EU Ban on Vitamins Going Into Effect - US Be Aware!!!

[Guest guest]



BIG MONEY WINS AGAIN .... COMING TO USA SHORTLY ...----- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1071-1457293,00.html January 27, 2005Pro-drink, anti-vitamins. How's that for a shot in the foot?Mary Ann SieghartThe Times (London)THIS IS what your average town centre could look like in a year¹s time. Allnight the bars, pubs and clubs will be serving alcohol, and drunken groupswill be lurching down the high street in the early hours of the morning,yelling and throwing up in the gutter. By day, sober, responsible citizenswill be visiting their local health food shop only to discover that they canno longer buy their favourite vitamin or mineral because the EU, with theconnivance of the Government, has banned it.It¹s a funny old world, isn¹t it? People embarking on an early death fromcirrhosis of the liver will be encouraged in their efforts by ministers. Yetpeople who follow the Government¹s advice to take greater responsibility fortheir health will be forbidden to do so.The EU Food Supplements Directive is due to take effect on August 1. As aresult, more than 5,000 products will disappear from health stores and morethan 300 vitamin and mineral ingredients out of 420 will be banned. The onlyhope for consumers of these products is a court case being fought by theAlliance for Natural Health, an organisation of manufacturers, retailers,distributors, consumers and practitioners of complementary medicine.The case has been rushed through the British courts and was considered sostrong that the High Court expedited its progress to the European Court ofJustice (ECJ), where it was heard yesterday. Shamefully, the BritishGovernment joined the Greeks and Portuguese in fighting the Alliance,although UK government lawyers failed to turn up to argue in court.The directive turns the normal British concept of freedom on its head.Instead of allowing any vitamin or mineral to be sold unless it is has beenproved harmful, the directive insists that only those proved to be safe canappear on its ³positive list² and thus on the shelves. Yet these are allingredients that appear in a natural diet and have been eaten without illeffect by human beings for millennia.For a product to reach the positive list, a huge dossier of evidence willneed to be provided by the manufacturer: a cripplingly expensive processthat, even according to the UK Government, will cost between £80,000 and£250,000 for each ingredient ‹ far beyond the means of most smallmanufacturers.Yesterday, the advocate general of the ECJ, apparently impressed by theAlliance for Natural Health¹s case, agreed that the procedure for addingnutrients to the positive list was ³as transparent as a black box². This maybode well: his judgment will be published on April 5, and the court judgmentin June. In the vast majority of cases, the court supports the judgment ofthe advocate general.In other words, it is at least possible that this outrageous ban will beoverturned. But that still leaves open the question of why our Governmentsupported it in the first place.During its passage through the Commons, Labour whips even used bullyingtactics to get the ban through. Kate Hoey, a Labour MP, was asked to sit onthe committee examining the directive. When she told the whips that sheopposed it, they took her off. Other Labour MPs became similarlydisenchanted, with similar results. By the end of the deliberations, onlythree of the original eight Labour members remained on the committee, andstill the directive was passed by only eight votes to six.Peter Hain has argued in Cabinet for greater government support forcomplementary medicine. Tony Blair supported him. Now the Prime Minister ispresiding over a ban that is sure to infuriate the 30 to 40 per cent ofadults who take these supplements.These are people who prefer to keep themselves healthy and use natural meansto combat illness than to bother their GP and burden the NHS. They aregenerally thoughtful citizens who have done their research and want toremedy the deficiencies in minerals and vitamins which are often part of amodern, processed diet.These people may not have had much interest in politics. They may not havehad strong views on Europe. They soon will.Just as Blair is about to embark on a general election campaign and, soonafter that, a referendum on the European constitution, he is wilfullyalienating the very section of the population to whom he ought to beappealing. Unless this ban is overturned in the courts, these voters willstart to loathe Labour for being bossy and the EU for interfering in theirlives.As I said, it¹s a funny old world, isn¹t it?Mail miracleSo delightful to receive a glossy leaflet from the Royal Mail through myletterbox this week. All I needed to know was there. Apparently, I can trustRoyal Mail with my post. It is consistent and reliable. And ‹ lucky me! ‹ mymail ³should² arrive by lunchtime every day, long after I have left forwork.But it was the figures for reliability and speed of delivery that mostcheered me up. Some 92 per cent of First Class letters get there the nextday. So the one that took three months to arrive at my house, even though itwas correctly addressed, must just have been an aberration.As are the ‹ roughly ‹ one in ten letters that are put through our letterboxeven though they have a different address written on the envelope. It¹sfunny, that, since according to Royal Mail ³more than 99.9 per cent of allmail gets delivered safely and quickly to the right address². That is one ina thousand wrong, not one in ten.We also know that much of our post goes through other people¹s letterboxes ‹or at least, it never gets to us. But this is all very good news. If we aregetting the bulk of misdelivered mail, and the national figure for accuracyis 99.9 per cent, then the errors that we suffer must account for much ofthat 0.01 per cent. That means the rest of you have a near-perfect service.Hurrah!Bear necessityMinisters are thinking of banning the huge cuddly toys that are offered asprizes in gambling arcades, lest these animals lure children into a lifetimeof betting. The provision will appear in the new Gambling Bill.They are right to believe that the prizes are attractive. My children beg toplay arcade games whenever the giant teddies are on display. As acorrective, I ask them to look round the fairground or arcade and see howmany people are brandishing these wonderful bears. Only when they can¹t seeany do they begin to understand how the odds are stacked against them.If the stall-owners really wanted to make money, they would pay localchildren a couple of quid each to stroll around for hours, beaming andhugging a giant cuddly toy. In fact, I¹m surprised they don¹t.maryann.sieghartJOIN THE DEBATESend your comments to: debate Click here to find out more!Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

[Guest guest]

The good news is that ANH made a good case in the courts---decision in July. Keep your fingers crossed!!!luckypig <luckypig wrote:

 BIG MONEY WINS AGAIN .... COMING TO USA SHORTLY ...----- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1071-1457293,00.html January 27, 2005Pro-drink, anti-vitamins. How's that for a shot in the foot?Mary Ann SieghartThe Times (London)THIS IS what your average town centre could look like in a year¹s time. Allnight the bars, pubs and clubs will be serving alcohol, and drunken groupswill be lurching down the high street in the early hours of the morning,yelling and throwing up in the gutter. By day, sober, responsible citizenswill be visiting their local health food shop only to discover that they canno longer buy their favourite vitamin or mineral because the EU, with theconnivance of the

Government, has banned it.It¹s a funny old world, isn¹t it? People embarking on an early death fromcirrhosis of the liver will be encouraged in their efforts by ministers. Yetpeople who follow the Government¹s advice to take greater responsibility fortheir health will be forbidden to do so.The EU Food Supplements Directive is due to take effect on August 1. As aresult, more than 5,000 products will disappear from health stores and morethan 300 vitamin and mineral ingredients out of 420 will be banned. The onlyhope for consumers of these products is a court case being fought by theAlliance for Natural Health, an organisation of manufacturers, retailers,distributors, consumers and practitioners of complementary medicine.The case has been rushed through the British courts and was considered sostrong that the High Court expedited its progress to the European Court ofJustice (ECJ), where it was heard yesterday.

Shamefully, the BritishGovernment joined the Greeks and Portuguese in fighting the Alliance,although UK government lawyers failed to turn up to argue in court.The directive turns the normal British concept of freedom on its head.Instead of allowing any vitamin or mineral to be sold unless it is has beenproved harmful, the directive insists that only those proved to be safe canappear on its ³positive list² and thus on the shelves. Yet these are allingredients that appear in a natural diet and have been eaten without illeffect by human beings for millennia.For a product to reach the positive list, a huge dossier of evidence willneed to be provided by the manufacturer: a cripplingly expensive processthat, even according to the UK Government, will cost between £80,000 and£250,000 for each ingredient ‹ far beyond the means of most smallmanufacturers.Yesterday, the advocate general of the ECJ, apparently impressed

by theAlliance for Natural Health¹s case, agreed that the procedure for addingnutrients to the positive list was ³as transparent as a black box². This maybode well: his judgment will be published on April 5, and the court judgmentin June. In the vast majority of cases, the court supports the judgment ofthe advocate general.In other words, it is at least possible that this outrageous ban will beoverturned. But that still leaves open the question of why our Governmentsupported it in the first place.During its passage through the Commons, Labour whips even used bullyingtactics to get the ban through. Kate Hoey, a Labour MP, was asked to sit onthe committee examining the directive. When she told the whips that sheopposed it, they took her off. Other Labour MPs became similarlydisenchanted, with similar results. By the end of the deliberations, onlythree of the original eight Labour members remained on the committee,

andstill the directive was passed by only eight votes to six.Peter Hain has argued in Cabinet for greater government support forcomplementary medicine. Tony Blair supported him. Now the Prime Minister ispresiding over a ban that is sure to infuriate the 30 to 40 per cent ofadults who take these supplements.These are people who prefer to keep themselves healthy and use natural meansto combat illness than to bother their GP and burden the NHS. They aregenerally thoughtful citizens who have done their research and want toremedy the deficiencies in minerals and vitamins which are often part of amodern, processed diet.These people may not have had much interest in politics. They may not havehad strong views on Europe. They soon will.Just as Blair is about to embark on a general election campaign and, soonafter that, a referendum on the European constitution, he is wilfullyalienating the very section of the

population to whom he ought to beappealing. Unless this ban is overturned in the courts, these voters willstart to loathe Labour for being bossy and the EU for interfering in theirlives.As I said, it¹s a funny old world, isn¹t it?Mail miracleSo delightful to receive a glossy leaflet from the Royal Mail through myletterbox this week. All I needed to know was there. Apparently, I can trustRoyal Mail with my post. It is consistent and reliable. And ‹ lucky me! ‹ mymail ³should² arrive by lunchtime every day, long after I have left forwork.But it was the figures for reliability and speed of delivery that mostcheered me up. Some 92 per cent of First Class letters get there the nextday. So the one that took three months to arrive at my house, even though itwas correctly addressed, must just have been an aberration.As are the ‹ roughly ‹ one in ten letters that are put through our letterboxeven

though they have a different address written on the envelope. It¹sfunny, that, since according to Royal Mail ³more than 99.9 per cent of allmail gets delivered safely and quickly to the right address². That is one ina thousand wrong, not one in ten.We also know that much of our post goes through other people¹s letterboxes ‹or at least, it never gets to us. But this is all very good news. If we aregetting the bulk of misdelivered mail, and the national figure for accuracyis 99.9 per cent, then the errors that we suffer must account for much ofthat 0.01 per cent. That means the rest of you have a near-perfect service.Hurrah!Bear necessityMinisters are thinking of banning the huge cuddly toys that are offered asprizes in gambling arcades, lest these animals lure children into a lifetimeof betting. The provision will appear in the new Gambling Bill.They are right to believe that the prizes are attractive. My

children beg toplay arcade games whenever the giant teddies are on display. As acorrective, I ask them to look round the fairground or arcade and see howmany people are brandishing these wonderful bears. Only when they can¹t seeany do they begin to understand how the odds are stacked against them.If the stall-owners really wanted to make money, they would pay localchildren a couple of quid each to stroll around for hours, beaming andhugging a giant cuddly toy. In fact, I¹m surprised they don¹t.maryann.sieghartJOIN THE DEBATESend your comments to: debate Click here to find out more!Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**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