A WAKE UP CALL! Proposed Legislation to Weaken DSHEA, and Codex Alimentarius Looms.

[Guest guest]

http://www.dadamo.com/columns/nap/ask2.pl

 

 

On the The NAP Perspective For 1 May 2004

 

 

A WAKE UP CALL! Proposed Legislation to Weaken DSHEA, and Codex Alimentarius

Looms.

 

 

 

 

 

I find, as I’m sure many of you do, that it is difficult enough to find all the

hours in a day to accomplish the job, much less the responsibilities that many

have with family and parenting, church, and other obligations. For most people,

the thought of actually taking the time to become involved in weighing-in on

certain congressional legislation is perhaps the straw that would break the

camel’s back. But I believe it is a straw that must be risked, if we are to

maintain our freedoms in many areas.

 

 

 

The area I’m most focused on at the moment is an attempt by the sponsor and

cosponsors of certain proposed legislation in Congress to seriously erode our

future freedom to have access to dietary supplements, as we have been able to do

since unanimous passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act

(DSHEA) in 1994. The language of this act is voluminous. The original DSHEA

document can be viewed online here and the amendments to the original document

can be viewed online here.

 

What follows is the essence of DSHEA, succinctly put (thanks to the summary

below from Tracy A. Taylor, Director of Pubic Affairs and Communications for

NNFA at the Washington, DC office).

 

 

 

Essentially, DSHEA was passed to balance the American consumer’s growing

interest in health maintenance with the preservation of public safety. This

legislation improved consumer access to dietary supplements and information

about these products. It also increased consumer protection against unsafe

products and false and misleading claims. In addition, it required supplement

manufacturers to submit evidence of the safety of their products and the

scientific basis for claims.

 

 

 

DSHEA is often mischaracterized as lessening the Food and Drug Administration’s

ability to regulate supplements. In fact, the enactment of DSHEA provided the

FDA, the primary agency that regulates supplements, with increased enforcement

powers by establishing new labeling and potency standards. Briefly, under DSHEA,

the FDA has the power to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seize dietary supplements that pose an “unreasonable or significant risk of

illness or injury” [section 402 (f)].

 

 

 

 

Stop the sale of an entire class of dietary supplements if they pose an

imminent public health hazard [section 402 (f)].

 

 

 

 

Require dietary supplements to meet strict manufacturing guidelines (Good

Manufacturing Practices), including potency, cleanliness, and stability [section

402 (g)]

 

 

 

 

Stop a new dietary ingredient from being marketed if the FDA does not receive

enough safety data in advance [section 413].

 

 

 

 

Refer to criminal action any company that sells a dietary supplement that is

toxic or unsanitary [section 402 (a)].

 

 

 

 

Obtain an injunction against the sale of a dietary supplement that has false

or unsubstantiated claims [section 403 (a), (r6)].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, DSHEA, in effect, is what allows dietary supplements to be manufactured and

allows us to purchase dietary supplements from sources such as health food

stores, online sources, and so forth. In other words, it created a favorable

regulatory climate for dietary supplements, and also addressed the issue of

consumer safety.

 

 

 

Since 1994, there have been regulations published and defined that have had a

favorable impact on DSHEA, such as those in 1997 that amended and strengthened

it to require, among other things, structure/function claims on labels, and the

requirement to list all ingredients (including “other ingredients”) on the

labels of each product as well. These amendments became effective in 1999.

However, there are current attempts to restrict the favorable climate for DSHEA,

and these attempts are disturbing to say the least.

 

 

 

My purpose in writing this particular column is to alert you to current,

proposed Congressional legislation regarding dietary supplements, give you

websites you can access to keep you informed of the progress of this proposed

legislation (as well as my opinion on how you ought to perceive it), tell you

what you can do to express your concern and have an impact on the outcome, and

relate what is happening in this country to what is happening in the European

Union in this area – a disturbing prospect for the US as well.

 

 

 

To begin, the strongest and most well-organized lobbying group in this country

for the continued existence of DSHEA as the writers intended it to be is the

National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA). This is a professional

organization, of which NAP is a member. NNFA represents nearly 5,000 members

including retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors of natural

products, including foods, dietary supplements, and health/beauty aids. It is

through this organization that we at NAP, as well as other members, are kept

apprised of current legislation that would seek to limit one’s access to dietary

supplements. Interestingly, this March 23rd marked the date for the 7th Annual

Natural Foods Day lobbying event in Washington, DC, sponsored by NNFA.

 

 

 

This day long activity is an annual lobbying event designed to build the

Industry’s base of support through personal meetings with members of Congress.

It is an opportunity to put a face to public policy issues and to tell

legislators how to stand on important legislation, such as bills that would

restrict your right to buy and sell safe, affordable and effective dietary

supplements.

 

 

 

In the morning, attendees are coached on strategies to make the most of

one-on-one meetings with members of Congress. In the afternoon, attendees have

scheduled appointments with legislators that have been pre-arranged with

representatives from each attendee’s home state. The evening features a

Congressional Champions Awards Reception, which offers an opportunity to relax

and recount the day’s successes with fellow activists and to mingle with members

of Congress. Now let’s segue to the issues at hand.

 

 

 

The current proposed legislations, regarding dietary supplements that you need

to be aware of, fall into four bills (three in the Senate and one in the House):

S.1780 Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003, S.1538 DSHEA Full Implementation

and Enforcement Act of 2003, S.722 Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003, and

H.R.3377 Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act.

 

 

 

S.1780 Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003 is a bill to amend the Controlled

Substances Act to clarify the definition of anabolic steroids and to provide for

research and education relating to steroids and steroid precursors. It has

bipartisan support and is cosponsored by Senators Ted Stevens ® Alaska, John

McCain ® Arizona, Dianne Feinstein (D) California, Joseph Biden (Sponsor, D)

Delaware, Bill Nelson (D) Florida, Tom Harken (D) Iowa, Charles Grassley ®

Iowa, Orrin hatch ® Utah, and George Allen ® Virginia. NNFA supports the

cosponsors’ positions on this bill, and I agree. The current status on this bill

is that it was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on

October 23, 2003.

 

 

 

S.1538 DSHEA Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2003 is a bill that will

eliminate the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) favorite excuses that it

doesn’t have enough staff, money or power to regulate supplements. The FDA has

fallen short when it comes to enforcing the law. Because dietary supplements

come from natural ingredients, they can’t be patented. While this insures that

these products are readily – and affordably – available, it takes away the

ability of manufactures to recoup research costs. The bill doubles the funding

given to the Office of Dietary Supplements to expand research and consumer

information about these products. Finally, this bill will require the FDA to

file annual reports to Congress about how they’re regulating dietary

supplements. If they fail in their responsibility to fully implement the law,

they’ll be held accountable.

 

 

 

This bill has bipartisan support and is cosponsored by Senators Tom Harkin

(Sponsor, D) Iowa, Hillary Clinton (D) New York, Lindsey Graham ® South

Carolina, and Orrin Hatch ® Utah. NNFA supports the cosponsors’ positions on

this bill, and I agree. The current status on the bill is that it was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on July

31, 2003.

 

 

 

S.722 Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003 is a RED FLAG for all of us. Stay

with me on this because what follows is a lengthier definition of the bill. It

was introduced on March 26, 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require each

manufacturer of a dietary supplement (supplement), and each packer or

distributor of a supplement the name of which appears on the labeling, to report

serious adverse experiences to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to

investigate such occurrences.

 

 

 

 

Defines a serious adverse experience and adverse event associated with the

use of a supplement in a human that involves death or one of other serious

calamities.

 

 

 

 

Directs The Secretary to conduct a clinical evaluation of each such reported

experience.

 

 

 

 

Requires the manufacturer of a dietary supplement to report periodically on

other adverse experiences and to review such occurrences.

 

 

 

 

Allows the Secretary to grant a waiver from the above reporting, reviewing,

and investigating requirements with respect to a dietary supplement upon

determination that compliance is not necessary to protect the public health.

 

 

 

 

Authorizes the Secretary to require a manufacturer to conduct postmarket

surveillance for a supplement under specific circumstances.

 

 

 

 

Permits the Secretary to require a manufacturer of a supplement or of an

ingredient in a supplement to demonstrate that its product is safe under

specified circumstances, and directs the Secretary to approve the continued

marketing of such a supplement or ingredient or to disapprove it.

 

 

 

 

Prohibits any introduction into interstate commerce of a supplement

containing a stimulant unless it is approved by the Secretary under this Act.

 

 

 

 

Amends the Act to exclude a product that bears or contains an anabolic

steroid from the definition of a dietary supplement for a specified chapter of

the Act.

 

 

 

 

Eliminates a provision of the Act requiring the United States to bear the

burden of proof to show a supplement or an ingredient in a supplement is

adulterated due to a safety violation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This bill has lopsided bipartisan support and is cosponsored by Senators John

McCain ® Arizona, Dianne Feinstein (D) California, Richard Durbin (Sponsor, D)

Illinois, Charles Shumer (D) New York, and Hillary Clinton (D) New York. NNFA

does not support the cosponsors’ positions on this bill, and I strongly agree

with NNFA. The current status on this bill is that it was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on March 26,

2003.

 

 

 

The last of the four bills is the H.R.3377 Dietary Supplement and Awareness Act,

which is another RED FLAG for all of us. This is a House bill similar in its

intent to S.722, so I won’t list its entire text here, but will give you a

source for this information before I finish this column. This bill has entirely

partisan support to include George Miller (D 7th) California, Fortney Stark (D

13th) California, Henry Waxman (D 30th) California, Lucille Royball-Allard (D

34th) California, Grace Napolitano (D 38th) California, Susan Davis (Sponsor, D

53rd) California, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D At-Large) District of Columbia, John

Dingell (D 15th) Michigan, Edolphus Towns (D 10th) New York, Major Owens (D

11th) New York, and Donna Christensen (D At-Large) Virgin Islands. NNFA does not

support the cosponsors’ positions on this bill, and I strongly agree with NNFA.

The current status on this bill is that it was referred to the House Committee

on Energy and Commerce on October 28, 2003, and then

to the Subcommittee on Health on December 4, 2003.

 

 

 

Although NNFA is a membership organization, there is a wealth of information

that can be accessed by nonmembers at

www.nnfa.org. For instance, you can look at virtually all the headings on the

home page without having to enter the site through the Member Log In. Of

particular interest might be for you to put your cursor on “Products and

Services”, move down the drop-down-window to “Government Relations”, then move

your cursor to the right and click on each of the five subject categories under

“Rules, Regulations, and Reports”, which include “Federal”, “State”,

“International”, “NNFA Comments, Positions and Guidelines”, and “Advocacy and

PAC”.

 

 

 

Also, you can email prepared letters or easily write your own email letters if

you click on the “Write Congress” square on the home page. Or you can take a

little more time if you put your cursor on “Products and Services”, move it down

the drop-down-window to “Government Relations”, move it right to “Advocacy and

PAC”, and click. At the new page, click on the “Advocacy Action Center” link,

and choose the “Congress and President” link on the next page to contact your

legislators. Fill in the appropriate information, and you’re on your way. Take

some time to review the other informational links on this page as well. You can,

for example, get informed about legislators, congressional schedules, and even

register to vote.

 

 

 

In addition, there are two more things you can do while at the NNFA website.

First, there is another prepared letter under the subject “Don’t Dismantle

DSHEA” found by clicking on the link that says “Don’t Let Congress Limit Your

Access to Dietary Supplements”, found at the “Advocacy Action Center link”.

Complete the information and send this to your representatives. And second,

there is a “Grassroots Action Team Manual” link at the “Advocacy Action Center”

that will allow you to download the Manual in PDF format, which will tell you

how to optimize your activism. If you don’t have Adobe Acrobat Reader (which you

will need to have to download the Manual), you can get it for free by logging

onto www.adobe.com, clicking on the link that says “Get Adobe Reader”, and

following the directions.

 

 

 

And before I forget, make sure to look at the “State” category under “Rules,

Regulations, and Reports” at the NNFA website. You will find legislation that

has been passed and other items of interest regarding dietary supplements in

California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas. If

you live in one of these states, you should be aware of what’s going on.

 

 

 

Another valuable website to jot down is www.citizens.org, which will take you to

the Citizens for Health organization. You can log onto this website and view

S.722, and H.R.3377 as well as additional legislation on health that you should

be aware of. This site is set up so that you can also email a prepared letter to

your Senator or Congressperson, by filling in the appropriate information. It’s

as easy as that.

 

 

 

By perusing these sites, you will also understand the FDA’s recent ban on

ephedra (the culprit was actually ephedrine, a concentrated alkaloid, often

synthesized, of ephedra) in a better light than perhaps just thinking that one

more supplement “bit the dust” at the hands of the FDA. As I mentioned earlier,

DSHEA has a consumer safety provision to allow the FDA to step in to control a

supplement under certain circumstances.

 

 

 

Androstenedione (a steroid hormone precursor that can be converted to

testosterone and estrogens in the body, readily available in health food stores)

appears to be the next target. The take home message from this is that

manufactures and distributors must be ever more vigilant in what they produce,

what they produce it for, and in whom it’s going to be used.

 

 

 

Two thousand years ago for example, proponents of Traditional

(TCM) would never have used the alkaloid ephedrine for what some greedy

manufactures have primarily produced it for today – weight loss. The herb

ephedra (also called Ma Huang) had more primary uses for upper respiratory

issues, and still does, and quite effective at that. But now we’ve lost easy

access to even liquid extracts of ephedra or capsules of the herb, in my

opinion, because of industry greed in trying to capture the weight loss market.

 

 

 

And yes, you can ask, what about deaths from products like Tylenol and from

pharmaceuticals, because there are far more deaths from these (I’ll save this

for another discussion) than ever occurred from ephedrine? But the question will

fall on deaf ears, because for a quick buck, some in the dietary supplement

industry have not policed themselves, and that is where the real fault lies.

Fortunately, if I’m not mistaken, I believe the tea of ephedra will still be

available, because it falls under the category of “food”. Interesting though,

isn’t it, that the tea takes us back to probably the oldest form of

administration of herbs – the infusion. It’s also a lot safer, and the Chinese

knew this.

 

 

 

Moving ahead now, the attempt to limit access to dietary supplements is also in

full force in Europe. Our good friend and European distributor of NAP products

Nick Bowler (for those of you in Europe, Nick heads up Stacktheme, Ltd. in

Scotland, which can be reached at www.stacktheme.com), recently visited and

brought us up to date on the dietary supplement issues within the European Union

(EU) -- legislation perhaps far more serious at present than what is being

proposed in the US, although S.722 and H.R.3377 if ever enacted would certainly

be the beginning of a very slippery slope.

 

 

 

But that slope could turn out to be of relatively minor concern when contrasted

with what you’ll read in the very well researched article by Paul Anthony Taylor

that follows, which I’ve included in its entirety. This article appeared at the

website, and posits very disturbing, potential implications of a finalized Codex

text, not only for the EU, but for the US as well.

 

 

 

You may want to paste this URL into your browser, so you can access the actual

web page and bring to life the numerous links the author has included in his

article to allow you to access more information. I just finished talking with

Paul by phone, and he very kindly gave me permission to include his article in

my column. So, without delay, and with much gratitude to Paul Anthony Taylor,

please read his article below and become informed and enlightened. There is a

short lead-in to the article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Codex Alimentarius – A threat to your vitamin supplements?

 

 

 

Legislation

 

 

 

 

 

Codex Alimentarius is an international standard-setting body dealing with how to

safely process and store food products, avoiding hazards to our health. For

about ten years, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary

Uses has been mulling over a guideline for vitamin and mineral supplements,

originally proposed by the German delegation to this committee, presumably to

eliminate dangers from these additions of vital nutrients to our nutrition.

 

So far so good, but what dangers exactly are we talking about? When statistical

evidence indicates that food supplements are by far the safest category of

products in existence, why do we need regulations?

 

 

 

 

Could it be that pharmaceutical drugs, recently shown to be a leading cause of

death in the Western world, are losing ground, that the pharmaceutical business

is on its way out? If so, might it just be that the proponents of pharmaceutical

drug " treatment " of disease could be leaning on legislators to eliminate what

they perceive to be the cause of their woes - the natural way to health by

proper nutrition?

 

 

 

 

How ever that may be, Paul Taylor has examined the question of Codex

Alimentarius and the threat this international legislative body's deliberations

may pose to our health by " regulating " supplements of vital nutrients in a most

restrictive way.

 

 

 

 

Codex Alimentarius – A threat to your vitamin supplements?

 

 

 

 

By Paul Anthony Taylor

 

 

 

 

Have you ever wondered what would happen if a group of legislators from 48

different countries got together to talk about nutrition and food? Probably not,

as most of us have more important things to think about. Presumably though, they

would sit down and discuss the importance of diet, nutrition and the prevention

of chronic diseases, and then try to figure out ways to help us all to live

longer, healthier lives. Right?

 

 

 

 

Wrong, unfortunately. Welcome to the world of the ‘Codex Committee on Nutrition

and Foods for Special Dietary Uses’, where the committee chairman talks about

pharmaceutical drugs preventing diseases and the EU representative states that

food and the prevention of diseases do not go together. If you’re the type of

person who prefers processed food and who wouldn’t be seen dead in a health food

shop, then you can relax and stop reading now, because Codex is definitely not a

threat to your life style. But if you’re the sort who prefers natural healthcare

to pharmaceutical drugs, and who supplements his or her diet with high doses of

multi-vitamins and minerals then you could soon have a great deal to worry

about, because Codex is a direct threat to your way of life.

 

 

 

 

So what is Codex?

 

 

 

 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the international body charged with setting

global food standards, and is jointly sponsored by the United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex

Alimentarius literally means " food code " , and the Commission was set up in 1963

to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair practices in international food

trade and to co-ordinate all international food standards work. (1). The legal

basis for the enforcement of the guidelines and standards created by Codex dates

back to the mid-1990s, when Codex Alimentarius signed agreements with the World

Trade Organisation (WTO) by which Codex creates trade standards that the WTO

uses to resolve international trade disputes. (2), (3), (4).

 

 

 

 

That all sounds fine, you are probably thinking. But how on earth could Codex

possibly affect me when I want to buy vitamins, minerals and other nutrients?

 

 

 

 

Good question.

 

 

 

 

In fact, with the exception of co-ordinating international food standards work

Codex doesn’t do any of the things that it was set up to do. The health of

consumers is not being protected by the work of Codex, and the international

trade in food is anything but fair. Nowhere is this more apparent than in what

Codex is trying to do to the international availability of vitamins and minerals

(which come under the definition of food at Codex), where it is attempting to

pass a variation on the extraordinarily restrictive EU Food Supplements

Directive (5) as the blueprint for the global regulation of food supplements.

 

 

 

 

The EU Food Supplements Directive, for those who are unaware of it, was passed

by the EU Parliament in March 2002, and will be fully implemented on 1st August

2005. An extremely controversial piece of legislation, it will ban, on grounds

of safety, almost 300 forms of vitamins and minerals from being sold within the

EU - many of which have been sold for decades and are the same forms of

nutrients that are found in food itself. So contentious, in fact, is this

legislation that two cases challenging the legality of the ban have recently

been referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg by the UK High

Court.

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless, the EU is the single most important influence upon the Codex

discussions, and Basil Mathioudakis, who was responsible for drafting the text

of the EU Food Supplements Directive, is the head of the European Commission

delegation at meetings of the ‘Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for

Special Dietary Uses’. Once the 10 new candidate countries join the EU in May

2004 Mr Mathioudakis will be representing a total of 25 EU Member States at

Codex, and whenever he exercises his right to vote the 25 Member States will not

be entitled to exercise theirs. (6). As such it is very likely that the EU will

be able to wield a block vote at the next Codex meeting consisting of almost one

half of all of the countries attending. (7).

 

 

Worse still, of the 48 countries who attended the previous meeting of the ‘Codex

Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses’ in November 2003 (8),

only one of them, South Africa, is actively opposing these restrictive proposals

for the world-wide availability of vitamins and mineral supplements.

Democratically of course, since the EU, with its soon-to-be population of 450

million people (9), is allowed 25 votes at Codex, then large countries such as

the United States, with its population of over 280 million people (10), should

proportionately be given at least 15 votes. Under the Codex voting system

however the United States is only allowed one vote, which means that the EU is

now in an extremely powerful position.

 

As a result, the Codex vitamin and mineral restrictions could possibly be

finalised this coming November in Bonn, Germany. If this happens the effect upon

the aforementioned legal challenges to the EU Food Supplements Directive could

be grave to say the least, because if the Codex restrictions were agreed before

the legal challenge was completed the UK lawyers would in essence be arguing for

the European Court of Justice to overturn legislation that was fully in line

with a newly agreed global standard. Moreover, even if the legal challenges to

the EU Food Supplements Directive are successful the Codex proposals could still

be implemented as the global standard, thus effectively overruling any

short-term victory for health freedom in the EU. As such, a finalised Codex text

would have the ability to override the dietary supplement laws of all countries,

including the United States.

 

 

 

 

Long-term, it would not be unreasonable to expect that other EU health-related

legislation, such as restrictive regulations on nutrition and health claims,

will become the blueprints for still further standards to be enacted by Codex on

a globally harmonised basis. Ironic isn’t it, that far from being the protectors

of our health, our governments and legislators now appear to be one of the

biggest risks to it?

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

 

 

(1) United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

 

(2) SPS Agreement. World Trade Organization. URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT: Agreement

on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure.

 

(3) TBT Agreement. World Trade Organization. URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT: Agreement

on Technical Barriers to Trade.

 

(4) Understanding Codex Alimentarius. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the

United Nations. World Health Organization. 2000. pp. 24-25.

 

(5) EU Food Supplements Directive

 

(6) Codex Alimentarius Commission. Procedural Manual. Thirteenth Edition. Rules

of Procedure of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Rule II (3) - Member

Organizations. p. 6.

 

(7) Forty eight countries attended the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods

for Special Dietary Uses 25th Session, held at the Bruckenforum, Bonn, Germany,

from 3-7 November 2003. ALINORM04/26. See here. These forty eight countries

included three of the new EU countries (Hungry, Poland and Slovenia). If the

other seven new EU countries attend the next meeting in November 2004 (and

assuming that every country that attended last year also attends) there will be

fifty five countries attending in total. The EU will have twenty five votes.

 

(8) Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. 25th

Session. Bruckenforum, Bonn, Germany 3-7 November 2003. ALINORM04/26.

 

(9) Europe - statistics

 

(10) US - Census

 

 

 

If you wish to contact the Author:

 

 

 

 

Paul Anthony Taylor

 

paulandpolly

 

Tel: +44 (0)1325-466361

 

Cell: +44 (0)7903-738340

 

 

 

A more extensive version of this article with more details of a legal nature, is

also available. The title of that article is " Codex Guidelines for Vitamins and

Minerals - Optional or Mandatory? " It can be found on this site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you Paul, now back to John Harris. If you copy and paste the URL for

Paul’s article into your browser (as I mentioned above), you can activate the

link above to take you to a more extensive version of this article with more

details of a legal nature.

Here's the link.

 

 

The title of the article is Codex Guidelines for Vitamins and Minerals –

Optional or Mandatory?, also written by Paul. It’s well worth reading.

You can actually have some influence on the Codex Alimentarius by logging onto

http://www.laleva.cc/, and following the links to get to and sign the petition

opposing the Codex, as I did three years ago. This will not take much time, and

you can alert others to do so as well. You can even download a form for people

to sign if they do not have a computer, and you can forward it to the

appropriate authority.

 

 

 

 

To keep track of the progress of the Codex Alimentarius and the legal efforts to

fight it, you can log onto

www.alliance-natural-health.org, which will take you to the alliance for natural

health, a great website for understanding the natural health issues in Europe –

not uncommon from what we are dealing with in the US. You can also log onto

www.nnfa.org, and scroll to the “International” link (see directions earlier in

my column) and keep current with the Codex and international rules, regulations,

and other notices that are of significance to the natural products industry.

Countries included are Canada, UK, Kenya, Finland, Denmark, China, and Mexico.

 

 

 

 

To sum up, I’ve alerted you to what is a serious Wake Up Call to what is being

proposed regarding dietary supplements in this country and abroad. You can

decide not to participate in the legislation and have no influence on the

outcome. Or you can take a few minutes out of a busy schedule, and let your

legislators know how you feel about it – very possibly influencing the outcome.

 

 

I’ve shown you how you can easily do this. I’ve given you the sponsor and

cosponsors for each current Senate and House bill, their party affiliation, and

their states. Even if your state does not have a cosponsor for one of these

bills, you can still make your voice heard by calling or writing the offices of

your own representatives and letting them know how you want them to vote, should

these bills ever make it to the floor of the Senate or House.

 

 

 

 

It only takes one vote to make the difference on the success or failure of a

bill. And that bill could have a far reaching effect on your freedoms. I choose

participation, and I strongly urge you to do so too.

 

 

 

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs