. With the provision of sufficient amounts

of sulfur, the liver will produce far more glutathione (up to 14,000 milligrams

per day) than what the diet provides. Sulfur-rich foods (garlic, eggs,

asparagus, onions) may be lacking in various diets and the provision of sulfur

in food supplements (sulfur-bearing amino acids like N-acetyl cysteine, taurine,

and lipoic acid) or glutathione itself, may be advantageous.

 

There is now ample evidence that lutein, a cousin of beta carotene, is essential

for maintenance of the human visual system. Lutein requirements increase

dramatically among blue-eyed individuals who have far less of this antioxidant

pigment at the back of their eyes than brown-eyed individuals and are at a 2000%

increased risk of developing loss of central vision (macular degeneration) in

their lifetime. Lutein is not currently considered an essential nutrient. It is

unlikely that the at-risk population will consume the 3-5 weekly servings of

spinach or kale (equivalent to 6 milligrams of daily lutein), required to

prevent ocular disease. [Journal Am Medical Assn 272: 1413-20, 1994] Lutein food

supplements appear to be practical and economical.

 

When husks (bran) were separated from rice, the B vitamins were removed, which

led to deficiency diseases of pellagra and beri beri. However, in addition to B

vitamins, these rice polishings (bran) provided phytic acid (IP6), also called

inositol hexaphosphate, an important mineral binder and antioxidant. [Free

Radical Biology Medicine 8: 61-69, 1990; J Biological Chemistry 262: 11647-50,

1987] IP6 is found in every living cell in the body and is also an important

second messenger for the nervous system. The low consumption of whole grains has

led to reduced consumption of IP6 and the development of iron, copper and

calcium overload diseases (hemochromatosis, Wilson's disease, kidney stones,

mitral valve, calcium cataracts) and other iron-overload sequelae such as

hypertension, atherosclerosis, brain disorders, liver disease, colon cancer and

other maladies. IP6-phytic acid has been mistakenly branded as an anti-nutrient

because it interferes with mineral absorption among growing children.

Nutritionists fail to recognize that most of the anemia in developing countries

is caused by intestinal parasites, not the lack of iron, and that nature favors

iron anemia over iron overload, since iron is a major growth factor for

bacteria, viruses, fungi and tumor cells. Bran has never been fully restored to

the food supply, and the world is still suffering from deficiency diseases.

 

7. There is concern that the establishment of " tolerable upper limits " would

cause some consumers to needlessly seek the counsel of a physician or other

health professional when high-dose vitamin usage is in question. Doctors are

solely oriented to prescribe prescription drugs and are notoriously known to

harbor prejudices against food supplements. Despite their theoretical widespread

application in disease prevention and treatment, less than 1 percent of all

doctors' prescriptions are for nutritional supplements.

 

8. There is concern that high-dose pills would only be available via a doctor's

prescription, which would raise costs to consumers. Nutritional supplements that

are sold without prescription in the USA are only available through a doctor's

prescription in many other countries. If employed in the USA, this practice

would serve to drive up consumer costs and stunt the practice of self care and

preventive care.

 

9. There is concern that the establishment of a " tolerable upper limit, " without

accompanying information regarding the type, severity and reversibility of any

side effects, would induce undue alarm among consumers. For example, if a

consumer is only informed of a maximum level of consumption and no further

information is provided, then the consumer may be misled into thinking potential

side effects are of a serious, or even lethal, nature. Specifically, if an upper

limit of consumption is established for magnesium, and excessive dosage may

produce known symptoms of " loose stool, " then this fact should be provided to

consumers with the notation that the remedy is to reduce the dosage and that

this symptom is completely reversible. Similarly, excessive consumption of

vitamin C may produce temporary symptoms of diarrhea, a symptom that is

completely reversible with discontinuance or reduced dosage. Other examples of

reversible side effects are neuropathy from high-dose vitamin B6 (pyridoxine),

nausea from high-dose iron, facial flushing from high-dose niacin, and headaches

and breast tenderness from high-dose vitamin E.

 

10. There is concern that once maximal limits are established, and the concept

has been adopted, it will be easy to arbitrarily change the numbers.

 

11. There is concern that health care consumers have no unbiased governing

bodies to turn to in regards to accessibility to food supplements. As stated

above, physicians have inherent conflicts of interest since nutritional

supplements currently do not require their prescription. There has been

continued reluctance by the National Academy of Sciences, the National

Institutes of Health, the Food & Drug Administration, and other governmental

health offices, to endorse habitual use of food supplements. Dietary practices

(fruits and vegetables) and food fortification are favored over supplementation.

The new standard is likely to stop short of supplementation in favor of dietary

consumption at the low end, and will stop short of therapeutic action at the top

range.

 

The cost of non-supplementation

Only recently did the US Food & Drug Administration concede to demands for more

folic acid via food fortification. Foot dragging on folic acid led to many more

babies being born with birth defects.

 

After spending millions of dollars, the Five-A-Day program, promoted by the

National Institutes of Health, is a failure. Repeated studies indicate only a

minority of the population consumes the recommended five servings of fresh

fruits and vegetables on a daily basis. After repeated public information

campaigns aimed at increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables, the

proportion of adults who actually say they consume 5 servings of plant foods a

day only increased from 19 to 23 percent from 1990 to 1996. [Am Journal Public

Health 90: 777-81, 2000] Nutritional supplementation may be a practical and

economic way of filling nutritional gaps in the population at large.

 

The reluctance of the US health authorities to endorse food supplements in favor

of plant-food diets and food fortification is costing the US health care system

dearly.

 

The Western Journal of Medicine reports that the provision of folic acid and

zinc containing multivitamins by all women of childbearing age, and daily

supplementation of vitamin E for adults over age 50, would reduce hospital

charges by $20 billion annually. [Western Journal Medicine 166: 306-12, 1997] If

all at-risk Americans took the recommended amounts of vitamin supplements, the

managed care industry would save approximately $5.5 billion. [Managed Care

Interface 11: 95-99, 1998] The National Defense Council Foundation indicates the

provision of food supplements to active and retired military personnel would

reduce health care costs by $6.3 billion annually. [Press Release May 22, 1997]

 

While pharmaceutical companies lure retirees into lobbying for a national

prescription drug program, they are never told that nutritional supplements will

do far more to promote health, without the side effects and costs of

prescription drugs.

 

12. There is concern that maximal upper limits may not accommodate the

nutritional needs of specific organs in the body. Nutritional authorities have

given too much attention to achieving minimal and maximal blood levels of

nutrients, which may not be an adequate measure of nutrients in specific

tissues. For example, it has been stated that the blood circulation becomes

saturated with vitamin C at about 240 milligrams. Even when saturation has been

achieved in the blood plasma, the provision of 2000 milligrams of vitamin C

further increases the levels of vitamin C in the aqueous fluid of the human eye

by 35 percent. Higher levels of vitamin C are required in the aqueous fluid of

the eye than in the blood circulation because the human eye is transparent and

is prone to harm by products of oxidation (hydrogen peroxide) emanating from

exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation. Much higher levels of vitamin C are

required to prevent cataracts than to prevent scurvy. The daily amount of

vitamin C required to prevent cataracts is in the range of 300-2000 milligrams

(the equivalent of 6-30 oranges), which exceeds the best dietary consumption

(about 200-250 milligrams from consumption of five servings of fruits and

vegetables). The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) now considers 2000

milligrams of vitamin C as " toxic. " [see my addendum regarding the issuance of

new recommendations for antioxidants by the NAS below.] The human eye has

greater need for vitamin C, lutein, vitamin E, glutathione and vitamin A, than

most other tissues in the body.

 

13. There is concern that food fortification may be offered as an option to the

establishment of higher therapeutic doses of supplemental vitamins and minerals.

However, food fortification may not be adequate in all instances. The National

Academy of Sciences recently reported that Americans fall short of magnesium

requirements by about 200 milligrams per day. It is difficult to fortify food

with this bulky mineral, and it is not easily incorporated into flour and bread.

Only bottled water provides a medium for the delivery of magnesium in the diet.

Thus supplementation rather than food fortification may be required to meet

human needs. Furthermore, where foods are heated prior to consumption, nutrient

values may be diminished. Consider that flour and cereals are now being

fortified with higher levels of folic acid, a B vitamin known to prevent birth

defects among newborns (spina bifida). But folic acid, as well as all B

vitamins, is easily destroyed by heat from baking or toasting. Food

fortification is a success, but it may

not prevent all nutritional shortages.

 

Why no opposition to " harmonization " ?

Why has there been no opposition to the harmonization of dietary supplements?

The dietary supplements sector working group of the Trans Atlantic Business

Dialogue, Citizens for Health, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the

National Nutritional Foods Association, and other organizations, have not voiced

serious objection to the establishment of tolerable upper limits of nutritional

supplements. This goes unexplained. Either ignorance or conflicts of interest

within these organizations, has resulted in inaction and a lock-step movement

towards the establishment of " tolerable upper limits. " Vital health freedoms are

about to be swept under the bus in the name of harmonization.

 

Conclusion

Centuries ago mankind could only dream of finding remedies that would prevent

infections, eradicate blinding cataracts, avert heart stoppage, hinder tumors,

and forestall aging. Now that mankind has discovered that these health benefits

are achieved through the provision of concentrated nutritional factors, the idea

to establish harmonized dosages runs contrary to the progress of western

civilization. Consumer access to high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements may

save the economies of western civilizations.

 

Addendum

(Previously published in Whole Foods Magazine)

 

Recently the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued dietary antioxidant

recommendations. The new recommendations call for 90 mg. for vitamin C for

healthy adults, up from 60 mg per day under the previous standard. Yet the

government keeps preaching five servings of fresh fruits and vegetables, which

supplies more than 200 mg. of vitamin C. [Am J Clin Nut 62: 1347-56S, 1995]

These two figures don't correlate. Just months before the 90 mg vitamin C

recommendation was issued, various government scientists were calling for

120-200 mg per day in published reports. [Proc Natl Acad Sci 93: 3704-09, 1996;

Nutrition Reviews 57: 222-24, 1999; Am J Clin Nut 69: 1086-1107, 1999] One

researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory of Human

Nutrition, using a technique called saturation kinetics, suggested that even the

200-mg level was not adequate to meet individual vitamin! C needs by as much as

2-3 fold. [Proc Natl Acad Sci 93: 14344,48, 1996]

 

While the Food & Nutrition Board suggested adding another 35 mg of vitamin C for

smokers (125 mg total), researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin found

that it takes 200 mg of vitamin C before smokers achieve the same serum levels

of ascorbic acid as non-smokers. [Am J Clin Nut 53: 1466-70, 1991] Other

investigators have called for 200-mg daily consumption of vitamin C for smokers.

[Ann NY Acad Sci 686: 335-46, 1993] Swedish investigators demonstrated that a

single 2000 mg dose of vitamin C can completely abolish the typical reduction in

blood circulation that occurs while smoking a cigarette. A 1000 mg dose had no

effect. [Microvascular Res 58: 305-11, 1999]

 

What happened to these recommendations? The NAS recommendations conveniently

stopped short of recommending levels of vitamin C that would require

supplementation. The Academy of Sciences set the tolerable upper limit at 2000

mg, but a recent review indicated doses of vitamin C up to 4000 mg. are well

tolerated. [Nut Rev 57: 71-77, 1999] Eight placebo-controlled, double-blind

studies and six non-placebo clinical trials in which up to 10,000 mg of vitamin

C was consumed daily for up to 3 years confirm the safety of vitamin C in high

doses. [J Am Coll Nut 14: 124-36, 1995] Yet the headline in the press release

from the National Academy of Sciences concerning antioxidants read " huge doses

considered risky. "

 

Furthermore, Maret Traber PhD, a member of the NAS panel, says there is " no

evidence that proves antioxidant supplements will help people live better

longer. " [Whole Foods Magazine, August 2000] Really? There was a UCLA study,

which showed that greater than 300 mg of daily vitamin C increases the male life

span by six years, a report that was widely reported in Newsweek and other

periodicals. [Epidemiology 3: 194-202, 1992] A recent study confirms that

finding. [Epidemiology 11: 440-45, 2000]

 

Furthermore, one study shows that about 294 mg of vitamin C significantly

decreases the risk of cataracts compared to 77 mg. per day (about the level set

by the Academy of Sciences). [Clin Chem 39: 1305, 1993] To get that much vitamin

C a person would have to consume 5 oranges per day. Daily consumption of vitamin

C supplements for 10 years or more results in a 77-83 percent reduction in the

prevalence of cataracts. [Am J Clin Nut 66: 911-16, 1997]

 

One of the fallacies of current vitamin C research is the use of blood serum

levels as the gold standard for establishing recommended daily consumption

levels. A 1991 study, conducted at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on

Aging at Tufts University, found that there were " striking differences " in

ocular levels of vitamin C among older adults who consume 148 mg of vitamin C

from their daily diet (which is 2.5 times the old 60 mg RDA and 1.6 times the

current 90 mg recommendation) compared to adults who took 2000 mg daily from

supplements. The level of vitamin C in the focusing lens and aqueous fluid of

the eye increased by 22-32 percent with consumption of 2000 mg of daily vitamin

C supplementation, which affords protection against cataracts. Thus the idea

that vitamin C levels reach a saturation point at about 240 mg in the blood

serum, and that additional vitamin C is worthless and only washes out in the

urine, is dispelled by this research. [Current Eye Research 8: 751-59, 1991]

This is the same level of vitamin C that the National Academy of Sciences now

considers " risky. " [NAS press release April 10, 2000]

 

The message the National Academy of Sciences sends is always the same,

regardless of the evidence, which is that you can get all the nutrients you need

from your diet, not pills. But this recommendation comes with asterisks. The

fine print reads that the NAS recommendation is only for healthy individuals,

and it only spells out " the minimum amount of a nutrient that has beneficial

health effects. " The NAS says the effects of antioxidants are " promising but

unproven. "

 

How much evidence is enough? The answers provided by the NAS Food and Nutrition

Board members amount to doublespeak. The discussion becomes almost

unintelligible with all the talk about daily value, Recommended Daily Allowance

(RDA), USRDA, daily reference intake (DRI) and tolerable upper level. Which

consumer, let alone rocket scientist, can decipher these standards so they can

make an intelligent health decision?

 

One assumption is that people don't need antioxidant supplement until they

become unhealthy. But the Journal of the American Medical Association admits the

destructive process of oxidation is involved in virtually every disease. [J Am

Med Assn 271: 1148-49, 1994] Aging, disease and antioxidant status often

parallel each other. Living tissues slowly age or wear out, they don't become

ill overnight. For example, the focusing lens of the human eye loses about 1

percent of its clarity for every year of life. Cataract formation is universal

and slowly progressive with advancing age. By age 60 only about 35 percent of

light reaches the retina. By age 85 a person needs a 250-watt light bulb to see

what they saw with a 60-watt light bulb when they were 20 years old. The level

of vitamin C in the lens of the eye has been correlated with severity of

cataract. Internatl J Vitamin Nutr Res 68: 309-15, 1998] If an individual

consumes the minimum amount of vitamin C that produces healthful benefits (90

mg. per day by the NAS standards), and waits till they develop a cataract to

take more vitamin C, it will probably be too late to reverse a cataract. About

300-2000 mg per day of vitamin C would be required to prevent cataracts,

according to the data at hand.

 

NAS panel member Maret Traber, Ph.D., says " it was disappointing that the news

media focused on the 'new' upper limits for vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium,

rather than the 'new requirements'. " But it was the NAS themselves who chose to

issue a press release that carried the headline " Antioxidants' role in chronic

disease prevention still uncertain; huge doses considered risky. " Their own

press release didn't emphasize the fact that their report called for an increase

in the daily intake of vitamins C and E. The NAS can't entirely shift the blame

onto the news media. While these experts admit that the news media mistakenly

emphasized the tolerable-upper limits issued by the NAS panel of experts, the

panel members apparently did nothing to correct the problem either. They could

have written to the news media. Apparently none did.

 

Email your Senators and Congressperson today! http://congress.org/elecmail.html

or use http://www.talktogov.com/

 

Article copyright 2000 Knowledge of Health, Inc. Reprinted with permission of

the author.

You may circulate this document on the Internet. But it is not to be re-produced

or distributed for commercial purposes or posted on the Internet without

permission.

 

(The opinions expressed on this page are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the views of DoctorYourself.com)

 

Notes below by John Hammell, of International Advocates for Health Freedom

(http://www.iahf.com), whom I thank for first bringing Mr. Sardi's article to my

attention:

 

" Bill Sardi (BSardi) is one of the unsung heros, and he has really come

through for the vitamin consumers of the world with this well researched, well

written, well documented report.

 

" Sardi asks a very good question at the end of his article: he wants to know why

there has been NO EFFORT on the part of supposed " Health Freedom Organizations "

world wide to bring the information contained within his article to light?

 

" Is our health freedom being hijacked? In another 5 months, unless massive grass

roots opposition can be mustered within the EU, all 15 EU countries will soon

walk in lockstep with Germany and France, and the USA could be set up like a

bowling pin at CODEX in 2002.

 

" You think your access to dietary supplements is secure here in the USA or

anywhere else in the world? Better think again! Jeanne Grimmett of the

Congressional Research Service published an article titled " Dispute Settlement "

which documents the fact that NONE of our (US) domestic laws is safe from

harmonization to rapidly emerging international standards, most of which go

diametrically against the environment and against the public health.

 

" Questions and comments to IAHF PO Box 625 Floyd VA 24091 USA

http://www.iahf.com Telephone Toll-Free 1-800-333-2553 "

 

 

*§ _Newsletter §*

HH_Newsletter

Subscribe:......... HH_Newsletter-

 

**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without

profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml