To: IAHF LIST
Subject: Written Statement Needed from Melinda K. Plaisier Associate Commissioner of Legislation, FDA (Add This to IAHF Comments Submitted Previously re CCNFSDU Codex Meeting)
From: John Hammell jham@iahf.com
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:06:30 -0400

All Webmasters: Please post!

Everyone: Please forward widely. Remember, today is the FDA's deadline to file comments in opposition to the ongoing deliberation of the Codex Vitamin guidelines. If you haven't yet filed comments with FDA, if you agree with my letter to FDA Commissioner Henney, and to Melinda K Plaisier, FDA Associate Commissioner of Legislation- just attach a note to this email and forward it to Ellen.Anderson@cfsan.fda.gov and to eyetley@cfsan.fda.gov I require FDA to respond to all questions below, in writing, with details. Keep sending them your comments right on through the end of the Codex meeting on June 23, and cc them to your congressman and Senators.

From: John C. Hammell, President
Monday 5/22/2000
International Advocates for Health Freedom
POB 625 Floyd, VA 24091
800-333-2553, fax 540-745-6535
jham@iahf.com, http://www.iahf.com/

To: Melinda K. Plaisier, Associate Commissioner of Legislation,FDA mplaisie@oc.fda.gov
and to Commissioner Jane Henney,MD- FDA
c/o execsec1@oc.fda.gov
and to Ellen.Anderson@cfsan.fda.gov
and to eyetley@cfsan.fda.gov
and to Michael.Wehr@cfsan.fda.gov
and to senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov
and to beth.clay@mail.house.gov
and to norman.singleton@mail.house.gov
and to peter.defazio@mail.house.gov
and to ninthnet@mail.house.gov
and to senator@warner.senate.gov
and to senator@robb.senate.gov
and to a.niedz@matthias.rath.nl, PRDept@rath.nl
and to the IAHF email distribution list of millions of vitamin consumers
world wide.

Dear Melinda Plaisier, and Commissioner Henney:

I require a detailed written statement from the two of you pertaining to the extent and reach of the exemption clause contained within the Federal Statute which implements the GATT trade agreement, especially given that there are numerous undeniable examples in which the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO has forced us, under threat of trade sanctions, to harmonize our laws in ways that have been deletrius to the public health and to the environment. In fact, in 10 out of 10 decisions rendered by the DSB of the WTO, the decisions have gone AGAINST the environment and the public health as the DSB was clearly designed to rubber stamp the greed driven agenda of the multinational corporations (See http://www.tradewatch.org/ Harmonization Alerts section)

It is due to this very problem that over 70,000 angry demonstrators shut down the WTO meeting in Seattle as you can see at http://www.indymedia.org/ and as was widely reported on network TV.

It is due to this very problem that Matthias Rath, MD demonstrated against the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use Meeting in Berlin in '98, and he is planning another demonstration as you can see from http://www.rath.nl/

The Federal Statute which I require your detailed legal interpretation of in writing reads as follows:

"No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is INCONSISTENT (my emphasis added) with any law of the United States shall have any effect." [19 USC section 3512(a)(1)]

I require, in writing, to know in detail, what the reach and extent of this exemption is. In other words, where would it NOT come into play? What kinds of provisions would NOT be inconsistent with US law, given that there are numerous examples where the DSB of the WTO has ruled against us and forced changes to our laws under threat of imposing trade sanctions?

In light of my concerns, please read and comment on this paper: International "Harmonization" of Social,Economic and Environmental Standards http://www.harmonizationalert.org/harmbk.htm

In light of the following examples of where the US has been forced to harmonize its laws, convince me that the Federal Statute above protects my access to dietary supplements:

See http://www.harmonizationalert.org/Nov98/wtoshrmp.htm Challenge of U.S. Endangered Species Act (Shrimp/Turtle Case) forced changes to our endangered species act.

See for example http://www.harmonizationalert.org/October99/Mondev.htm to learn how a Canadian Corporation used NAFTA to attack the US judicial system.

See http://www.harmonizationalert.org/Nov98/beetles.htm Challenge of U.S. Forest Protection Rule (Asian Longhorned Beetles)

The problem with the Federal statute cited above which allegedly exempts us from harmonization is, how will this be argued in EACH CASE? On the surface it APPEARS that we're protected by US dietary supplement laws (Proxmire and DSHEA), but what if we don't HAVE something in our law that could be called for by a finalized Codex vitamin standard (eg restrictions on availability of high potency vitamins except by prescription)? Could such a restriction be said to be "inconsistent" with our law?

(It would all depend on who is doing the interpretation.) The problem is that there is nothing comparable to a restrictive Codex vitamin standard currently IN our law, so if its not IN our law, it can't be SAID to be INCONSISTENT!)

Do you dispute the contention that this opens a PANDORAS BOX as to how it will be interpreted?

Do you dispute my contention that it could be interpreted by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body?

Do you dispute my contention that the DSB disallows testimony from individuals, no matter how well qualifted, as well as from NGO organizations?

Do you dispute the contention that the DSB of the WTO ONLY hears testimony from government Codex reps such as Dr.Yetley of FDA?

Do you dispute the contention that Dr.Yetley is currently being sued for Contempt of Court for refusing to implement the Pearson court decision? (see http://www.emord.com/)

Do you dispute the contention that the Grocery Manufacturers of America have petitioned the FDA demanding that FDA immediately implement the Pearson court decision and also WITHDRAW the "Guidance Document to Industry on Significant Scientific Agreement" which FDA has included in Agenda Item #10 at CCNFSDU? (Is it APPROPRIATE for FDA to attempt to go around our courts, the USDOJ, and Congress this way?)

In light of Dr.Rick Malter's rebuttal to the NAS paper "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Upper Levels for Nutrients" please explain to me how the NAS paper is consistent with the will of the American people and the will of Congress as clearly expressed via Proxmire and DSHEA, and please explain to me why the FDA has ignored a Congressional request that it be removed from the table at Codex. (See http://www.iahf.com/ for NAS paper and Malter's rebuttal, and letters from congress.)

As you can see from the website of Matthias Rath, MD at http://www.rath.nl/new_default/new_main_us/def_usa.htm vitamin consumers world wide are emailing all of the CCNFSDU delegates demanding that all deliberations on the Codex vitamin issue immediately CEASE!

Given that at Codex, its one country, one vote, and the vote of any tiny little country counts just as much as the US vote, regardless of population size, don't you think it should follow that when the USA develops its Codex Comments that my written comments, and those of each person on my email distribution list should logically count just as much as the written comments of CRN, NNFA, or other trade associations which don't speak for the people of America but who represent the will of multinational pharmaceutical companies, including those who got nailed by the USDOJ for engaging in illegal price fixing in the sale of vitamin raw materials? Please explain your answer in detail because I am going to tabulate all of the written comments as "votes" and I am certain we have CRN outvoted.

Under these circumstances, wouldn't it be appropriate for Dr.Yetley to take the following steps vis a vis the US position on the vitamin issue at CCNFSDU? (If not, state your reasons in writing):

1) Immediately email the German hosts of the meeting to remove the NAS paper "A Risk Assesssment Model for Establishing Upper Levels for Nutrients" from the table at Codex as it was generated via pharmaceutical funding, it never underwent a public comments period, it was never peer reviewed, and it is inconsistent with the will of the American people as clearly expressed under Proxmire and DSHEA.

2) Forcefully call for an immediate CESSATION on all Codex deliberations regarding the vitamin guidelines.

Commissioner Henney, and Melinda Plaisier: after you provide me with detailed written comments addressing all questions asked herein, will you please agree to be interviewed by me, on video, for the sake of total transparency prior to the CCNFSDU meeting on June 19th? I will be flying to Germany for the meeting on June 17th, my birthday, and prefer to meet with you regarding this prior to that date. Please let me know, in writing, if this would pose any problem.

For the Public Health of Vitamin Consumer World Wide,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
Member: The American Media Association