California Targeting Safe Supplements - Don't let the Codex Succeed!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

< http://www.thenhf.com/index.html>

NHF_header

 

 

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

 

California Targeting Safe Supplements

Don't Let Them Succeed

 

ACT NOW

 

March 24, 2007

 

 

 

CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 65 AFFECTS EVERYONE

 

California - ever known for its luscious beauty, endless

energy, and general wackiness - is on the verge of stepping off the

edge of the cliff yet again. A trial balloon is being floated by

California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)

to limit the potency of vitamin-and-mineral supplements under

California's Proposition 65 as cancer-causing agents.

 

Proposition 65's history is well-known within the

State. In November 1986, voters in the State of California approved

Proposition 65, in the belief that its passage would help protect

them from toxic chemicals in the environment. Officially known as

the "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986," almost

everyone these days just calls it Prop 65. Prop 65 requires the

State to publish a list of those chemicals "known" to cause cancer or

birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list is updated at

least annually and has ballooned to include some 775

chemicals. Although Prop 65 uses the term "known," in the real world

substances on the list are not necessarily known to cause cancer but

are only those that could, under certain circumstances, pose a risk

of cancer based upon the interpretation of existing scientific data,

such as animal studies.

 

Prop 65 also requires businesses with 10 or more employees

to notify Californians about the presence of listed chemicals in

their products, in consumers' and employees' homes or workplaces, or

that are released into the environment. The law further prohibits

California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts

of listed chemicals into drinking-water sources. OEHHA administers

this program.

 

Scott Tips, the President and General Counsel of the

National Health Federation, notes that, "Without the warnings on

listed products, private legal bounty hunters can sue those companies

in violation of Prop 65, even though no harm from the products is

ever demonstrated, and exact enormous legal and other costs. While

some (not much) good has resulted from Prop 65, like all government

programs the good intentions quickly lead to enormously bad

consequences that far outstrip any possible good. One easy example

of this is the Prop 65 listing of natural progesterone as a

cancer-causing agent when in fact it helps counteract the

carcinogenic effects of estrogen. Natural, bioidentical progesterone

is an important hormone-replacement therapy for women, many of whom

have been unfortunately scared away from its health benefits by the

Prop 65 warnings that are mandated on the product."

 

"Without such warnings," Mr. Tips continues, "the

products and their manufacturers and distributors are sitting

ducks. In fact, one growth industry spawned by Prop 65 consists of

numerous private law firms dedicated to shooting first and asking

questions later in a "no prisoners taken" attempt to earn huge legal

fees while doing a bare-minimum of public good. The State and County

governments may also bring legal action, but often it is these

vulture firms that are first out of the gate to win the

jackpot. After all, BMWs and exotic vacations must be paid for somehow."

 

OEHHA, it says, is proposing regulatory language - in

concept only and not as a formal regulatory proposal, mind you - that

would essentially classify all vitamin-and-mineral dietary

supplements with above-RDA potencies (note they still use the old

Recommended Daily Allowance term instead of the correct RDI, or

Recommended Dietary Intake) as cancer-causing agents unless proven

otherwise. Because California's Prop 65 has nationwide impact due to

the size of the market, consumers can easily imagine the harm this

will do with substances that have a long history of being incredibly

safe and effective.

 

Here is what OEHHA wrote in a typical, late-Friday release (March 21, 2008):

 

"Certain chemicals or compounds such as vitamins and

minerals are necessary to promote human health or to ensure the

healthy growth of food crops. Excessive exposures to these same

chemicals or compounds can cause cancer or adverse reproductive

effects. OEHHA is seeking a way to balance the need for these

nutrients with the necessity for providing Proposition 65 warnings

for exposures to listed chemicals in foods. OEHHA has developed draft

regulatory language that addresses this issue, which can be found

below." (emphasis added)

 

OEHHA has then proposed the following regulatory "concept"

(conveniently worded already by the Agency's legal department):

 

"Section 1250X. Exposure to Beneficial Nutrients in a Food

 

(a) Human consumption of a food shall not constitute an "exposure"

for purposes of Section 25249.6 of the Act to a listed chemical in a

food if the person causing the exposure to the chemical can show that

the chemical is a nutrient that is beneficial to human health and

that the total amount of the chemical consumed in a food, whether

naturally occurring, intentionally added to the food, or otherwise

present, does not exceed the level established in subsection ©.

(b) For purposes of this section, a chemical is beneficial to human

health if a daily value or allowance has been established for the

chemical or compound by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute

of Medicine, National Academies.

© This section applies only to exposures that do not exceed the

Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) established in the Dietary

Reference Intake Tables of the Food and Nutrition Board of the

Institute of Medicine, National Academies, current edition, if one is

established. If no RDA is established, this section applies only to

exposures that do not exceed 20 percent (20%) of the Tolerable Upper

Intake Level established in the Dietary Reference Intake Tables of

the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, National

Academies, current edition." (emphasis added)

 

In its Notice, OEHHA has set two key dates for public

input: (1) A public meeting on April 18, 2008, to be held from 10:00

a.m. to 12:00 noon in the Sierra Hearing Room at the California

Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building located at 1001

I Street, Sacramento, California, where OEHHA will hold a public

workshop for the ostensible purpose of gathering input from

interested parties concerning the issues raised by these regulatory

"concepts"; and (2) Written submissions to be received from all

interested parties no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 2, 2008,

directed to the attention of Fran Kammerer, Staff Counsel, Office of

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 1001 I Street, Sacramento,

California 95812; or by e-mail to

< fkammerer fkammerer.

 

The National Health Federation has already consulted with

outside legal counsel specialized in this area of law for the express

purpose of stopping this idea from proceeding beyond its conceptual

stage. NHF will be in attendance at the April 18th meeting and will

be submitting cogent written comments, assisted by scientific and

legal experts, opposing this regulatory "concept." The Federation is

also exploring legal action against the Agency should it proceed in

any way with implementing its concept. This is critical and will

affect individuals, supplement manufacturers, and vitamin

retailers. This is not just a California issue. Anyone who depends

on supplements for their health or livelihood must voice their opposition.

 

In the meantime, the NHF asks all interested parties to

sign our on-line petition opposing this ridiculous concept, which the

Federation will then personally submit to OEHHA. (Go to

< http://thenhf.com/press_releases/prop65_petition.htm> http://thenhf.com/press_releases/prop65_petition.htm.)

The NHF also asks all interested parties to provide us with any

scientific and legal data that they might have supporting our

position that vitamins and minerals are not carcinogenic and

therefore do not belong on the Proposition 65 list, so that all

pertinent information may be included into the Federation's comments

and possible lawsuit.

 

March 21, 2008 OEHHA Notice

< http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/regs032108.html> http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/regs032108.html

 

(< http://thenhf.com/press_releases/prop65_petition.htm> Click Here For

The Online Petition)

 

< http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_23_mar_2008.html> Inform

others to sign our on-line petition-send this link to the press release

 

April 18, 2008 Public Hearing

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon

Sierra Hearing Room

California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building located

1001 I Street

Sacramento, California

Please attend and voice your opposition.

 

Written opposition submissions:

Directed to the attention of Fran Kammerer, Staff Counsel

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

1001 I Street

Sacramento, California 95812

Comments due by May 2, 2008

 

E-mail Opposition:

< fkammerer fkammerer

 

 

 

National Health Federation: Established in 1955, the National Health

Federation is a consumer-education, health-freedom organization

working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy

food, take supplements and use alternative therapies without

unnecessary government restrictions. The NHF is the only such

organization with recognized observer-delegate status at Codex

meetings. < http://www.thenhf.com/> www.thenhf.com

 

 

 

**************************************

 

P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, CA 91017 USA ~ < ?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = SKYPE

/> 1 (626) 357-2181 ~ Fax 1 (626) 303-0642

 

Website: < http://www.thenhf.com> www.thenhf.com

E-mail: < contact-us contact-us

 

_____________

Health mailing list

Health

http://naturallawgov.org/mailman/listinfo/health_naturallawgov.org

..