Future laws could limit supplements access

From Life Extension Foundation main page I followed this link:

http://www.glycommunity.com/iahf/

I think it's important that everyone who is using dietary supplements reads this.

Here is some excerpt from the website:

Health Freedom is Under Attack

* Worldwide pharmaceutical interests have launched a secretive global attack to limit access to information on health choices & restrict the right to obtain dietary supplements.
* Pharmaceutical interests would gain financially if supplements are strictly controlled and so they are pushing for the US to adopt Codex Alimentarius, an international code of standards that would force us to "harmonize" with France & Germany's restrictive rules.
* In Europe, The EU (European Union) Vitamin Directive threatens to destroy consumer access to therapeutic doses of vitamins & minerals, except by prescription.
* In the U.S., Americans who write to Congress to demand an Oversight Hearing on Codex are being told that a Federal Statute already protects their rights. This is misleading.
* Current pressure to set arbitrary "safety standards" for vitamins (UL's or Upper Levels) in the US could set the stage for harmonization. It has begun...

More can be found here: http://garynull.com/.../aboutcodex.htm

It will explain itself.
If you want to do something about it, you can make a donation and/or spread the word to everyone interested about this topic.
For Europeans who want to do something about it, this link is more relevant: Laleva
PLEASE DO POST ON OTHER FORUMS ABOUT THIS TOPIC AS WELL!

Thank you for reading.

Edited by shapeshifter, 08 January 2005 - 11:02 AM.

Good post shapeshifter. The government is always, always, always trying to restrict freedom. This is their latest frontier, and it is very directly related to life extension. If they can restrict supplements, you better believe they will restrict other anti-aging regimens and treatments. The government wants to control who lives and dies.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

I find this both scary and somewhat amusing. The US Federal Government does nothing quite so well as create black markets. I already order certain meds I need from overseas because it saves me $100's a month over the local drugstore. A MONTH. Get some of my supplements from a chain store run by an overweight woman whose addiction to tanning beds is causing premature aging, but the most important supplements I take I order online.

Right now we're all being swept up in the anti-science pentecostalism, headed by a US President deep in the pockets of US corporations. In a few weeks there's going to be some investigations by the Congress into the influence of K Street lobbyists, and it is probably going to be really ugly. Scientific inquiry and commensalism has had to endure these kinds of periods before. You know what happened? It endured. The Fed has driven everybody's cookie baking grandma to become a drug smuggler. It's all going to come back around.

Having said that, protest is very important, and does make a difference. Still, I'm betting the ultimate backlash against this blue-nosed vituperative theocracy we'll probably have Amsterdam style coffeehouses in ten years. Demographics is destinty and there's no way an aging is going to allow vitamins to become illegal.

This E-mail I just received from Alliance for Natural Health.
I think this subject is concerning all of us. Don't think too quickly: this is just for the Europeans. It has a global impact.

[letter starts here]
There has been much misunderstanding, and dare I say it, misinformation, regarding the EU Food Supplements Directive and ANH’s legal challenge to it.


As ANH Partners and Members it is vital that you understand what is really going on and I am going to attempt in this letter to put you in the picture.


It is quite involved and may take a little time to read but I urge you to persevere as your continued access to quality and effective food supplements depends on YOU taking appropriate informed action.


What’s wrong with the Food Supplements Directive?


The British Government and many MPs and MEPs when asked about the Food Supplements Directive (“FSD”) will insist that it is a good piece of EU legislation because it harmonises the currently very different laws of all EU Members States in respect of food supplements and ensures high quality standards at the same time. Thereby trade in supplements is increased across the EU and consumers can feel safe.


Seems reasonable you might be thinking.


But what is the price tag?


6 key things principally;


The FSD reverses the burden of proof as regards showing that food supplements are safe. Previously a food supplement could generally be sold as food unless the Regulator could prove scientifically that it is unsafe. (This is the position in the USA for example under DSHEA). Now in the EU it will be for the manufacturer to prove at great cost that it is harmless before he can sell it.

It creates a very restricted list (known as the “positive list”) of allowable nutrients which favours synthetic nutrients over those much closer to how they are found in nature.

It will, in time set what are anticipated to be very low maximum doses of nutrients

In order to get on the positive list of allowablenutrients a technical and very costly Dossier will required which may or may not ultimately be acceptable to the EU Regulators


If a nutrient (or its source) isnot on the restricted list it will be banned across the EU from 1 August 2005 regardless of the fact that it was previously happily allowed to be sold in various EU Member States for perhaps many years


At present the FSD only applies to vitamin & minerals. However it is a framework Directive and is intended in time to apply to all nutrients and their sources. So the negative pattern we see here applying now to vitamins and minerals will in time be applied to all nutrients.

So what have we got?


Under the guise of a harmonisation Directive ostensibly seeking to improve the supply of food supplements across the EU, we in fact end up with a measure which will ban many nutrients presently on sale in the EU.


And for those that get through, the maximum dose levels are likely to be very impotent.


The Directive thus defeats the whole purpose for which many people take food supplements, namely to supplement their diet in order to promote optimal well being through the addition of key vital nutrients which they cannot get in their normal diets any more (unless they happen to live in an organic tropical paradise).


The fact that the FSD has a negative effect is impossible to hide.


The UK Government when it undertook its Regulatory Impact Assessment (measuring the impact of the implementation of the FSD in the UK) concluded that on balance the FSD had a negative cost / benefit for the UK and conceded that the ban on nutrients which are currently allowed to be sold in the UK (unless they get requalified by submission of a dossier) was “unnecessary”.


You’ll see many statistics flying around but in essence we are looking at the ban of around 75% of the vitamin and mineral sources (“forms”) currently on the EU market. This will translate into a banning of some 300 vitamin and mineral ingredients and possibly around 5000 products currently available.


Now remember, if this is what is happening to vitamins and minerals now what will happen to all other nutrients in the future?


Keep well in mind the 3 FSD bogey men:


The reversal of the burden of proof

The restricted list of allowable nutrients unless proved harmless at huge cost

The very low potencies which will be allowed even if a nutrient gets through and onto the positive list

In summary what the FSD is really doing is to impose quite arbitrarily and unnecessarily, a drugs style licensing regime on food supplements or more particularly on food nutrients which hitherto we have been eating happily for thousands of years!


Well if this is so bad you might be asking how on earth did it get passed into EU law?


Indeed.


ANH has exhaustively researched this question and bottom line no one seems really to be able to justify what has happened.


The usual reason given is as I have explained above. The FSD will promote trade in safe food supplements across the EU.


And yes the price tag for the UK and other more liberal regimes may be high but that was the best we could get in our negotiations in Europe, so says the UK Government in particular.


But we say at ANH that the price is far too high and quite unnecesary and unacceptable.


The international Dimension


You might be reading this from a country outside the EU and thinking well that’s pretty tough for those Europeans but we’re ok here.


True for now, but perhaps not for long.


You may be aware that the EU has the dominant vote in the setting of Codex international standards for food. Thus what they want they can push through even if other countries protest.


This is a complex area of international law but in brief ANH and others are extremely concerned that an EU regime for the treatment of food supplements may be exported world wide under the auspices of Codex and made to have regulatory teeth through the WTO.


More, on this complicated subject in another letter.


But for the time being I repeat my point.


Bad things that happen in Europe may very well in time also negatively affect the rest of the world.


And that means YOU.


The ANH Legal Challenge


As you are well aware pretty early on ANH came to the view that the only way to deal with the FSD was to challenge it in the Courts and ultimately that meant bringing a case in the EU supreme court; the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”).


I will not bore you with the details of our case (for those who are interested, the key documents are available in the “ANH Legal Challenge” documents area of our web site).


But in essence we are saying the following.


Food supplements are food, not drug.

Therefore they do not need a drugs style regulatory regime imposed upon them.


You do not need a license to sell food.


Under existing law throughout the EU, food is perfectly well regulated from a legal point of view ensuring quality and safety.


The Food Supplements Directive, if it really was intended to harmonise and promote the supply of safe food supplements across the EU, did not require a ban on nutrients which were not on the positive list.


It could have and indeed should have had merely a minimum list of acceptable nutrients which all Member States were obliged to accept across the EU (sometimes called a "White List").

Whilst leaving individual Member States free to allow a wider selection of nutrients to be used in food supplements within their particular borders if they wanted to.


Indeed we go further and argue that under EU law, the FSD,in imposing a sweeping and draconian ban across the EU without even attempting to provide a scientific justification or rationale, actually infringes EU law.


We conclude that the FSD should be allowed to remain and but should do its job properly.


Thus without the ban.


It would then act as a minimum white list of vitamin and mineral nutrients which all Member States would be obliged to accept across the EU.


That would increase trade.


What are our chances of success?


Cautiously we would say that we are optimistic. EU legal precedent is on our side.


The UK Government chose not to make present oral submissions at the Hearing of the case in the ECJ on 25 January 2005. Paul Lasok QC, our barrister said that in his experience it is most rare for the UK to not attend an oral hearing where it has filed Written Observations as it has done here.


The only Member State to present oral submissions was Greece.


And despite repeated questioning from the Advocate-General (a very senior independent lawyer who advises the ECJ in its deliberations), none of the Community Institutions were able to adequately explain exactly how the procedure for getting a nutrient on to the positive list actually works.


Indeed in some consternation the Advocate-general exclaimed at one point that as far as he could see it the procedure had “the transparency of a black box”.


Aside from being amusing this comment is significant because if the ECJ finds that there was no proper and transparent procedure for getting on the positive list that itself would be a ground for finding the ban as being unlawful under EU law.


As you will have seen from our press releases the Advocate-General will be giving is Opinion on 5th April 2005.

Thisis not the judgment of the Court which will follow probably in June 2005. However as the ECJ tends to follow its Advocate-Generals' Opinions in 80% of cases this Opinion is going to be very significant.


What you can do


First and foremost please understand that we are all in this together.


It’s not a question of you helping the ANH with “its problem.”


No, rather we, together with you are in an alliance to protect the continued supply and availability of natural advanced and safe food supplements in the EU and indeed the world which are able to do their job properly.


What job?


Supplying vital micro-nutrients which are now missing from our western diet.


So when you help the Alliance you need to see that you are helping yourself and your family and those who are dear to you, to be able to maintain optimal health.


More particularly here are some key actions points for you:


Tell your friends and contacts about the problem and forward this and other ANH e-mails to them so that they know what is going on.
Recruit your friends and contacts to join the Alliance.
Donate urgently needed funds to ANH.
PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW!


To make a donation to ANH click here


Remember that without you there is no Alliance!


Thanks for all that you do.


Yours in health!




David C. Hinde LLB Solicitor
Legal Director
Alliance for Natural Health
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org
[letter ends here]

"In short the cause is corporatism"

I strongly disagree.

As an individual I want the right to put any substance into my body that I wish (subject to the caveat that doing do does not cause me to harm others). The problem is governments increasing regulation because they wish to protect me from myself. Thus I see the danger from the left and increasing government regulation "for my own good" (you can throw fruit now) not from corporations. This is happening in Europe an area heavily influenced by socialism not some bastion of capitalism. Unless I am mistaken it is happening because someone has decided that higher levels of supps can be dangerous--as if they have a right to determine what I put in my body!

This is also why I'm a liberterarian.

I will post here what I posted over at Avant:

Look at who sponsors these bills:
Go to http://www.senate.go...lative_home.htm and type in S.722 in the "by number" field.

Well look who we have here, none other than Dick Durbin, the Socialist senator from IL!

Now, for bill HR.377, http://thomas.loc.go...?d106:H.R.3377:
Who sponsored that bill? Another Socialist, Dennis Kucinich. Take a look at the cosponsor list, all leftists.



These stupid douchebag Socialists!!!! God I hate these f*cking people!!!



Even though I'm not a big fan of Orrin Hatch, from what I've read in the past he has been on our side regarding supplements.

Chip,

"Oh, heck. I don't know what governments or socialists or liberterian or leftists really are. I find all of those terms to be quite open to interpretation and subject to manipulation to mean whatever subjective experiences have most impinged upon people"

As far as I can tell, the overwelming majority of imminst higher ups are socialists and there is a large thread in the politics section on socialism. If you really have any doubts I'm sure there are any number of imminst higher ups who would be more then happy to enlighten you on the virtues of socialism. Personally I think to link the cause of immortality with ANY political system is not a wise idea (but that is another story).

I believe the topic is can we chose what supplements to put into our body or is someone going to prevent us. I wish to make my own choice. It is that simple. Being libertarian means you pry my supps out of my cold dead hands (as the saying goes). Anyone trying to regulate this is my enemy.

Edited by scottl, 09 February 2005 - 11:33 PM.

I'm not sure one has to enact new legislation. The issue (I think) is related to the WTO and our willing to go along with rules enacted in europe.

world government = Bad

National government = slightly better still quite bad

Highly localized government = even better


The people in New Jersey have no business making rules that are applied in Colorado. People who are on the other side of the world certainly have no business doing this. People in local areas know a heck of a lot better what's good for them than those across the globe.

This is all nonsense, and it will continue and get much worse before it gets better.

"In short the cause is corporatism"

I strongly disagree.

As an individual I want the right to put any substance into my body that I wish (subject to the caveat that doing do does not cause me to harm others).  The problem is governments increasing regulation because they wish to protect me from myself.  Thus I see the danger from the left and increasing government regulation "for my own good" (you can throw fruit now) not from corporations.  This is happening in Europe an area heavily influenced by socialism not some bastion of capitalism.  Unless I am mistaken it is happening because someone has decided that higher levels of supps can be dangerous--as if they have a right to determine what I put in my body!

This is also why I'm a liberterarian.

I agree with you entirely on this issue.

However, I do not believe the ImmInst leadership are socialists (at least not all of them). Among the wider community of transhumanists and so-called immortalists I think there are capitalists, libertarians, and yes even socialists. I don't know alot about the history of the transhumanist movement (what history there is), but if I've got my facts straight, it all began with a small group of libertarians and grew from there.

I think something to keep in mind is that Bush could give a rat's ass about what's good for me to put in my body. I hope I don't offend anyone that actually thinks Bush is a decent human being, but his track record seems proof enough to me that he values human life very, very, very little.

It's just coincidence that what's good for major corporate interests also resonates with the conservative Christian demographic, which has allowed Bush to pretend that he strongly believes as that demographic does.

If restricting supplements will provide a huge opportunity for Big Pharma to increase their profits, and if restricting supplements also just happens to be the viewpoint of people who supposedly care about the health of others, then Bush (or insert any other major federal agency here) can support such a restriction for the former reason, while claiming to do so for the latter. Make no mistake, I very strongly doubt that any attempt to restrict supplement use is being done in the public's health interest.

What I said doesn't negate the libertarian view, by the way. That such a restriction could be made, whether for Big Pharma's benefit or for the public health's benefit, is something that libertarianism would oppose, as I understand it. Unless my taking supplements can directly harm another person, that person has no right to prevent me from taking that supplement.

If a supplement is known to cause aggressive, psychotic, homocidal behavior, then the libertarian case will have to be much more rigorously defended. But if taking a supplement only affects the health of the person taking it, then the libertarian position seems pretty defensible.

Cosmos,

You can view the thread socialism in politics section and presumably tell who falls under that category (or just look for anyone who gives you the impression that capitalism or profits are evil).

Unlike what you have told me of liberaliem where you are Cosmos, there seem to be a fairly common group of characteristics that define the far left in the US (and remember--this post is in the supplement section):

--capitalism is evil
--socialism is good'
--"we" know what's best for you--better then you do
--the gov't is capable of functioning well and so it can be the source of...reforms
--free speech is good...but only if you believe as we do (see any US college campus)

Jay,

1. Bush is an idiot
2. I'll take the capitalist not caring what I put in my body over the socialists deciding they know what should go in my body better then me
3. Stop trying to blame the corporations for any possible limiting supplement freedoms when:

A. The socalists are the one's trying to introduce this into congress (thank you Stellar):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at who sponsors these bills:
Go to http://www.senate.go...lative_home.htm and type in S.722 in the "by number" field.

Well look who we have here, none other than Dick Durbin, the Socialist senator from IL!

Now, for bill HR.377, http://thomas.loc.go...?d106:H.R.3377:
Who sponsored that bill? Another Socialist, Dennis Kucinich. Take a look at the cosponsor list, all leftists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. These supplement limitations (if they happen) will come about because the US is a part of the WTO and because these regulations are happening in Europe because the socialists there have gotten their way with supplements.

Oh and Cosmos,

"I don't know alot about the history of the transhumanist movement (what history there is), but if I've got my facts straight, it all began with a small group of libertarians and grew from there."

Given that libertarians tend to be individualists this is not surprising at all. The present state of circumstances here is more surprising. I assume if one knew the history (you could guess who to ask) is would be more understandable.

It doesn't matter what evidence you present, Scott. I get tired of the "Blame Bush" type mentality, exhibited here by JaydFox. The funny thing about trying to attach this to Bush is that there are no Republicans I see that are sponsoring or co-sponsoring this bill. Therefore, the argument that this is "BigPharma" paying off a)Republicans and/or b)George Bush is one of the most laughable arguments I've ever seen on this board.

These bills are sponsored and cosponsored by douchebag Socialists...bottom line.

This country is screwed either way.

Democrats=Outright International Socialists.....Republicans= "Lite" Socialists

You're right that link doesnt work, the first URL:

http://www.senate.go...lative_home.htm

If that doesn't work go to senate.gov then click on "legislation and records". Then enter the bill # (S.722).

This is from the rugged.com board. By the link in his signature, I think he is in Denmark (.dk):

"This is what its like where I live. Tribulus, ALCAR, r-ALA, yohimbine, free amino acids, caffeine in tablet form, etc etc etc are all classified as drugs here. If you are lucky, you can order them from abroad without the customs seazing it, but its generally expensive. Vitamins are only available in realitively small dosages (RDA)."

This did not happen because the corporations are in control there and because it was in the best interests of big business. This happened there for the same reason it may happen here (fortunately Dean is going to be....DNC chair of whatever).

"The Illinois Democratic Senator Durbin launched it. There is really no accounting for these political labels. Sure looks like something the Republicans would welcome. I bet big money has got its fists stroking the balls of both courts. "

Chip,

I both like and respect you. However as someone who is not on the left (it would be nice to send both the dems and republicans to another planet but that is another story) when you keep saying:

"There is really no accounting for these political labels. "

it really feels to a non-leftie like you are avoiding admitting taking responsibility for what seems obvious to us non-lefties is something we totally expect from the left e.g. censorship of what they don't agree with, regulations in the name of what they think is best for everyone, etc.

As for corporations being...evil...there is something to be said for corporations doing things at the expense of people. However since gov't fubars anything they try to accomplish, the best I can figure is to let private industry accomplish most things that need doing and...do what needs to be done to avoid corporations harms.

This is from the rugged.com board.  By the link in his signature, I think he is in Denmark (.dk):

"This is what its like where I live. Tribulus, ALCAR, r-ALA, yohimbine, free amino acids, caffeine in tablet form, etc etc etc are all classified as drugs here. If you are lucky, you can order them from abroad without the customs seazing it, but its generally expensive. Vitamins are only available in realitively small dosages (RDA)."

This did not happen because the corporations are in control there and because it was in the best interests of big business.  This happened there for the same reason it may happen here (fortunately Dean is going to be....DNC chair of whatever).

This is really intresting because in Denmark they have Christiania (a ´free harbour´) where you can buy and sell drugs (marihuana and mushrooms) freely.
Pretty disturbing don't you think?

Chip,

I don't know if you missed my example of NASA (or can can use the post office. etc). This is an example of something being done VERY poorly that as Jerry Pournelle points out could be done MUCH better, for much cheaper by private industry (see libertarian thread in politics section).

Do you have an example of something done by the gov't that worked out well so I know what you had in mind?

"I don't think we can find any solution with the tools that we presently have. We will need to seek and find a new experiment as to governing."

Or an example so I know what you are proposing?

A strange paradox with legislation in Europe is that Portugal, for example, has legalised the possesion of all drugs, at a personal use quantity. The UK has rescheduled Cannabis as legal to posses for personal use and many other "drugs" are tolerated by the police at a personal level. How contrary, me thinks?

but vitamin C, at a certain quantity, may soon to become illicit

From Life Extension website there is this new link: EMERGENCY UPDATE FROM THE HEALTH FREEDOM FRONT LINES

An excerpt from this website:

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO DEFEND YOUR ACCESS TO DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS

1. Updates via IAHF email distribution list at http://www.iahf.com
2. Updates via http://www.lef.org Consumer Alerts
3. Read Do Three Interlocking Events in November Signal the End of Health Freedom? http://www.thelawlof...KING_EVENTS.mht
4. See ANH’s press release re what happened in court http://www.alliance-...ion=news&ID=138
5. Read ANH’s Wake Up Call to AMERICA http://www.alliance-...siteDoc_129.doc
6. Emergency Donations needed to IAHF 556 Boundary Bay Rd., Point Roberts WA 98281 USA or via paypal at http://www.iahf.com for public speaking to counter spin from pharma dominated vitamin trade associations CRN, NNFA, IADSA, EHPM. IAHF 800-333-2553 (N. America), 360-945-0352 (World), jham@iahf.com

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

I thank you all who has paid attention to this thread and supported this cause. Your support has not been in vain. The victory is almost, but not complete yet.

This E-mail I just received from Alliance for Natural Health:


A FANTASTIC DAY FOR HEALTH FREEDOM!

The European Court of Justice's Advocate General Geelhoed has provided his opinion today. His opinion was read out in the European Court in Luxembourg at 08.30 h this morning.

Please find our Press Release on the subject below.

We wish to thank all of you who have contributed, financially and in other ways, to this landmark challenge that has the potential to rock the entire agenda on ever-tightening restrictions worldwide on natural health.

We will be giving you further updates in due course.

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release
5 April 2005

ADVOCATE GENERAL FINDS FOOD SUPPLEMENTS DIRECTIVE INVALID UNDER EU LAW

ALLIANCE FOR NATURAL HEALTH SET TO WIN ITS LANDMARK CHALLENGE TO THE EU FOOD SUPPLEMENTS DIRECTIVE

There was tremendous news today for the millions of people in Europe who choose to use food supplements. Following a landmark challenge in the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) brought by the Alliance for Natural Health and Nutri-Link Ltd to the contentious Food Supplements Directive, which effectively proposed to ban 75% of vitamin and mineral forms, Advocate General Geelhoed, the senior adviser to the ECJ, gave his Opinion in favour of the Alliance’s case.

What does this mean? That the chances of consumers being able to continue using the natural food supplements they believe are beneficial to their health are now greatly increased. There has been uproar about the proposed EU ban, and maybe, against the odds, the consumer is going to come out on top in what is a remarkable modern day case of David and Goliath.

In a statement released in Luxembourg today at 0830 GMT, the Advocate General concluded that:

The Food Supplements Directive infringes the principle of proportionality because basic principles of Community law, such as the requirements of legal protection, of legal certainty and of sound administration have not properly been taken into account.
It is therefore invalid under EU law.
It should be stressed that the Advocate General’s pronouncement is not a ruling. That will come from the ECJ judges, later - probably around June. But typically, in the vast majority of cases, the Court Judgment follows the recommendations of the Advocate General.

If the Advocate General’s recommendations are adopted, in effect, the ban on vitamin and mineral forms not included on the EU’s ‘Positive list,’ due to come into effect on 1 August 2005, will be declared illegal. In essence, the positive list of allowable nutrient forms will be deemed to be too narrow, too restrictive, and based on flawed science.

This would avoid the totally irrational situations that the Food Supplements Directive would otherwise create. For example, synthetically produced selenium would have been allowed on the positive list, while the natural source found in Brazil nuts would not; synthetic forms of Vitamin E (often used in ‘adverse’ vitamin studies reported in the media) would be allowed, but the natural, most beneficial food forms would not.

An outstanding moment for the Alliance for Natural Health

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) is a Europe-wide professional organisation dedicated to ensuring that good science and good law are applied to regulation affecting the leading edge of natural health. If the Advocate General’s recommendations are endorsed by the ECJ judges, it will represent the culmination of three years dogged determination, dedication and hard work on the part of ANH and its many supporters around the world.

‘It is commendable that the EU Advocate General has seen through the flawed science and law of the Food Supplements Directive and reached his recommendations today,’ said Dr. Robert Verkerk, Executive Director of the ANH. ‘All that ANH is campaigning and working cooperatively for is the right for consumers to have access to safe natural healthcare and for legislation to be based on good science and good law. This is a great day for the tens of millions of people who believe passionately in the benefits of natural, preventative healthcare.’

David C. Hinde, Solicitor and ANH Legal Director, added: ‘This is a very significant Opinion in a landmark case. What we want to see in the EU is the Food Supplements Directive doing the job for which it was created which is to provide a “safe harbour” for food supplements so that they are not classified as drugs, and to promote their availability across the EU. Advocate General Geelhoed is the most senior Advocate General at the ECJ and his considered reasoning vindicates ANH’s legal analysis and position. We are very optimistic that the Court will adopt his recommendations.’

Supporting safe supplements

ANH supports many aspects of the Directive, and firmly endorses the banning of ingredients that are patently not safe, stating that existing UK and EU food law already provides perfectly effective protection from unsafe products getting onto the market. Furthermore, ANH says that it is not scientifically rational to classify an ingredient as being unsafe without taking dosage levels into account, something that was not a condition of being admitted onto the positive list.

ANH believes that a far more appropriate system for banning any substances that might pose a risk to health would be to produce a ‘Negative list’ for ingredients where there was proper evidence of lack of safety. The system proposed by the EU was going to ban ingredients on the basis that companies did not have the financial capacity to meet the high data threshold required for the scientific dossiers demanded by EU authorities. In this way, ingredients that have been part of the human diet for thousands of years, and which are increasingly difficult to derive from conventional foods, would be lost, and would not be able to be supplemented.

The future of the leading edge of natural health secured

Drawing its support European-wide from consumers, manufacturers, retailers, practitioners and some of the leading experts in nutritional medicine, ANH has taken on the Goliath of the European Commission and those that support the unscientific and unlawful ban in the Food Supplements Directive, to protect the interests of everyone concerned with the leading-edge of food supplements and natural healthcare.

‘None of the major EU countries felt the need to oppose our application for a declaration that the ban on vitamins and minerals in the Food Supplements Directive was unlawful,’ added Anthony Haynes, Technical Director of Nutri-Link Ltd., a UK food supplements company that brought the legal challenge jointly with ANH. ‘It’s bizarre how this regulation got this far.’

A wide welcome across the industry if the ban is overturned

Greg Watts, Chief Executive of Ultralife, a manufacturer of leading-edge food supplements, said: ‘This is very encouraging news. If the ban came into force we would have to reformulate down to simpler, more basic products that consumers and practitioners find are less effective.’

Dr Damien Downing, a medical doctor and one of the UK’s leading practitioners in nutritional medicine, said: ‘Practitioners of nutritional therapy, and there are thousands of them in the UK, largely use leading-edge food supplements. If these nutrient forms remain, we can continue to treat our patients with meaningful solutions and provide the products that we know are so beneficial. A ban would in one fell swoop remove the vital tools of practitioners’ trade.’

Sara Novakovic, owner of Oliver’s Wholefood Store in Richmond, Surrey, said: ‘At last it is now highly likely we can continue to offer the products that our customers ask for and want, rather than have to remove them all from the shelves for no good reason and supply them with inferior quality alternatives.’

The end of the beginning

This is just the beginning for the Alliance for Natural Health. Regulatory and industry pressure through the EU Food Supplements Directive was always likely to translate globally, particularly to the US, through Codex and the World Health Organisation. Without having to justify any health hazard, and without considering any benefits, safety has been used as a reason to restrict the availability of natural food products.

‘Yet food supplements are the safest things that people put into their mouths – considerably safer even than conventional foods’, said Dr Robert Verkerk. ‘With rapidly declining vitamin and mineral content in fruit vegetables and other foods, and continuing increases in degenerative diseases such as heart disease and cancer in the West, this has always been a very big issue worth fighting for.’

‘Fundamentally, an amended Directive would help to slow down the agenda of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to export worldwide an onerous, EU-style regime for food supplements.’

David Hinde added. ‘The ANH is now going to be working on getting a proper procedure in place for the Food Supplements Directive and in addition, the next challenges will be on legislation proposing to reduce dosages to ineffective levels, and to restrict other nutrient forms such as amino acids, enzymes and plant nutrients. Traditional herbal remedies are also under threat. In its work, the Alliance for Natural Health will continue its thorough, professional approach based, as always, on ‘good science, good law.’

ENDS

For enquiries and further information contact:

Alliance for Natural Health
www.alliance-natural-health.org

Dr Robert Verkerk, Executive Director
Tel. +44 (0)1252 371 275
E-mail: robv@alliance-natural-health.org

David C. Hinde, Solicitor, Legal Director
Tel: +44 (0)20 7738 1640
E-mail: davidh@alliance-natural-health.org

IKON Associates
(PR advisers to the Alliance for Natural Health)

Adrian Shaw
Tel: +44 (0)1483 535102
Mobile: +44 (0)797 990 0733
E-mail: adrian@ikonassociates.com

Paul Donkersley
Tel: +44 (0)1483 535101
Mobile: +44 (0)796 764 6046
E-mail: paul@ikonassociates

Notes for editors:

1. The Alliance for Natural Health is a Europe-wide association of manufacturers, distributors, retailers, consumers and complementary practitioners who have an interest in food supplements. More information, including details of members, will be found at www.alliance-natural-health.org

Good science and good law underpin all of the ANH’s work, and the scientific reports produced by the ANH are endorsed by many of the world’s leading doctors and scientists working in the field of nutrition.

2. If the ban on vitamins and minerals is implemented there is much at stake:

· Over 5000 products will disappear from the shelves of UK health stores as a result of the ban removing access to over 300 vitamin and mineral ingredients (out of a total of about 420). These include, amongst others, the main natural forms of Vitamin E, several forms of vitamin C, the key natural form of folic acid, MSM and a range of minerals such as vanadium, silicon and boron, all being products which millions of consumers choose to take as part of their regular health regime and have done so without any ill effects for many years.

· An individual’s freedom of choice to take safe natural health products will be removed – 40% of the UK’s population take vitamins and minerals.

· Products are to be banned with absolutely no scientific justification. Many of the world’s leading scientific and medical experts in nutrition support the absence of any proper basis for the proposed bans.

· Although the proposed bans related only to vitamins and minerals, unless overturned, the ‘Positive list’ system will most likely be transferred to other nutrients used in food supplements, such as plant extracts, amino acids and enzymes. The precedent set by an ANH victory will drastically reduce the chance of future bans on these other nutrient forms.

· Further legislative proposals by the EU are due to be considered by the European Parliament later this and next year. These include restrictions on maximum dosages of vitamins and minerals and restrictions on health claims of foods. Again, the ANH is working to help positively shape such legislation using its mantra of ‘good science and good law’.

In health,

Robert Verkerk PhD
Executive Director, ANH

David Hinde, Solicitor
Legal Director, ANH

and the rest of the Core Team of the ANH in the UK, Sweden, Ireland and Denmark.

E-mail: info@alliance-natural-health.org
Web: www.alliance-natural-health.org