To: "Health Freedom, Codex Issues
Subject: Amendment Would Kill the EU Vitamin Directive: What to Do: Consumer + Vitamin Industry Support Badly Needed for Amendment
From: "I A H F" jham@iahf.com
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:21:59 -0500
IAHF List: [See attached file- 14 amendments have been proposed for the dangerous EU Vitamin Directive. The first one would kill it outright and deserves all of our support.]
The first amendment can kill the EU vitamin directive, but only if it gets enough support. It will have to get support from 50% of the 65 people on the EU Committee on the Environment, as well as support from the 50 additional substitute members (who fill in if a regular member can't make a meeting) since they all communicate with each other. Hard work is required to try to get the necessary support because 12 out of 15 EU nations support the Directive. The amendment simply questions the "need" for the Directive on the grounds that vitamins are SAFE and that regulation in this area is not necessary! It takes the view that no problems exist in this area and that the Directive would only create problems were none currently exist (see it below.)
Vitamin consumers and vitamin industry leaders from all over the world are encouraged to express their support for the amendment by visiting http://www.codexalimentarius.org/ and click on the first item on the message board. You will see my comments posted there and also below. I encourage you to add your own, and the more people who do this the better, so be sure to forward this widely. Since the pharmaceutically dominated EHPM openly supports the Directive now, (thus selling out vitamin consumers all over Europe) one has to wonder if the OTHER pharmaceutically dominated vitamin trade associations world wide will ALSO make no effort to oppose it??? (Ask them! Especially if you are a member of NNFA!)
(NNFA CLAIMS to be concerned about the need to protect American vitamin companies EU Market, but do they REALLY care? If they REALLY care, they would openly pitch support in the direction of this Amendment and would encourage IADSA to also. IAHF can't help but to cynically note that IADSA and EHPM both utilize a Brussels based lobby firm called EAS whose lobbyist for EHPM, Pedro, openly endorses the Directive.
Whats in it for them? The larger companies in EHPM could remain in business while very expensive to comply with regulations would drive smaller competitors out of business. These large companies could also expand marketshare by being able to sell products in more EU countries than they presently can, and this expansion of marketshare would more than make up for (at least economically) for profits lost due to a huge number of products and high potencies being banned, so they are putting their profits far about the needs of consumers or the public health.
Question: There is much overlap between EHPM and IADSA, and between EHPM and NNFA. Does this mean that IADSA and NNFA also blindly endorse the Directive? Does it mean they will not endorse Amendment one which would kill the directive? NNFA can't have it both ways. They say they oppose Codex, they say they support US companies in Europe, but do they REALLY? Or is that just an ILLUSION promulgated by companies like Pfizer which dominates NNFA's International Committee via Randy Dennin? All questions well worth asking NNFA..... show this to your local health food store owner, he has been lied to about Codex, and been told its a "non issue." The EU Vitamin Directive has a profound influence on Codex, but also on international sales of US products abroad. Any unwillingness on the part of NNFA not to back this amendment which kills the EU Vitamin Directive should be regarded with real suspicion, and should serve as grounds to stop paying dues to them. Ralph Pike, Director of the National Assn of Health Stores in the UK says the EU Vitamin Directive threatens to remove "over 300 products from the shelves of British health food stores (while imposing huge bans all over the EU.)
The amendment that would reject the Vitamin Directive was signed by:
Hans Blokland, Alexander de Roo, Jonas Sjöstedt, John Bowis, Per-Arne Arvidsson, Jules Maaten, Chris Davies, Avril Doyle and Patricia McKenna
Amendment 1 Rejects the common position by the European Council that there is a Need for the Vitamin Directive;
Justification
With regard to the different cultures in the Member States, there is no need for legislation in this area. Having no legislation has not proved to have any negative effects either. Above all, this Common Position will not solve the "problems", instead it will more or less create new ones.