WILL THE WTO TAKE YOUR VITAMINS AND SUPPLEMENTS AWAY?

[Guest guest]

http://www.cancer-coverup.com/newsletter/06-2003/default.htm

 

WILL THE WTO TAKE YOUR VITAMINS AND SUPPLEMENTS AWAY?

 

 

BY KATHLEEN B. DEOUL

 

Self-reliance and individualism have always been essential elements of the

American character. The belief that individuals should take responsibility for

their own lives and be free to make choices about how they live them is a

fundamental underpinning of our democratic tradition. Nowhere is this more

evident today than in regard to the public's attitudes toward managing their own

health care.

 

In a 2001 Survey by the Roper Organization, 73% of those surveyed said that they

try to treat conditions themselves instead of going to a doctor. Fully 80% said

that even when they did go to a doctor they had one or more ideas about a

diagnosis before the visit. Almost two-thirds said they would rather treat

themselves than go to a doctor. Moreover, when engaging in self-treatment, 57%

said they were either actively using, or learning about alternative medicine..

 

But there is more to the changing attitude than just treating yourself when you

become ill. Americans have also become much more attuned to staying healthy in

the first place. The rapidly growing use of dietary supplements is one of the

most tangible manifestations of this new awareness. Almost six out of ten

Americans now use some form of dietary supplement on a regular basis, most

commonly multivitamins. Yet, even as this practice has grown in popularity, it

has been under assault from an unexpected quarter: The United Nations and the

World Trade Organization.

 

For more than a decade, there has been an ongoing effort to regulate vitamins,

minerals and other dietary supplements through something called the Codex

Alimentarius. The Codex, as it is commonly referred to, is an international

agreement among some 165 nations intended to govern food standards. The United

Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the United Nations World

Health Organization (WHO) jointly manage it through a six member " Codex

Commission " . Its ostensible purpose is to protect consumers and ensure the

safety of food in international commerce - something most people would support.

But, as is so often the case in international politics, the reality of how the

Codex is used is much different from what's on paper.

 

No where is this more true than in regard to dietary supplements.

 

Since the late 1990s, the Codex Commission has been pushing an idea that was

first surfaced by a number of multinational pharmaceutical companies i.e. to

classify all vitamins, minerals and other dietary supplements as drugs; and

subject them to strict regulation. But there was more to it than just a few

rules. Under the multinational's proposal, there would also be a list of

" approved " vitamins and minerals, and they would be the only dietary supplements

that could be legally sold. Even that, however, was just the tip of the iceberg.

 

The proposal also stipulated a number of specific restrictions on vitamin and

mineral sales and promotion including:

 

Strict controls on potency, limiting the amount of a vitamin or mineral in any

formulation to pre-determined " safe " maximum levels. For example, Vitamin C

could not be sold in potencies greater than 200 mg. Vitamin E would be limited

to 45 international units (IU) and Vitamin B1 would be limited to 2.4 mg. All of

these are far below potencies commonly sold in the United States today.

 

There would be an outright ban on any health claims related to vitamins or

minerals even if they are true. For example advertising could not claim that

taking calcium helps prevent osteoporosis, or that Folic Acid helps prevent

certain birth defects.

 

Even though a doctor's prescription would be required for all vitamins and

minerals, they could not be used for the prevention or treatment of disease

other than vitamin deficiency.

 

If you think that this is such an extreme proposal it would never be adopted,

think again. In 1997 it was only a last-minute blitz by consumer advocates that

prevented passage of those very dietary supplement restrictions by the Codex and

the matter remains under consideration even now.

 

But it may not be necessary for the Codex rules to be adopted in order to shut

down the supplement industry. A recent action in Europe - spearheaded, of course

by the multinationals - holds out the prospect of such restrictions reaching

U.S. shores through another avenue: the World Trade Organization, or (WTO). To

understand how this could happen, you need to know what has already taken place

in Europe.

 

On November 1st 1993, the European Union was established to create a single

market among the various nations of continental Europe and Great Britain. Over

the past decade, what was intended as a means of facilitating trade has evolved

into a massive bureaucracy that issues an average of 3,500 " directives, " each

year. These " directives " are, for all practical purposes, laws, that are binding

on all EU members. Many of them are aimed at regulating foodstuffs. In fact, EU

bureaucrats have issued directives covering everything from the number of holes

in Swiss Cheese to the maximum frying temperature for oils. While many might be

shrugged off as silly, the directive concerning dietary supplements is no

laughing matter.

 

In March of 2002, the European Union (EU) passed the " European Union Directive

on Dietary Supplements. " It was pushed by - you guessed it - the multinationals!

Under this new law, vitamins and other dietary supplements are treated as though

they are drugs! That, however, is just the start.

 

On February 23, 2003, the EU published draft regulations to implement the law.

The draft regulations go into full effect in 2005. These new rules will be a

deathblow to the dietary supplement industry in Europe. A brief review of just a

few of them illustrates this point.

 

For example, just as had been proposed in the 1997 proposed amendment to the

Codex Alimentarius, one of the rules puts absolute limits on the potency of

vitamins at levels far below those in common use. In the case of Vitamin C, for

example, the limit is 300 milligrams (mg). Since many people take 2 to 3 GRAMS

per day (eight to ten times as much), this would require that they ingest from

eight to ten pills to take their normal dose. In the case of Vitamin E, the

potency is limited to about one-eighth of what many people routinely take. Even

then, they won't be able to just walk into a store and purchase their vitamins.

 

The reason is that as was the case with the 1997 Codex proposal, since the rules

essentially classify vitamins as drugs, vitamins will only be sold through

pharmacies, with a doctor's prescription! This is already a requirement in

several countries including Norway, Germany and Greece, and by 2005 will be

required everywhere in Europe.

 

Still, it's not just the limit on potency that is a problem. The rules would

also emulate multinational's proposed Codex amendment and ban a number of herbal

supplements entirely. In fact, Ireland has already made St. John's Wort illegal,

and the European Union's Scientific Committee on Food has declared that

supplements such as Coenzyme Q-10, Bioflavanoids, and a wide range of amino

acids are dangerous. This sets the stage for these supplements being banned as

well.

 

Under the rules, again as was proposed for the Codex in 1997, health claims for

vitamins are specifically banned, whether or not there is a scientific basis for

the claim. Therefore, dietary supplements may not be marketed as a preventative

measure to protect against disease - no matter what the research says!

 

In other words, the multinational opponents of dietary supplements who were

thwarted in 1997 merely shifted the focus of their assault to the EU!

 

But, what, you may ask, does an EU regulation have to do with vitamin sales in

the United States?

 

The short answer is more than you'd think. The reason is because the United

States is a member of another international body called the World Trade

Organization or WTO!

 

In 1995, the United States and 134 other nations entered into the World Trade

Organization Agreement. Ostensibly, the purpose of the WTO was to help manage

international trade in an orderly fashion and eliminate trade barriers between

nations - in essence to promote free trade. The fact that the WTO Agreement and

its accompanying regulations comprised a document more than 22,000 - that's

right 22,000 pages - in length might have given a hint that it was really

something quite different, especially if you read the fine print.

 

One of the most important elements of the WTO Agreement was the so-called

" harmonization " rule. This rule required that all of the signatory nations

revise their regulations so that they were in agreement or " harmonized. " If a

country fails to comply with the " harmonization " rule it can be taken before the

WTO Dispute Resolution Panel and forced to do so!

 

If this all seems a little hard to believe, consider the following:

 

The United States passed a law banning the importation of tuna that was caught

in nets that also trapped dolphins. Mexican fishing companies that didn't want

to spend the money on new nets complained to the WTO and the matter went to a

Dispute Resolution Panel - which ruled against the United States. The law was

overturned.

 

When the U.S. passed another rule aimed at protecting endangered sea turtles,

Asian fishing firms complained to the WTO. Like their Mexican counterparts, they

didn't want to spend the money to upgrade their nets so sea turtles wouldn't be

accidentally snagged. Again, a Dispute Resolution Panel overturned the U.S.

rule.

 

In a third instance, foreign oil refiners complained to the WTO that they

couldn't comply with U.S. rules concerning air pollution rules that applied to

gasoline. As with the other two cases, the Dispute Resolution Panel overturned

the regulation, allowing foreign refiners to sell gasoline in the U.S. that

polluted the air!

 

And these are just a few examples!

 

But that's not all.

 

The WTO Dispute Resolution Panels operate in complete secrecy - they are not

open to the public or to attendance by interested third parties - and there is

no appeal from their rulings! Also WTO rules require that neither the

complaining nation nor the nation against which the complaint has been lodged

have a representative on the tribunal deciding the case. In fact, the

complaining nations have no role in the panel's selection. Rather, the judges

are selected by the WTO's unelected bureaucrats in Geneva!

 

With the potential for an outright ban facing the industry, you might have

thought that even the huge multinational pharmaceutical firms would have been

concerned. After all, they manufacture around 60% of all vitamins sold. But as

usual, surface appearances can be misleading.

 

Although it is true that these giant companies manufacture the majority of all

vitamins in terms of absolute volume, the overwhelming majority of their

production goes to bulk sales to food processors and for animal feeds. The

reason this distinction is important is that the proposed regulations include an

exemption for vitamins used to fortify foods to meet government requirements.

For example, virtually all flour has vitamins added to " enrich " it, and most

salt has iodine added. So Big Pharma gets to have its cake and eat it. It will

still be legally able to sell its bulk vitamins even as it is putting the

" little guy " out of business!

 

And who are the " little guys? "

 

According to a survey by the Dietary Supplement Education Alliance, the

supplement industry's trade organization, the overwhelming majority of

supplement sales - over 60 % - are made through small and medium-sized

businesses. Roughly a third of sales are through independent natural health food

stores, and another fifth through multi-level marketing. Only about a third of

sales are accounted for by mass merchandise retailers. Moreover, some 68% of

supplement sales are comprised of vitamins, minerals and herbal products -

exactly the items the new rules would affect. The roughly $11.4 billion in

annual sales these items represented in the U.S. in 2000 is a pittance compared

to the $100 plus billion in annual sales of the pharmaceutical industry. For

small businesses to medium-sized businesses, though, they are critical. Sales of

vitamins, minerals and other supplements account for up to 80% of the sales for

health food stores and anywhere from 40% to 60% of sales for network marketers.

Further, for many of these retailers, the sales of dietary supplements

represent the bulk of the repeat trade that allows them to keep their doors

open!

 

Of course, the supporters of the EU and WTO claim there is nothing to worry

about. They point to the fact that the EU directive calls the new rules

" guidelines " rather than " standards. " This distinction, they say means that

there is no basis for a WTO Dispute Resolution Panel to extend them to the

United States. Their claim, however, is patently false.

 

The WTO does not distinguish between different terms in its decision making

process. It doesn't matter whether the EU calls its new rules " standards " or

" guidelines. " If the rules are enforced, in one country, then as far as the WTO

is concerned, they are enforceable in all member countries.

 

The advocates also note that there is an exemption under the treaty that covers

foodstuffs, the so-called WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

or SPS for short, that allows nations to go by their own domestic rules in

regulating foodstuffs. What they do not say, however, is that the exemption only

applies if the rules are STRICTER than those contained in the international

agreement. So the exemption would not apply in this case.

 

Of course, both of these arguments are just smokescreens to keep supplement

advocates from attempting to block the move. Fortunately the word is beginning

to get out.

 

But the danger has not passed.

 

In 1997 the move to ban dietary supplements was blocked, but not without quick

action by average citizens who didn't want to give up their right to use safe,

natural products. The same sort of action is needed today. If the millions of

Americans who use vitamins, minerals and herbs do not speak out, the faceless

bureaucrats of the WTO may yet succeed.

 

to top of page

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!