To: IAHF List
Subject: Wild Oats Market Misinforming Consumers Re Codex Issue: IAHF Response to Wild Oats Misinformation
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 00:05:06 +0200
IAHF List: Wild Oats Market is misinforming the vitamin consuming public just as Whole Foods also is, and with a nearly identical argument. We're currently attempting to learn who their information source(s) are. They appear to be CRN, NNFA and IADSA.
If you shop at Wild Oats, and share my concerns about how they're misinforming the public, you can reach their Public Affairs Director Yasmeen Sokal at 303-440-5220 ext 4788 or at <YSokol@WILDOATS.com>
Please see my response to what Wild Oats is saying below. Due to the rapidly approaching fast track vote on CAFTA, IAHF has no choice but to make this communication public to the IAHF list right away. Please take the action discussed below by going to http://www.ymlp.com/pubarchive_show_message.php?jham+325 Visit two websites and send a couple of form letters with just two mouse clicks opposing CAFTA/FTAA.
Yasmeen- Please see response below and please let me know what source or sources Wild Oats is using when making this statement to the vitamin consuming public.
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: Question from Susan Straus regarding Other
Thank you for your e-mail regarding CODEX. At Wild Oats, we were also concerned with this news and have done a significant amount of research on this subject. We found that there has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation about CODEX in recent months.
In the US, maximum limits have not been set for vitamins and minerals sold in dietary supplements. It can therefore look threatening that a global body such as Codex is talking about maximum levels. For US companies operating globally the advantages are obviously that maximum levels in other regions of the world should increase as countries move away from the RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance)-based approach. For companies who are operating solely or mainly in the US and who are therefore only concerned about the impact of Codex on US business, it is doubtful if there will be an impact. The US government is unlikely to implement maximum levels unless there was strong domestic pressure to do so (such as political, safety problems etc). It is understood by the industry that US authorities claim to have never changed laws or regulations to conform to standards or guidelines adopted by Codex, and it seems extremely unlikely that Codex would stimulate any changes to DSHEA.
The key issue now is the process of establishing an approach to assessing the risk of vitamins and minerals by WHO (World Health Organization), which will be an outgrowth of the adoption of CODEX standards for upper limits for vitamins and minerals. Until this is determined, Wild Oats will continue to follow this issue and determine at the appropriate time whether we want to take action with a consumer campaign. At this time, it does not appear that this is necessary.
Again, we thank you for your support of Wild Oats!
Wild Oats Markets
IAHF RESPONSE TO WILD OATS
303-440-5220 ext 4788 is Yasmeen's Extension, Susan.
Yasmeen- I just tried calling you. Please let me know who your information source is on the Codex issue.
The UK based Alliance for Natural Health, a pan European Health Freedom organization that is in our new Coalition for Health Freedom, submitted this detailed paper to the World Health Organization in response to their call for comments. In their paper, which has been signed off on by such heavyweights as Jeff Bland, PhD; Alan Gaby, MD and many others, ANH shreds any contention that what the WHO is doing vis a vis "risk assessment" when it comes to dietary supplements is the least bit "scientific": http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_121.pdf
Moreover, the supplement industry is being misled when they've been told that the end point for so called "scientific" risk assessment is the "SUL"s (Safe Upper Levels) generated by the US National Academy of Sciences. Those numbers are NOT the end point, but they look good because they're comparable to currently allowed potencies in the USA. Only one organization in the world, the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment has done the math called for in the fine print at Codex to arrive at the second tier of risk assessment, and as you can see from this table, they've arrived at numbers for "Maximum Safe Permitted Levels" that are even LOWER than the RDAs in some cases: http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_145.pdf
I just returned from Washington DC where I attended a conference on the Codex issue sponsored by the American Association for Health Freedom, (formerly the American Preventive Medical Assn) http://www.apma.net/aahf/default.asp
Representatives from several health freedom organizations, including European organizations were in attendance and we have just formed the Coalition for Health Freedom, an umbrella group of health freedom organizations that disagree strongly with a lot of the information coming from vitamin trade associations on this issue.
I have been elected an officer in this new coalition.
Wild Oats should be circulating this one page alert which urges 2 very simple actions which all of your customers should be taking right now:
Wild Oats is apparently buying in to spin on this issue emanating from CRN, NNFA and IADSA.
These trade associations want one size fits all regulations: ("approved once, approved everywhere").
To call Codex a "non issue" as you have here totally ignores the reality of globalization and the fact that the USA has entered into several trade agreements through which we've agreed to enter into a constant process of harmonizing our laws to international standards. See this article by Suzanne Harris, JD
Who Says Whatever Happens at Codex Does Not Affect US Law And Why Do They Say It? http://www.thelawloft.com/Freedom/050125_us_law.htm
What you're saying ignores the reality of CAFTA and the FTAA. A fast track vote on CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) will occur either this month (May) or in June. http://www.stoptheftaa.org also http://www.citizen.org/trade/cafta/
CAFTA is a prelude to another fast track vote on FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) which would create the hemispheric eqivalent to the European Common Market, which spawned the European Union.
The same architects of the EU want to create something called the WAU (Western Atlantic Union) in our hemisphere into which every nation in our hemisphere would be subsumed: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19960501faessay4202/charles-a-kupchan/reviving-the-west-for-an-atlantic-union.html http://www.stoptheftaa.org
They intend to create a hemispheric wide currency called The Amero that would be our hemisphere's equivalent to the Euro http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1999/amero/
The SPS (Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures) Agreement language thats in the WTO is identical in NAFTA.
CAFTA and FTAA would broaden and deepen the impact of this language, and this would be the primary means used to force harmonization upon the USA and all other nations in our hemisphere to Codex standards.
Its no longer a matter of debate that harmonization to Codex standards is mandatory- this came out in the Codex meeting on General Principles which just took place in Paris in July.
The information Wild Oats is dissemenating to the public on this issue is seriously inaccurate.
You would have people believe that the so called "Scientific Risk Assessment" process underway at Codex is in FACT scientific, but how CAN it be when they're ignoring BENEFITS and only taking a heavily BIASED look at supposed "risks" in which they're looking at animal data in instances when far more accurate human date is available, and when they're taking only a very biased look at the literature?
Please let me know where Wild Oats has been getting this inaccurate information so that a dialogue may ensue.
For Health Freedom,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
556 Boundary Bay Road
Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA