Controversial EU vitamins ban to go ahead (not on the "positive list")

[HuckleB]

Controversial EU vitamins ban to go ahead

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1690686,00.html

"A controversial new EU regulation that has threatened to outlaw thousands of mineral supplements and bankrupt health food stores across Britain was upheld this morning.

The European Court of Justice approved the Food Supplements Directive even though the court's own Advocate-General advised that the Directive was invalid under EU law.

The ruling - greeted with surprise - is a defeat for a concerted campaign by more than a million British health food customers and shops. They have argued that the law, which will come into effect on August 1, will impose an unprecedented level of regulation on mineral supplements and could threaten the existence of small suppliers.

The Alliance For Natural Health (ANH), a group backed by the British Health Food Manufacturers’ Association, have contended that it is unfair for health food manufacturers to bear the cost of applying for approval for products they have been selling for many years.

..."


I'm a bit shocked. Will this be attempted here?

[al bupp]

1. If this message I recieved is true, apparently so

From: [email protected]
Subject: URGENT ACTION REQUIRED Congressional vote
To: [email protected]

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|


Congress is set to approve a so-called “free trade”
deal. The Senate already has, and the House could
vote on it as early as Tuesday or Wednesday.

I’m speaking of the Central American Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA). It’s not really free trade.
Overall, it’s a bad deal.

Here’s just one big reason why:

Embedded in this bill is a provision that would
override the Dietary Supplement Health and Education
Act (DSHEA) of 1994. With this provision gone the
final veil of protection for unregulated personal
use of vitamins and nutritional supplements would be
lifted. The United States would have to comply with
recently developed international standards
established by the World Trade Organization’s (WTO)
Codex Alimentarius Commission (approximate meaning,
food standards board).

This means that you will lose the ability to buy many
of the supplements you use today. They will instead…

* have much lower potency, requiring you to purchase
a great deal more to get the equivalent benefit
you get today;
* be much more expensive, and
* be harder to obtain because you may need a
doctor’s prescription just to get them.

Cui Bono

Who benefits? Major pharmaceutical operations would
have some of their competition (the supplement
manufacturers) eliminated.

Now, you won’t lose your supplements tomorrow. It
could take years. But here’s how it will likely work:

Our government is a member of the WTO, and a
signatory to CODEX. WTO is as binding as a treaty.

At some point some foreign nation, another member of
the WTO, will likely file complaint citing unfair or
illegal trade practices because American businesses
are still selling a particular supplement that
doesn’t meet the new “fair” regulations.

The WTO has the power to respond to such a complaint
with sanctions. This will put a crimp in domestic
companies' ability to trade overseas.

And Congress will respond to this situation by
folding like a cheap suit. Congress always withers
in the face of WTO because the Chamber of Commerce
and Fortune 500 companies won’t tolerate having
their businesses damaged because of one or two
supplement manufacturers.

So the process will start with one or two supplements
disappearing, to be replaced by alternatives that
have lower potency and higher cost. These supplements
may even become prescribed drugs. This process will
begin with just a few supplements at first, but more
will follow, and each time it happens it will become
easier and easier.

You can join the fight to stop passage of CAFTA right
now by visiting DownsizeDC.org and sending a message
to your Representative
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32

Why else should you oppose CAFTA? Well, here are the
words of Ron Paul ­ a Republican Congressman who
believes in _true_ free trade…

“I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is
unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants
Congress alone the authority to regulate
international trade. The plain text of Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither
Congress nor the President can give this authority
away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the
First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point,
based on the plain meaning of the Constitution,
cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who
votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an
international body in direct violation of the
Constitution.

“We don’t need government agreements to have free
trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes
on the American people, without regard to what
other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply
taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought
goods from abroad; the only question is how much
our government taxes us for doing so… We don’t
need CAFTA or any other international agreement to
reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA
supporters, we only need to change our own harmful
economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the
world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we
simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will
attract capital and see our economy flourish.

“It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade
agreements do not diminish American sovereignty.
When we grant quasi-governmental international
bodies the power to make decisions about American
trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain, and
simple. I can assure you firsthand that Congress
has changed American tax laws for the sole reason
that the World Trade Organization decided our
rules unfairly impacted the European Union.
Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways
and Means committee, while the one bill drafted
strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the
floor and passed with great urgency last year.

“The tax bill in question is just the tip of the
iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under
CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our
cowardly legislature into changing American laws
in the future. Labor and environmental rules are
inherently associated with trade laws, and we can
be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue
for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and
similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA
also imposes the International Labor
Organization’s manifesto, which could have been
written by Karl Marx, on American business…

“CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA,
and the WTO, it represents another stone in the
foundation of a global government system. Most
Americans already understand they are governed by
largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet
now they face having their domestic laws
influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or
Mexico City.

“CAFTA and other international trade agreements do
not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the
absence of government interference in the flow of
goods, while CAFTA represents more government in
the form of an international body. It is
incompatible with our Constitution and national
sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from
international trade.”

IMPORTANT NOTE: We’re told, by inside sources that
the vote spread on CAFTA is very, very close. A
change of as little as four votes, either way, could
make the difference. WE CAN WIN THIS ONE IF WE APPLY
PRESSURE. Tell your Representative in the U.S. House
to vote against CAFTA.
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=32

And then cut and paste and email to your circle of
influence whatever parts of this message you think
will be most persuasive. Ask them to join you at
DownsizeDC.org in sending a message to Congress. We
need as many voices as possible

Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC

P.S. When you’re done firing-off a message to
Congress, don’t forget to check out the new
www.DownsizeDC.com where we’re demonstrating how
“Downsizing DC leads to Human Progress.”

|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|


D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
http://www.DownsizeDC.org

[jojo54]

2. Guess I'd better stock up from Puritan's Pride then.

Damn, I had heard about this awhile ago, but I thought it had been shot down?!?!

[Bridget Burke]

7. That's a big "if"....& a chain letter, as well!

Snopes has a few choice words on a similar story: www.snopes.com/politics/medical/vitamins.asp

[greyl]

10. Thanks for the Snopes link :) nt

[al bupp]

23. Interesting, but it is dated from February

The Snopes piece needs to be updated at the least. There are, in fact two current bills before congress, H.R.3045 & S.1307 which are intended to implement CAFTA.

I've actually taken some time to peruse the House version of the bill, and while I can find no explicit provision overriding the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, as mentioned in the email I posted, there are many references to other laws which would have to be traversed in order to either prove or disprove the allegation.

Those interested can see for themselves:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109RCS6WH

In any event, I think there's cause for some concern. Dismissing it as simply urban legend may somewhat too facile.

Cheers

[housewolf]

29. The Snopes article doesn't account for the inclusion in CAFTA

it looks at the Codex as stand-alone legislation that was dropped previously.

[al bupp]

39. I asked DownsizeDC to Comment on the Snopes Article

This is the response I recieved the president of the organization:

Snopes is wrong, though why requires substantial explanation. Illustrating how exposes an insidious complexity designed to undermine efforts until we're far too late in the process. More on that in a minute.

Now, it turns out there WAS an error in yesterday's message. But the Snopes piece does not address that. The error? The CAFTA bill does not have a specific provision on supplements.

There is NOTHING directly in the language of either the House or Senate bills pertaining to CAFTA that threatens dietary supplement consumers. What DOES threaten us is the language of the CAFTA Treaty itself.

In the interests of accuracy, this is an important distinction to make. Mea culpa. To be honest, despite numerous consultations with others, I didn't grasp that fact until AFTER someone pointed it out to me.

But it's still important to realize these bills contain implementing
language that would give CAFTA the force of law inside the USA, but the bills don't contain the text of the Treaty itself and THAT is where the threat DOES lie. See

CAFTA Treaty

Section 6, the SPS Section.

Section 6 of CAFTA would require the USA to form a Sanitary Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures Committee for the purpose of insuring that we entered into a constant process of harmonizing our laws under the terms of the SPS Agreement in the WTO.

Further, Article 3 of the WTO's SPS Agreement requires us to harmonize our food safety laws (read DSHEA) to Codex standards. It states "To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as possible, Members SHALL base their food safety measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations." (Codex sets the standards for food safety, including vitamins and minerals.)

The likely effects of CODEX are well-documented by the ever-rigorous Life Extension Foundation:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2005/jul2005_awsi_01.htm

Now Al, I'm not a major conspiracy buff. But there is a disinformation
campaign underway and the complexity of the process is the key to its
success. The Snopes piece inadvertently lends some of the evidence.

The bills Snopes cites that didn't come up to vote (in 2003) demonstrate that the FDA and the Major Pharma companies that control it, don't have the power to take our rights through domestic political means. They have motive, but insufficient means.

Thus, there are only three ways they can go:

1) To the Courts. This strategy has already failed them to a sufficient degree so that they are hardly pursuing it.
2) By scaring Americans. This one hasn't worked because too many people are now using supplements and swear by them.
3) Go to an International Body like the WTO. And I explained in yesterday's message how this works.

One final thing. It's hard to sufficiently alert someone about something when it's so darn complicated and the effects are so far off. I've come to learn several things about Big Government power and the political process over the years -- rules of thumb that consistently work (I wish I had an investment scheme that was so reliable).

One thing that is true is that big government fully exploits the powers it's given. Give them an inch, they take ten miles. They do things "no one" foresaw. I explained the most likely, but not the only, scenario by which CODEX would result in the loss of access to supplements. And by loss of access I mean not only outright loss, but also increased cost, lower potency, and greater regulation, such as a requirement for prescription-only access.

Snopes counters that you won't lose access to supplements in July 2005. They are right. But what they overlook is that this will happen very, very gradually and it won't be CONGRESS that does it. And we'll be reduced to putting out brush fire after brush fire, and lose battles along the way. The losses will mount and become bad precedents. And new a generation of public school children will be taught how the WTO protected us from "snake oil salesmen."

The time to act now. We need to throw this baby out with the bathwater
because it's Rosemary's Baby.

Therefore, those who've overstated the case are guilty of just one thing --lacking the marketing and political experience necessary to accurately articulate in a way that motivates action what they know in their hearts to be true. This is indeed a flaw, but to my mind, a forgivable one.

To my knowledge, everything (aside from the ONE aforementioned misstatement I've made regarding supplement language in the authorizing bills), both at our website and on our email newsletter, is true, and if anything, understated.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. I couldn't figure out where to include this comment, so I've made it a "P.S." The bias of the Snopes writer is obvious. Ms. vitaminized" (as she signs the piece) decries the fact that these supplements are unregulated. She _wants_ a big government program and gives several (some hysterical, there's that attempt at fear again) reasons why such government "oversight" is necessary. Oh, where would we be if bureaucrats didn't protect us from ourselves?

[iverglas]

31. wot a bunch of right-wing crap

Next time I hear someone admiring Ron Paul, I'll know what's up.

It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain, and simple.

When will this paranoia dissipate? The US is not a handful of honest working folk being oppressed by bad King George anymore. (Like it ever was.) The rest of the industrialized world does not spend its time dreaming up ways to crush the US and enslave all the good patriots. The US is not the victim. And those "bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City" ... damn, they sound an awful lot like those gnomes of Zurich ... or was it the international conspiracy of Jews, communists and bankers ... or maybe the freemasons ...

And Ron Paul is speaking in the interests of ordinary people like I'm the queen mum.

Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business…

Does a single person who reads that have a clue what the ILO is??

http://www.ilo.org/

What the hell is an ILO manifesto? Maybe the Declaration of Philadelphia (1944)?

That one starts out like this:

The Conference reaffirms the fundamental principles on which the Organization is based and, in particular, that-

(a) labour is not a commodity;
(b) freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress;
(c) poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere;
(d) the war against want requires to be carried on with unrelenting vigor within each nation, and by continuous and concerted international effort in which the representatives of workers and employers, enjoying equal status with those of governments, join with them in free discussion and democratic decision with a view to the promotion of the common welfare.

Eek! Commie propaganda! Just like the next part --

Believing that experience has fully demonstrated the truth of the statement in the Constitution of the International Labour Organization that lasting peace can be established only if it is based on social justice, the Conference affirms that-

(a) all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity;

(b) the attainment of the conditions in which this shall be possible must constitute the central aim of national and international policy;

(c) all national and international policies and measures, in particular those of an economic and financial character, should be judged in this light and accepted only in so far as they may be held to promote and not to hinder the achievement of this fundamental objective;

(d) it is a responsibility of the International Labour Organization to examine and consider all international economic and financial policies and measures in the light of this fundamental objective;

(e) in discharging the tasks entrusted to it the International Labour Organization, having considered all relevant economic and financial factors, may include in its decisions and recommendations any provisions which it considers appropriate.

Maybe someone could ask Paul which parts exactly he's so distressed by. Maybe it's something like these?

The Conference recognizes the solemn obligation of the International Labour Organization to further among the nations of the world programmes which will achieve:

(a) full employment and the raising of standards of living;

(b) the employment of workers in the occupations in which they can have the satisfaction of giving the fullest measure of their skill and attainments and make their greatest contribution to the common well-being;

(c) the provision, as a means to the attainment of this end and under adequate guarantees for all concerned, of facilities for training and the transfer of labour, including migration for employment and settlement;

(d) policies in regard to wages and earnings, hours and other conditions of work calculated to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress to all, and a minimum living wage to all employed and in need of such protection;

(e) the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining, the cooperation of management and labour in the continuous improvement of productive efficiency, and the collaboration of workers and employers in the preparation and application of social and economic measures;

(f) the extension of social security measures to provide a basic income to all in need of such protection and comprehensive medical care;

(g) adequate protection for the life and health of workers in all occupations;

(h) provision for child welfare and maternity protection;

(i) the provision of adequate nutrition, housing and facilities for recreation and culture;

(j) the assurance of equality of educational and vocational opportunity.

I suspect he wouldn't be too thrilled about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if it crossed his desk today, either.

[davepc]

58. isn't DownsizeDC a Libertarian Party offshoot?

[iverglas]

61. it's a tangled web

see my post 57

[SteppingRazor]

3. All this ban does...

Is force supplements to be approved by the European equivalent of the FDA. Since half the supplements on the store shelves are little better than snake oil, this will actually probably help the consumer in the long run.

[TalkingDog]

6. Oh, yeah, I trust the FDA. They are completely unbiased and trustworthy.

And I keep foxes to guard my henhouse too.

[Emerson]

14. The FDA does not exist in europe

Therefore your trust of the FDA in this matter does not matter.

There have been many investigations in europe that have found many brands of supplements actually have little or none of the mineral/vitamin they claim to contain.

[SteppingRazor]

16. Too, there have been European investigations...

finding that many supplements, while containing whatever "miracle cure" they claim to have, don't actually do anything for most people.

[K-W]

34. They are more trustworthy than an unregulated market.

Few things arent.

[loudsue]

18. That's total bullshit.

Please supply links for WHICH supplements are supposedly "snake oil", much less "half" of them.

Before those pharmaceutical companies came along, those "snake oil" herbs and supplements managed to keep humans alive for a very, very long time. In fact, pharmaceutical companies study how to change those very same supplements/herbs into CHEMICALS that they can charge you more for, since they can't patent herbs.

I've studied herbal remedies (and supplements, and homeopathics) for over 20 years, and have used them to CURE things that the pharmaceutical companies can't touch.

You and your "skeptic" friends concerned about this only lack experience in what you're talking about.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Emerson]

21. Hmmm

What have you cured with them?

Are you aware there have been natural remedy people that market such a product as being able to cure cancer and AIDS?

[converted_democrat]

95. Chinese herbs allowed me to have a baby.............

My husband and I tried to conceive for 5 years, nothing happened. We spent $47,000 working with two fertility specialists. No one could help. I could not get pregnant. Period. On the behest of a friend I went to see "Dr. John." He was a real doctor that only used Chinese herbs and acupuncture. After two and a half months on the extracts and on the acupuncture therapy I got pregnant with my daughter. We spent $47,000 on traditional medicine and nothing, we spent a little over $650.00 on "Dr. John" and I was pregnant.

[iverglas]

100. I wonder ...

"Chinese herb extracts allowed me to have a baby............."

Post 34:

The recent revelation of the high amounts of estrogen in Chinese imports is a good example.

Me, I'd rather *know* what I'm being fed -- and how much of it.

My (real) doctor won't prescribe estrogen for menopausal symptoms these days except in extreme cases -- precisely because of recent findings about the adverse effects of it.

How's "Dr. John" incorporating those findings into his practice, I wonder?

[Eloriel]

112. Gee, if it was

the high amounts of estrogen in Chinese importst that cured her, it STILL cured her, didn't it? Why didn't tens of thousands of U.S. dollars for U.S. doctors do as well, as quickly, as easily and cheaply?

Me, I'd rather *know* what I'm being fed -- and how much of it.

There's nothing stopping you from doing the research on herbs yourself. Do you also read up on all the pharmaceuticals you take (or would you when prescribed)? Nothing preventing you or anyone from being as knowledgeable a consumer as you'd like to be.

I have my doubts about what is nothing more than an anecdotal report of excess estrogen "in Chinese exports" to start with, so unless you have a link or something, all I have to offer is a :eyes: and a :shrug:

[iverglas]

122. and allow me to offer ...

I have my doubts about what is nothing more than an anecdotal report of excess estrogen "in Chinese exports" to start with, so unless you have a link or something, all I have to offer is a :eyes: and a :shrug:

... Google. I tried it. But I decided I wouldn't want to interfere in anyone doing his/her own research!

Gee, if it was the high amounts of estrogen in Chinese importst that cured her, it STILL cured her, didn't it?

"Cured her"? Infertility is a disease?

I guess we don't need to wonder what else it might have done to her ... like ... but no, I'll let us all do our own googling for info about what high and prolonged doses of estrogen might do to a woman ...

How come big pharma didn't suppress that information and thus keep all the doctors prescribing estrogen? Imagine the profits being lost this very moment.

Me, I'd rather *know* what I'm being fed -- and how much of it.
There's nothing stopping you from doing the research on herbs yourself.

Well, I know those loonytarians are opposed to the gummint stepping in to protect people who might be vulnerable to exploitation from the things that other people might do to them for profit.

Me, I'm actually rather happy that the gummint does the job of certifying people as skilled and products as safe and efficacious. I don't expect perfection from either the people or the products -- and I don't expect the gummint to have no interests but my own at heart, as things now stand. But I just kinda like the idea of having access to someone who has passed a few exams and is subject to some professional standards to be the person who does a bit of pre-screening for me.

And I may be an excellent googler, but there really are a lot of people in the world who just aren't quite as competent and capable of analysis, and who are in just a bit more pain or poverty and are just a bit more desperate for fixes, whom I like to think have some minimum protection against snake oil and its salespeople, too.

That's one of the big things that makes me a social democrat and not a loonytarian.

And I kinda figure that efforts to make domestic governments work for the benefit of people are just a little more worthwhile than ranting about world governments enslaving people.

[converted_democrat]

121. Listen, I know what I was fed..........

I watched him grind it up in his office. All of the ingredients were grown in St. Pete. FL. two blocks from his office in a co-op greenhouse used by several other doctors and natural food stores in the area. Give me a break. I have my daughter and that's all the proof I need. Dr. John was the best thing that ever happened to my family, and just because you don't want to believe it does not mean it isn't true. FYI---When I went to the "traditional doctors" I was given massive amounts of hormone therapy. Massive amounts. You can't "not know" that your on hormones. You get sick, bitchy, and sweat constantly. Dr. John did not give me any hormones. He gave me a natural alternative that worked.

[cpamomfromtexas]

143. Excellent news and congratulations

I agree, most doctors only know what the pharma co's want them to know.

I had a broken arm set with acupuncture. Scared me, but it worked.

I think the natural way is the best way. However, I did have a chiropractor sort of mess me up to the point that I couldn't get off the table- so I guess you just have to muddle around to get to the right people.

[iverglas]

146. good bloody god

However, I did have a chiropractor sort of mess me up to the point that I couldn't get off the table- so I guess you just have to muddle around to get to the right people.

Yeah. If you're fortunate enough to still be breathing. At least you can still tie your shoes, too.

http://www.chirowatch.com/Chiro-strokes/nyt010403brody.html
Oh, I know. That site is part of the giant conspiracy ...

In February 1998, for example, a 20-year-old woman from Saskatchewan lapsed into a coma on a chiropractor's table and died 24 hours later. She had sought treatment for a stiff neck and, after neck manipulation by the chiropractor, a dissection of a vertebral artery caused an aneurysm that interrupted blood flow to her brain.

Likewise, a 35-year-old mother of four in Seattle suffered a stroke precipitated by a dissected vertebral artery immediately after chiropractic manipulation. She survived but now struggles with simple everyday tasks like tying her shoes.

The gods forbid that the gummint should do anything to actually protect the public from such assaults-for-profit and try to prevent them from happening. No, everybody should just muddle around, and hope they can still tie their shoes after they get there.

[HuckleB]

155. Muddle. Muddle. Muddle.

Don't you know that safety is only for them fool pharmas?

[HuckleB]

128. It is interesting.

I've used acupuncture successfully for a number of ailments over the years, but I had a very hard time accepting the herbs that a Chinese Physician offered me when I had some nasty sciatica, as he would not tell me what was in them. Since then, I've continued to watch studies regarding acupuncture treatment success against placebo, with pleasant results often noted. However, I have not noted such pleasant results with the Chinese Herbal remedies. Much could be at play here, and improved health via placebo isn't anything to sneeze at, IMHO, though, of course, anecdotes are, well, anecdotes and little more. Still, it does seem odd to me that some folks scream bloody murder about drug company sneaks (as they should), but don't seem to think the same screams should be aimed at others, just because they're peddling "herbal remedies."

[SteppingRazor]

27. Oh, must I cite the obvious?

Must I divulge every study showing that, no, St. John's Wort does not help depression? That, in fact, it can lessen the effects of legitimate prescription drugs? That, more importantly, it's extremely dangerous to self-medicate depression, given the propensity for suicide?

Perhaps you'd counter with the famed San Antonio study, often cited by St. John's believers, that found that this miracle herb helped 51 percent of depressed people, while antidepressants helped only 22 percent?

Would I then be forced to point out that the amount of antidepressant used in the study was well below the recommended amount, and that, indeed, there is no established recommendation for just how much Wort should be taken to relieve depression?


Mind you, this is just one herb out of 1,000s that have robbed people of their time, money, health and, in some cases, their lives.

Oh, and one other thing -- you say "skeptic" like it's a bad thing! :)

[Eloriel]

75. Doesn't sound like you know as much about it as you seem to think

First, I would point out that St. John's Wort's value is for many other things besides depression and in fact depression isn't even one of its major benefits.

You see, with herbs (which is from a completely different, more holistic and healthy, natrual system of healing), they're not one-dimensional substances that do just one thing. Science HATES that about herbs -- science wants ONE thing they can identify and synthesize. They can't handle the wholistic reality of herbs: that there are MANY constituents in the herb, all of which may have effectiveness and many of which haven't even yet been "identified" by science.

St. John's Wort is (quoting from How To Be Your Own Herbal Pharmacist by Linda Page, N.D., PhD): a strong anti-viral, analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-depressant. Primary uses: for control of viral infections, such as staph, strep, HPV and HIV viral strains; for reduction of and control of tumor growths, both malignant and benign; for nerbe pain control in conditions such as sciatica, neuralgia, and rheumatism; and for "mental burnout" condtions, such as chronic fatigue symdrome (EBV); effective for insomnia, depression and anxiety.

You can see from this entry that its use for depression is least important, almost incidental. It's SCIENCE that has made the big deal about SJW and depression, probably because studies were doen for the ONE thing, completely ignoring its other uses and benefits.

ALL herbs, btw, have more than one property and can be used for a number of different conditions. That too drives science crazy -- they simply can't "get it" that this is even possible, and yet it most certainly is. Their materialist, reductionist, mechanist approach to forcing the body into submission to defeat symptoms won't allow for such a thing. And, as I said, they want to find ONE thing within an herb that accounts for its effects, so they can copy that one thing, synthesize it, patent it, and make money off it. Most herbs don't work that way, thankfully.

As for your fevered little rant about SJW, a google search turned up a bunch of links that on initial inspection look like they both support and descount your claim that SJW isn't effective:

http://www.google.com/search?q=St.+John%27s+Wort+Studies&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

But I was particularly interested in what this site had to say:

Careful analysis of 27 different studies of St. John's wort including 2291 study participants concluded that the herb works better than a placebo in the treatment of mild to moderate depression (1). And because it helps promote sound sleep, St. John's wort is particularly beneficial for those who suffer fatigue, low energy, or insomnia as a result of depression (2). The herb may also aid in treating depressive elements of chronic fatigue syndrome and seasonal affective disorder (also known as SAD or "wintertime blues"), a type of depression linked to the shortage of daylight in the fall and winter(3).

Elsewhere on the same page is a comment that goes hand-in-hand with my complaint about science's approach to herbs, and MAY explain why SOME studies apparently find it NOT as effective for depression:

Although most clinical studies have been done using an extract standardized for hypericin, there seems to be some doubt as to what aspect of the herb is truly responsible for its clinical efficacy. Research findings indicate that a substance called hyperforin may even have more potent mood-enhancing properties than hypericin (6). For this reason, when treating depression, look for an extract standardized to contain 0.3% hypericin and hyperforin (3.0%).

http://www.wholehealthmd.com/refshelf/substances_view/1,1525,824,00.html

When science isolates this or that constituent ("active ingredient") from an herb, they're obviously skipping all the rest of what's IN that herb, and they MAY be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that science doesn't even KNOW whether or which of these two active ingredients are key -- or whether both are -- or whether both and some unknown number of OTHER of SJW's constituents are needed -- doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about "science" and what science says about SJW.

Standardization is a pharmaceutical (i.e., materialist, reductionist, mechanist) approach to herbs that I utterly and totally reject. Science just can't stand "natural," including the fact that herbs can't so easily be quantified, torn asunder, destroyed in a futile quest to find THE most important ingredient. With herbs, the whole part used is THE most important ingredient, and tearing it apart to isolate this or that constituent doesn't improve on the plant or its properties or its efficacy. In fact, it may impair efficacy, eliminate important properties, and seriously degrade an otherwise very useful healing substance.

Would I then be forced to point out that the amount of antidepressant used in the study was well below the recommended amount, and that, indeed, there is no established recommendation for just how much Wort should be taken to relieve depression?

LOL. Yes there most certainly are established recommendations for how much SJW to take -- guidelines deeveloped from millennia of use. But those guidelines aren't in the form "science" thinks it absolutely MUST have: specific ml or similar measurement per dose, per body weight, etc., etc., yadayada. That's not necessary with most herbs. For most herbs, it's difficult to impossible to overdose, and there's no horrible outcome if you do. Imagine having too much peppermint tea, or too much cinnamon, or too much basil. NO herbs have any list of side effects as bad or horrific or damaging as the most commonly prescribed pharmaceuticals, and people don't DIE using herbs at the rate they do with pharmaceuticals (even those used properly!!).

it's extremely dangerous to self-medicate depression, given the propensity for suicide?

That's just silly. Or, if that's really true and accurate, the more doctors should be held responsible when people THEY'RE treating commit suicide, don't you think?

There are many different levels of depression, and suicide is NOT a common or serious threat for each and every person suffering from any form of depression. In fact, suicide is pretty much at the outer range of human experience where depression is concerned -- pretty much by definition, wouldn't you say? Failure of SJW to "fix" someone's depression isn't going to lead to suicide any more frequently than any other failed treatment. But I'd call that a pretty damn creative straw man.

Must I divulge every study showing that, no, St. John's Wort does not help depression? That, in fact, it can lessen the effects of legitimate prescription drugs?

I would advise anyone taking ANY pharmaceutical drug(s) (aka: poisons) to be very careful or simply skip using herbs. Herbs treat the whole body, not just symptoms, by helping the body achieve balance so it can heal itself. There's not enough known about how pharmaceuticals and herbs interact, tho there IS an increasing body of knowledge on the subject. My M.D. has a PDR for herbs, btw (tho he didn't know where it was the last time I was there), so herbs are gaining in prominence and use enough for that kind of reference to be sold to the medical establishment. But that's not just herbs -- there's not enough known about how drugs interact with one another either. AND, pharmaceuticals seem to be increasingly hostile to food, as well. Certain foods affect their efficacy or adversely affect YOU when taken with certain drugs. Ack! Let's not forget what's "natural" -- and mostly benign -- and what's completely aritificial here.

Here's one site for pharmaceutical interactions: http://www.rxlist.com/

And a Google search for herb/drug interaction links:
http://www.google.com/search?q=drug+herb+interactions&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Mind you, this is just one herb out of 1,000s that have robbed people of their time, money, health and, in some cases, their lives.

Well, you haven't made your case for this "just one herb" -- and I'd like to point out that precious few people using herbs have lost their lives, ESPECIALLY as compared to people who lose their lives with phramaceuticals, even those prescribed and used properly. In fact, I think it's difficult (not to mention absurd) for anyone to be defending a system for which death and blindness are KNOWN side effects of a completely optional, one might even say recreational, drug, and it stays on the market. That it was ever BROUGHT to the market says volumes, IMO.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm


Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US
The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251.

-- more more --
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm


I'll stick with herbs, thank you very little.

[K-W]

35. If you can prove your claims, there wont be a problem.

If the remedies are safe and effective, what harm is there in having to test their saftey and efficacy before being put on the market?

[Eloriel]

59. Here's the problem with that, and it's a BIG one

First, they ARE safe when used properly else they wouldn't have been allowed on the FDA's GRAS list (Generally Regarded As Safe). Else we wouldn't use some of them as foods -- which in a sense they all are, but some are cooking herbs and spices which also have therapeutic value otherwise (in fact, most cooking herbs and spices -- none I can think of which don't).

They're effective too. If you have the right herb for the condition, they're damned effective. They've been proving their effectiveness to millions of people for thousands upon thousands of years. And typically, when "scientific studies" are done, the traditional and well-known effects are validated. But the PROBLEM is that scientific studies are expensive and since YOU CAN'T GET A PATENT ON A PLANT, there's absolutely no incentive to do the expensive work so your competitors can benefit.

Nevertheless, there are many, many more studies being done than the "skeptics" here are aware of, especially in Germany, Korea, China, etc. Nor will you hear about them from Corporate media.

[K-W]

62. Tradition does not equal proof.

"They're effective too. If you have the right herb for the condition, they're damned effective. They've been proving their effectiveness to millions of people for thousands upon thousands of years."

There is a hole in your argument you could drive a truck through, namely that plenty of things people thought worked for thousands of years dont actually work.

As far as the economics, its a valid point, but I have to think there is a better option than simply not testing.

[Eloriel]

78. Well, no, actually.

It's a hole in my argument in YOUR mind; I and millions of other people world wide are perfectly content with what you consider "not proof" which has been empiric evidence conducted in many locations, by many peoples, over millennia.

plenty of things people thought worked for thousands of years dont actually work.

Ehhh, I'm not so sure. I certainly can't think of any off-hand, tho you might. But even so, it's not just blind faith that causes those of us who USE herbs to continue to use them, and to defend them. We've obviously been happy with the results. I've personally had results that are downright miraculous, and like LoudSue, which pharmaceuticals can only dream of.

As far as the economics, its a valid point, but I have to think there is a better option than simply not testing.

If what you consider "not testing" (see, I consider them VERY well and thoroughly tested) is a problem for you, by all means see if you can figure something out. AND, do see about all those studies that actually ARE being done, but which don't -- and never will -- make it to the nightly nooz.

[K-W]

83. Logic doesnt only exist in my mind.

You can make appeals to tradition and appeals to popular opinion all day, it wont change the fact that both are logical fallacies.

[Eloriel]

119. Ahhh, so now empiric evidence of successful use over

millennia is a logical fallacy. I see.

My point is this: YOU think you have to have a certain kind of "proof" which take a certain form. I don't. I'm not alone -- there are millions, possibly billions, like me. I'm not saying that as a logical fallacy appeal to ANYthing, but as simple fact.

AFAIC, and for millions of others as well, there already is sufficient proof -- it's just not in the form YOU insist upon. So I take it in YOUR case you probably don't want to use herbs. Great. Please don't. I could care less.

What I DO care about (but only a little) is your trying to foist off your narrow understanding of what constitutes "proof" onto me, or making light of the millennia of usage and empirical evidence as some sort of "logical fallacy," as if that should make some difference in how I view things -- or Reality, for that matter. I can assure you, it won't. You and others can scream for your narrow type of proof all day long for centuries if you like, and it will move me not a whit.

Well, that's not quite true. Eventually -- and probably sooner than later -- I'd develop some pity for you.

[iverglas]

88. welll...

plenty of things people thought worked for thousands of years dont actually work.
Ehhh, I'm not so sure. I certainly can't think of any off-hand, tho you might.

... there was that sacrificing of virgins to the gods, to ensure peace and prosperity, thing ...

C'mon. We can't think of things that individuals and cultures have done, to secure and maintain health and wealth, that were pretty demonstrably irrational and completely ineffective?

We couldn't suggest that the human sacrifice-maker (or even the animal or plant sacrifice-maker) might consider coincidence as a better explanation for his/her health and wealth?

[K-W]

93. How about blood letting.

Not only did it not help people, it actually hurt them.

[iverglas]

yes, but leeches!

They can actually be good things for certain purposes, eh? (preventing blood clots when that's what's wanted)

Tried, tested, and proved, in that case. What an amazing concept.

[Eloriel]

130. Bloodlettig and leeches -- nothing to do with the practice of herbalism

Revolting, though, aren't they?

In general, these were things that MEN came up with, and used especially after they took the healing arts out of the hands of women healers and herbalists, which was one really useful side effect of The Burning Times.

However, the two of you might be interested to know a little of the history of bloodletting, and that bloodletting and leeches and maggots have made a comeback in modern medicine. *I* am not at all interested, but since the two of you are, thought you might appreciate these links (and google will yield bunches more, of course):

The Long, Respected History of Bloodletting, A foundation stone of Western medicine
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2000/02/blood218.html

Useful Little Bleeders...
Dr. Barrie Lancaster, Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, UCL
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/Columnists/barrielancastercolumn1.htm

Blood Basics, Early Practice: Leeches
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/leeches.html

Maggots and leeches make a comeback
Aisha El-Awady
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/july/leech.htm

The slippery slope of leech-seeking: a museum curator takes to the field to solve some mysteries of leech evolution - At The Museum
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_9_111/ai_93611615

Enjoy!!

[iverglas]

134. er ... I know

That was actually the point I was making about leeches -- they *have* been tried, tested and proved useful and valuable for certain purposes.

For preventing coagulation where it's not wanted, they're quite useful and valuable. For draining the bad humours from the body, they're worse than useless.

And huh, I now see that this is pretty much exactly what that link says:
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2000/02/blood218.html
(except it spells "humours" wrong, of course ;) )

[jmowreader]

159. This "links" fetish is REALLY starting to annoy me

As is the theory that says "if Big Pharma can't patent it, they don't want it around." That used to be the case, but I don't think it holds anymore. These guys are in the pharma business to make money, and as much of it as they can. Right now, except for GNC, Shaklee and The Vitamin Shoppe, there's really not an 800-pound gorilla in the supplement business. And they are all sales organizations: Shaklee is MLM/internet sales and the other two are storefront operations.

Folks, I have walked into gas stations and seen racks of supplements behind the counter. And not just the "lose weight now!" variety--they had dozens of varieties of them. Does anyone think gas-station supplements work? Does anyone think the capsules in a bottle of gas-station supplement bear any resemblance to the capsules described on the label? Certainly no one HERE would think that.

However, we're not the target audience for gas-station supplements. There are 300 million Americans and less than 80,000 of them are DU members. You know thousands of people buy these supplements. Are they getting any benefit from them? Very slight, if at all. Gee...maybe if they quit eating gas-station burritos for lunch every day they wouldn't have the problem that is causing them to consider purchasing gas-station supplements, huh? And the gas station attendant, who receives thousands of hours of training in homeopathy, allopathy, herbal supplementation and immunology before she's allowed to turn on gas pumps, ring up cigarettes and say the magic gas station phrase "I'm sorry, but we have no change for anything larger than a $20," is such a help with this product line.

Herbs can be good. Herbs can also be bad.

Now consider a possible FDA approval method for supplements. We know how to test a supplement for contamination, adulteration and potency. Probably ninety-nine percent of the cost of FDA approval for a drug used to revolve around making sure the product is safe and effective at doing whatever it is the drug is designed to do. Admittedly they've been falling down on the job regarding COX-2 inhibitors and dick pills, but that's their purpose in life: making sure the shit won't kill you immediately. The nice thing about herbs is that...oh, let's say Echinacea...is a known quantity. We know it's an immune system enhancer. We don't need to run three thousand tests on every brand of echinacea on the market to know that if you take a pill that contains echinacea, and not a parsley pill that says echinacea on the bottle, your white blood cell count will increase. So! An FDA approval method for supplements would consist of two checks:

1) ensuring that the pills in question contain the supplements that are listed on the label, in the quantities listed on the label, with only approved fillers (usually cornstarch) and only trace amounts of non-listed supplements
2) ensuring that the pills do not contain evidence of filth or contamination

Spot checks to ensure that Healing Garden's echinacea capsules haven't suddenly become parsley capsules (parsley is a diuretic that helps with menstruation--fine attributes to be sure, but if you're trying to build up your immune system, depleting your system of fluids is not the way to accomplish it!) or haven't gone from 500mg echinacea to 10mg echinacea will keep the supplement industry honest.

Okay, back to the 800-pound gorilla comment. One of these days, a member of the GlaxoSmithKline board is going to be drinking in a bar with a couple of homeopathic physicians. One of them is going to comment on how he spends half his day grinding herbs in a mortar, and the other is going to talk about how he has a greenhouse in his back yard to enable him to have a constant supply of herbs for his work. The GSK guy, shitfaced though he may be, is going to turn to these two doctors and ask them, "would it help you to have a constant supply of excellent-quality herbs of known strength, already formed into pills so they're easy to dispense?" Well, of course it would! Glaxo could OWN this market. People trust their products. They have massive marketing muscle. They have factories that produce under aseptic conditions that a mom-and-pop couldn't reproduce. They have the ear of every physician in America. And, considering that we're in 2005 America (where a product gets dropped if it doesn't sell like hotcakes every day--walk through any store looking for yellow price tags if you don't believe me), GSK would embrace herbs. A billion dollars a year selling herbs is as good as a billion dollars a year selling ethical drugs, and there's very little expensive research involved. Plus, they could maintain their ethical-drug business.

[iverglas]

163. damn, eh?

However, we're not the target audience for gas-station supplements. There are 300 million Americans and less than 80,000 of them are DU members.

But don't you know?? -- it's OUR FREEDOM that matters most ... if not exclusively. Fuck the rest of the silly buggers who don't write to the supplement companies and demand assurances of quality and quantity.

An FDA approval method for supplements would consist of two checks:
1) ensuring that the pills in question contain the supplements that are listed on the label, in the quantities listed on the label, with only approved fillers (usually cornstarch) and only trace amounts of non-listed supplements
2) ensuring that the pills do not contain evidence of filth or contamination

No, no, I'm sure that this can't be true. The FDA works for Big Pharma; it would just be doing this so that it could do what it really wants to do, which is take away people's freedom and make them take expensive dangerous drugs and put profits in Big Pharma's pockets. Where have you been??

Well, of course it would! Glaxo could OWN this market.

And that's the bit I really haven't been getting.

If Big Pharma wants to stop people from spending their money on things that Big Pharma doesn't sell -- why the hell doesn't Big Pharma just start selling them?? If the profit margin on snake oil wasn't hugely bigger than the profit margin on prescription medications (particularly once those economies of scale kicked in), I'd eat my, er, food-based non-drug biostructural medicine.

[jmowreader]

167. Oh yeah, I forgot...

(Could someone tell me how to do those slick gray boxes people are putting quoted material in? I like those.)

I think there's a Big Herb out there now. At one end of the Big Herb spectrum are companies like GNC--massive funding, professional packaging, very high standards of quality. And big prices, don't forget that. But you walk into GNC and buy a bottle of ginseng, you know there's really ginseng in there. The other end are the chromium picolinate sellers, the guys who make Seasilver (which contains "trace minerals" measured in parts per billion, and those minerals include thallium, which is poisonous, and strontium, which is radioactive), and the gas-station supplements companies. You either don't know what's in the products they're selling, or you DO know and it scares the shit out of you.

[BuddhaGirl]

41. "Since half the supplements on the store shelves

are little better than snake oil, this will actually probably help the consumer in the long run."

And you know this how? Big surprise to those of us who've used supplements successfully for years. :shrug:

[K-W]

44. the fact that you dont know this is pretty scary

Even if you believe that some of the supplements are useful, it is foolish not to recognize that a profitible unregulated industry has attracted a myriad of scammers.

[iverglas]

46. but they've used them successfully!

I mean, they're still alive, right?

Ah, that old correlation / causation problem ...

The profits to be made by selling bottles of crap with little to no active ingredients -- i.e. little to none even of the ingredient they claim to be active -- while having to comply with no regulatory processes to prove they're selling what they claim they're selling, let alone that it does anything at all ... why, there must be hardly any profits to be made in that, and the people who would be affected by regulatory requirements must all be mom 'n pop artisans cooking the stuff up in their kitchens from fresh natural ingredients grown in their backyards ...

snork.

[SteppingRazor]

55. Indeed. In fact I've got my own bottle of stuff --

INTRODUCING STEPPINGRAZOR AND SON'S BOTTLED MIRACLE CURE!!

With an incredible balance of ingredients found only in natural settings, we've bottled this amazing cureall that EVERY MAN AND WOMAN NEEDS TO SURVIVE. Made with 79 percent nitrogen, 20 percent oxygen, and one percent our secret ingredient, you can be sure that what you need is in our bottles -- if you want to live! Buy now! Amazingly, the ingredients found in this bottle have been with us since Before The Dawn of Man! And yet, now they are available in bottles for the first time EVER!!! Buy now, and get a second bottle for HALF PRICE!

I wonder how many people would know I'm selling them bottles of air? But what's scarier, I wonder how many people would buy it anyway?

[BuddhaGirl]

140. I in fact do know what is in my supplements

as I do my own research - there are many high quality supplements available that do their own studies and research. An example would be companies like Enzymatic Therapy and Jarrow.

It's important that one does their own research and educates themselves. Painting a broad brush crying "snake oil" is very uninformed.

[HuckleB]

142. Yes.

There are companies that do that, and they would probably be able to show that their products are safe, which is all a company needs to do in order to keep its product going under the EU regs.

[Ratty]

64. I have no problem with snake oil

Most supplements are in need of extensive and scientifically sound testing to determine their effectiveness. An absence of such testing does not make a supplment ineffective or bad. After all, we'd been drinking willow bark tea for centuries before aspirin was invented. Local healers understood the power of foxglove long before digitalis was known. As for St John's Wort, the studies I know about cite that it may be good for moderate depression but ineffective for severe depression. As far as it interacting with other drugs, true. It does. But so does alcohol. Aspirin too. You wouldn't want to take Aspirin with blood thinners.

My problem with DSHEA is how far it goes. Right now there is a huge danger from impurities in imported supplements. The recent revelation of the high amounts of estrogen in Chinese imports is a good example. There is also no regulation that a supplement must contain any of the ingredients listed on the label, let alone in the quantities listed. DSHEA stripped the FDA of the ability to regulate, at least, that what is on the label accurately reflects what's on the package. Asinine in my opinion, that they can't do that for us. Also, it's much harder to ban a supplement that is KNOWN to be hazardous.

[Overseas]

81. Oh yeah, let them take Vioxx instead...

This ban is a dangerous step in the pharmaceutical companies' attempts to control the vitamin & supplement market because actually many are a lot better than snake oil.

The restrictions go far beyond the questionable lesser known remedies to actually specifying the maximums strength of Vitamin C caps that can be sold over the counter.

Furthermore, restricting vitamin supplements in countries that has free medical care is at least less cruel than doing it over here where we will just be left with alcohol to numb the pain.

[greyl]

What's wrong with ensuring that supplements are labeled properly?

Or that they are safe?

There may be some bureaucratic snafus here, but the main idea is to protect consumers and keep the industry honest.

[al bupp]

8. I agree, it's a nice idea

However, in practice it will mean more centralization and fewer options in the food supplement market.

I think the real issue is one of who's in control. It seems to me that the pending CAFTA treaty, like NAFTA and the WTO in general renders many of a member country's labor, environmental and product safety laws subservient to opaque supra-national courts and ruling bodies.

[greyl]

9. Educated consumers should have the control, right?

As opposed to the businesses, I mean. The directive is calling for more transparency in the industry, not less.
Fewer potentially dangerous options are a good thing, no?

[al bupp]

26. Absolutely

However, I have my doubts about whether or not the mandates of international trade organizations will ultimately be in the best interests of consumers.

[Emerson]

19. It will mean fewer options

because supplements that don't actually contain what they claim to will be pulled from the shelves.

Preventing fraud is a good thing.

[K-W]

37. Not if your diet consists mainly of frauds and you hate looking silly.

In the end of all this alot of people are going to find out that medicines and foods they swear by are scams.

[LivingInTheBubble]

11. where does safe come into it.

how many people die from paracetamol, alcohol, tobacco and other legal substances each year.

You can take something legally which doctors say will kill you but you cant take a natural supplement without breaking the law?

Its madness but I am not surprised as this kind of madness already happened with cannabis.

[greyl]

12. Those products have (somewhat) informative labels

informing of some of the risks. And alchohol and tobacco companies don't claim to improve health. (Neither does acetaminophen/parecetamol, really)

[Emerson]

15. Where does safety come in to it?

If your doctor tells you that you have a certain condition and that you need to take X vitamin or mineral in order to remain healthy or treat your condition you are telling me no safety hazard exists if the mineral/vitamin you take for months or years (that your doctor says you need) actually has NONE of the vitamin/mineral in it?

This is not a law that makes it illegal for you to take a natural supplement. You can take all of them you want. It's a law that makes it illegal to market a "calcium supplement" (or any other) that actually contains little or no calcium. (or other mineral/vitamin/etc)

Some would call that fraud. I say preventing it is a good thing.

[K-W]

38. Commercial sale and use are not the same thing. EOM

[KittyWampus]

4. The Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex Strikes Again.

[greyl]

5. Are you being sarcastic?

Who do you think makes vitamins? edit: please forget that I said that.;) <--

[Emerson]

17. Although drug companies

are certainly about making money I would suggest you also check the amount of money some of those in the vitamin/mineral supplement market are pulling in.

The FTC has gone after people in the US who made hundreds of thousands of dollars (sometimes millions) off of supplements they claimed would cure anything from cancer to AIDS. (yes, those claims have been made and people who were dieing looking for anything to help them on the slightest chance it would work were taken advantage of by those people)

Many in both the drug AND supplement field are in it for the money.

This law only requires that supplements actually contain what they CLAIM to contain. It doesn't make it illegal for you to take them.

[Redstone]

13. Man, talk about a nanny government. Those people want to

micromanage every single aspect of life for Europeans. They've nannied all kinds of foods out of existence as well.

Glad I don't live there, even with all the problems we have here.

Redstone

[greyl]

20. They should legalize all guns too, you're right :) nt

[Redstone]

25. What the fuck did I say that had ANYTHING to do with guns?

Redstone

[greyl]

28. Nothing, but it follows logically from your Nanny gov comment.

edit: to be clear, you didn't present any argument specifically about food supplements or the directive specifically either. You just made a (too) general statement against the notion that government can function in a helpful and productive way in the lives of it's citizens.

[Emerson]

24. The law does not prevent you from taking them

if you actually read what this is about it prevents someone from marketing a supplement as containing something (such as calcium) when it really contains little or none of that supplement.

Is it your position that you should be able to market a product as a calcium supplement that contains no calcium? Do you not consider that fraud?

[K-W]

40. Do you support regulation of food and pharmacuticals? EOM

[Kellanved]

63. So what?

Like that hasn't happened in the US as well. Years ago.

:eyes:

[Zorra]

22. "reformulated their goods, replacing natural substances with synthetic

chemicals"
:crazy::silly:

In other news, organic apples have been banned throughout the UK because they have not been properly sprayed or labeled, and have not been approved by the ECJ for use. Not to worry apple lovers! The humongous transnational pharmaceutical firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe, Ltd., expects to have their new chemically constructed synthetic apples approved for use in the UK by morning.

(sarcasm)...?

[iverglas]

33. for a slightly less parochial viewpoint (sorry, meant for opening post)

-- although arguably parochial in its own different way -- some here might be interested in the discussion in the Canada forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x6654
"Say No to Deep Integration with the United States!"

Funny how things look different when you change the angle you're looking at them from. Up here, it is interference by the US in OUR sovereignty, and AGAINST our interests, that worries people about these kinds of agreements.

The abdication of sovereignty that is really in issue comes from the transfer of power from representative governments to corporate interests -- arising from the fact that governments are sometimes actually acting on behalf of those interests, and not on behalf of their people, when they negotiate the agreements ... and are sometimes subject to bullying by more powerful governments acting on behalf of corporate interests.

I think USAmericans would be better advised to worry about what their own government is doing in the trade arena -- how it might be selling them out, certainly, but also how it might be trying to coerce other governments into selling their own people out for the benefit of US corporate interests -- than to listen to diversionary fretting about the gnomes of Mexico City who might actually, occasionally, be representing something other than US corporate interests.

[housewolf]

30. What's missing in this debate here

is that as part of CAFTA (if the US approves it), these regulaltions can be IMPOSED on the US without us having any say about it....

Think about it.

[iverglas]

32. think about it ... nice advice

as part of CAFTA (if the US approves it), these regulaltions can be IMPOSED on the US without us having any say about it....

Yeah ... IMPOSED ... by the gnomes of Mexico City ... dropped upon the earth by aliens from outer space for the express purpose of denying good USAmerican folk their vitamin pills ...

What happened to people having their say about things by VOTING IN THEIR OWN DAMNED ELECTIONS, and electing governments that will act in their interests in negotiating international agreements?

If their government VOLUNTARILY accedes to an international agreement, nobody is IMPOSING anything on them, for dawg's sake. Nobody, that is except THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.

International agreements aren't like stone tablets. They don't fall from the sky fully formed, with no white-out available. That's probably why they're called AGREEMENTS, or treaties, or accords, or conventions. They aren't usually called "commandments".

[nolabels]

43. It's called multinational corporations disease

It strips away an entire countries resoorces and leaves it to the barren dust devils

[K-W]

42. I thought about it, then I laughed for a while.

Nobody can tell the US to do squat if it doesnt want to. I somehow think that if the US was as subservient to international agreements as you claim we wouldnt be illegally occupying a country right now.

If the US does follow a rule its because the government wants to follow the rule.

[marmadogg]

36. The point is the pharmaceutical companies are trying to use the FDA

to regulate the supplement industry.

It is a pure and simple way for pharmaceutical companies to increase their profit.

Arguments about the calcium content of a vitamin are moot.

If you support the pharmaceutical companies than be honest but don't think for 1 second that the FDA gives a rats @$$ about any of us.

Going after ephedra in the MSM is 'sexy' but talking about deaths as a result of Tylenol consumption or prescription drug reactions is more important and much more relevant.

(edited because I am a horrible typist)

[greyl]

45. Where's the evidence that pharm corps began this process in the UK? nt

In any case, the resulting regulations seem to be long overdue.
I don't appreciate false or misleading advertising of any kind from any source, including pharm companies.

[marmadogg]

47. The government knows best

That is just pathetic!

The government is not watching out for you.

Care to guess how many deaths occur each year as a result of negative reactions to doctor prescribed drugs?

You are fooling yourself into a false sense of security by thinking that regulating supplement companies is going to keep you safe.

I guess you would prefer to need a prescription in order to buy multivitamins. That is ridiculous!

Big pharmaceutical companies just want to increase their profit margins. Nothing more and nothing less. Either you are extremely ignorant on this matter or you are a pharmaceutical company troll.

Which is it?

[iverglas]

50. which would you rather do --

(Either you are extremely ignorant on this matter
or you are a pharmaceutical company troll. Which is it?)

-- hit that little old Jew over the head with this sack of shit, or beat out that rhythm on a drum? (usual tip of the hat to Firesign Theatre, which anyone unfamiliar with may google)


http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~ctwardy/PHIL1010/answers_ex6/answers_ex6.html

No, no one could possibly disagree with you for reasons other than cupidity or stupidity.

So I guess you must either be opposed to free speech or be omniscient and 100% pure of heart. Am I warm?

[greyl]

54. I requested evidence for your statement. Do you have any?

Rex-all, Melaleuca, fortune tellers, Ringo Starr, and most artists and musicians on the planet want to increase their profits too. So? Are they all evil because they want to profit?

Putting words in my mouth can't strengthen your illogical argumentation.

"Either you are extremely ignorant on this matter or you are a pharmaceutical company troll."

False dilemma. But ok, I'll play along with you. I choose to be "extremely ignorant on this matter".
Now back to that "evidence for your statement" issue so I may get some valuable information to learn from...

[HuckleB]

141. Just to clarify...

thousands of people live each year as a result of positive reactions to doctor prescribed drugs. Risk vs. benefit is always a part of the equation. I am not for this regulation, but I do have to note that folks taking unregulated supplements have no way of assessing risk vs. benefit.

[iverglas]

48. but the question still is ...

The point is the pharmaceutical companies are trying to use the FDA
to regulate the supplement industry.

It is a pure and simple way for pharmaceutical companies to increase their profit.

Arguments about the calcium content of a vitamin are moot.

... if that's the case, why don't the pharmaceutical companies just join 'em? It would surely be a lot cheaper to beat 'em -- simply take over their market share -- by marketing the same crap for lower prices (which big pharma could pretty obviously do) than to spend all that money trying to beat 'em by lobbying governments to crush 'em. No?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

60. goodness gracious, hush my mouth

You either don't want to 'get it' or you can't 'get it'

But you left out one possibility: I'm a Martian, and I've been sent here by the Martian Supreme High Command Council to ensure that earthlings stay sickly and weak.

Do you even know which organization(s) are pushing to ban supplements?

How 'bout: do I know which things fall up instead of down when you drop 'em?

The fact that you can make an allegation and stick a question mark at the end of it just don't make the allegation true. Loaded question, y'know. Answer: mu.

Also something like ad corporation argument ...

Nothing at all will be banned if it can comply with regulatory requirements -- the first being that it be what its purveyors say it is, quite apart from doing anything anybody says it does.

Pharmaceutical companies make a hell of a lot more money in selling prescriptions than 'supplements'. That is their business model.

Yes, and big corporations never ever change their business models to take advantage of new opportunities and compete with existing suppliers. Nope, IBM doesn't sell computers, and McDonalds doesn't sell chicken sandwiches ...

Banning supplements allows the pharmaceutical companies to sell more of their existing prescription drugs. Plain and simple. Supplements currently cut into their profit/

Yeah. Among all those folks who would be cured of schizoprenia by orthomolecular whatsit if only they could get it. And yet I still wonder ... why wouldn't the big pharmas set up orthomolecular whatsit businesses?

Why can't you get that into your thick head?!?!?!

Because I'm a Martian!!!! And we have to have thick heads to keep all the outer space radiation from making us go crazy. Or giving us brain tumours. But then, all we'd need for that would be a little laetrile ...

[Eloriel]

126. Well, at last. She gets it -- stumbles on it, but does at least get it.

That is precisely what they intend to do. The problem is that since plants can't be patented, simply 'joining them' by also putting out un-patentable plant materials doesn't get the job done. There's no real money in that. And far too many different plants, too. (After all, I've got dandelion growing in my back yard, and echinacea in my flower garden.)

IF, however, they can make herbs and supplements into "medicines" which must be prescribed by MDs, they can dominate the market very easily. The AMA will fall all over themselves to join the party, MDs will "appreciate" an opportunity to prescribe more stuff and especially (to borrow a phrase) if they can know exactly what they're prescribing and exactly how much, etc.

I've been watching this unfold for over a decade (it crops up in my consciousness and email inbox periodically, it's not been one uninterrupted "study" of the matter). You can snear and laugh at John Hammel if you want, but he's devoted his life to it and the reason is his own health will be destroyed if this takes effect. Once upon a time I read the Codex Alimentarius documents myself; they are NOT benign. I'm not against so-called "scientific testing" for those who just can't get there from here any other way, but I am against -- vehemently against -- anyone and anything that wants to curtail my access to these substances in any way.

And as for your rant against the U.S. government and what "we" are doign to the rest of the world -- do you really think that's not part of the equation, not to mention the horror? But what struck me as I read it was how sad that you saw Americans as "the enemy" here when in reality we everyday Americans and you Canadians and the citizens of every other country all have a COMMON enemy -- and yes, the U.S. govt is part of it (but by no means all). So your pitting yourself and your energies against us is a tragically misplaced use of your animus and energy. But I can assure you, THEY love it -- and yes, by "THEY" I mean an international cabal that does, indeed, want world government and an ignorant, subservient, fearful, impoverished citizenry -- I just never thought of them as Jews, but rather quite the contrary. I didn't think the Bushes, who are a MAJOR part of the international cabal I speak of, are Jews.

[iverglas]

133. so ... when did McDonalds ...

(After all, I've got dandelion growing in my back yard, and echinacea in my flower garden.) IF, however, they can make herbs and supplements into "medicines" which must be prescribed by MDs, they can dominate the market very easily.

... have hamburgers defined by regulation as drugs?

I mean, they must have. Otherwise they would never have been able to put all the little mom 'n pop hamburger vendors out of business, and make all those billions of $$ ...

And after all, I can actually make my own hamburgers in my own kitchen ...

But what struck me as I read it was how sad that you saw Americans as "the enemy" here when in reality we everyday Americans and you Canadians and the citizens of every other country all have a COMMON enemy -- and yes, the U.S. govt is part of it (but by no means all). So your pitting yourself and your energies against us is a tragically misplaced use of your animus and energy.

What strikes me is the tragic misrepresentation of anything I've said.

Those who rave on about world government enslaving them are usually enabling and facilitating the abuses of the US government and its corporate backers, not fighting them.

People who actually want to curb such abuses tend to recognize the value of coherent international action to that end and seek to strengthen appropriate international mechanisms and bodies to do that, not speak the language of the right wing.

[Eloriel]

49. More links

Supplements will be considered illegal drugs...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1912962#1912975

"Vitamins to be Banned Worldwide..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4021026
Link: http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/viamins%20to%20be%20banned%20worldwide
also discussed here: http://www.welltv.com/http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=245x9404#9582
Link to documentary: http://www.welltv.com/

Take action. Supplement Access Under Fire.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1839862#1839885

John Hammel interview
http://www.thehealthcrusader.com/pgs/article-0104-ban.shtml

[iverglas]

57. hmm

I'm not seeing much in the way of information, let alone proof of anything relevant, anywhere there.

http://www.thehealthcrusader.com/pgs/article-0104-ban.shtml

International Advocates For Health Freedom (IAHF) http://www.iahf.com is a consulting firm to the dietary supplement industry on legislative issues. I do lobbying in Washington and all over the world, public speaking, and grass roots organizing - mostly via my website and email distribution list which anyone can sign onto at my website. I write articles, and serve as a catalyst to try to get people working together to defend their common interest in the face of this Pharma threat to block our access to natural products. I first established IAHF in 1996 while I was sitting on an airplane coming back from a U.N. Codex Alimentarius Commission vitamin meeting in Germany.

So ... don't we want to know how much money Mr. Hammel makes doing that? And maybe who his clients are, and how much money *they* make doing what they do? Isn't that supposed to be the what it's all about on big pharma's side?

http://4optimallife.com/Alternative-Medicines-Cures-For-Schizophrenia-Mental-Illness.html

I am forever grateful to John Hammel, President of International Advocates of Health Freedom, located in Virginia, www.iahf.com for sharing his experience with an internet group I belong to. John cured himself of schizophrenia with Dr. Hoffer's method after four years in a mental hospital.

Forgive me if I don't quite believe that ... in perhaps more than one respect.

Mr. Hammel speaks:

http://www.iahf.com/index1.html

The International Advocates for Health Freedom is a catalytic entity designed to foster networking between health freedom activists world wide in order to foster opposition to the elements of coercion: the UN's International Council of Drug Regulating Authorities, and all regulating bodies falling under its auspices including the FDA, TGA, HPB, MCA, MCC etc.

The founder of IAHF, John Hammell, has been fighting professionally for health freedom for 10 years, and first got involved with alternative medicine after recovering from a life threatening illness in 1980 via a suppressed alternative treatment mode (orthomolecular medicine) after mainstream methods almost killed him. His personal belief is that herbs and other dietary supplements are gifts to us all from our Creator. As such, he believes it to be highly immoral for anyone to try to restrict their availability or to do anything which would hamper consumer access. For more of an insight on John Hammell read his articles Why I Fight for Health Freedom and Urgent Appeal From An Orthomolecular Psychiatric Survivor: Vitamin Access Threatened Globally.....

IAHF staunchly opposes all "harmonizing" language which the multinational corporations are trying to insert into legislation world wide in their effort to enslave us via world government. IAHF believes strongly in individual liberty as espoused by the US Constitution, the Libertarian Party, and by the International Societies of Individual Liberty (ISIL).

Seems I was right ... it's the international conspiracy of Jews, communists and bankers, out to get us again.

Mickey Mouse and Goofy on a pogo stick, folks! What on earth does citing this individual prove or otherwise accomplish??

[greyl]

65. "hmm" equals "I'm thinking" , right?

You can really get your Hmms On by noting that the "...,...& Alternative Healing Group" totally censors any honest inquiry or individual ideas posted by DU members that have ever questioned any woo-woo notions in the span of DU recorded history.
There mission statement practically forbids honest questions being asked there.

[Eloriel]

101. Oh?

I'm not seeing much in the way of information, let alone proof of anything relevant, anywhere there.

Gee, that's funny, I don't recall making any such claims. Is there a new rule here at DU? Or we're all supposed to just live up to YOUR expectations?

Seems I was right ... it's the international conspiracy of Jews, communists and bankers, out to get us again.

Get a grip. Not everyone is either an anti-Semite or out to demonize the Jews or blame them for anything, let alone all the world's ills. Your attempt to somehow turn theperfectly innocuous term "multinational corporations" into the moral equivalent of "cabal of Jews and international bankers" is both laughable and extreme. I mean, that takes that argument and paranoiz to a whole new level.

OTOH, if you HONESTLY aren't well-enough informed to recognize the validity of the comment you bolded and built an offensive strawman argument out of, then there's no point in discussing it with you until you are.

Good day.

[iverglas]

106. well then

I'm not seeing much in the way of information, let alone proof of anything relevant, anywhere there.
Gee, that's funny, I don't recall making any such claims. Is there a new rule here at DU? Or we're all supposed to just live up to YOUR expectations?

I guess you just posted that stuff for our entertainment.

Worked! Me, I'm usually entertained by the rantings of loonytarians. Especially the ones who claim to have been cured of schizoprenia by whatsit-molecular whatsit ...

You may call my interpretation of their effort to enslave us via world government an "offensive strawman", but I just think it's spot on. I mean, given the context and the speaker, and how closely it resembles the things so long, and still, said by such virulently right-wing elements of society ...

I didn't choose the words, y'know.

[arikara]

51. We Become Silent: The Last Days of Health Freedom - A documentary

Please watch this documentary for more information on the Codex Alimentarus and CAFTA. Yes, they are in the process of sneaking the Codex in the back door through the CAFTA agreement.

http://www.welltv.com

International award-winning filmmaker Kevin P. Miller of Well TV announced the release of a new documentary about the threat to medical freedom of choice. 'We Become Silent: The Last Days of Health Freedom' details the ongoing attempts by multinational pharmaceutical interests and giant food companies — in concert with the WTO, the WHO and others — to limit the public’s access to herbs, vitamins and other therapies.

'We Become Silent’ is narrated by Dame Judi Dench, the noted UK actress who has won multiple Golden Globe awards, an Oscar, and a Tony for her on-stage work, in addition to dozens of other honors throughout her prestigious career.

During the 1990s, the legendary James Earl Jones narrated Miller’s film, ‘Let Truth Be The Bias.’ This hard-hitting film exposed the government's role in a guns-drawn raid at the office of a noted holistic MD, and highlighted the U.S. government’s complicity in suppressing the truth about the effectiveness of alternative/complementary medicines. ‘Truth’ successfully mobilized public support around the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA), which defended U.S. consumers' rights to health alternatives.

“I am releasing a 30 minute version of ‘We Become Silent’ because it is vital to engage the worldwide public about the dangers of CODEX ALIMENTARIUS,” said Miller. “If we don’t defend our health freedoms, they will be lost — and nothing would make the drug companies happier than to have free rein over our health.”

'We Become Silent’ features the only known video from inside a Codex meeting, exclusive interviews with delegates to the Codex Alimentarius Commission, U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials, two U.S. Congressmen, actor Mel Gibson, and more. Consumer activists like Dr. Robert Verkerk of Alliance for Natural Health play a major role in the documentary, as do Julian Whitaker, MD, Dr. Carolyn Dean of Friends of Freedom International, Scott Tips of the National Health Federation, John Hammell of International Advocates for Health Freedom, and many of the best-known health freedom advocates from around the world. 'We Become Silent’ is a powerful statement about the dominance of multinational corporations over personal freedoms, the WTO, Codex, and the challenges consumers face in trying to repel this monolith from their daily lives.

<snip>

[arikara]

52. Recommended

n/t

[Sven77]

56. by the terms of that CAFTA agreement, to restrict vitamin and supplements

What this means, in the United States, is that as soon as CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) passes the House of Representatives (it has already passed the Senate), the US government will be forced, by the terms of that CAFTA agreement, to restrict vitamin and supplement sales in accordance with the "German Model" of health care.

If and when this happens, the hard won 1994 DSHEA (Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act) will be nullified, and the dismantling of the North American supplement Industry will begin.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/vitamins_to_be_banned_worldwide.htm

[marmadogg]

66. It is settled...the federal government knows best!

Why am I not surprised that the only people arguing for supplement control are Canadians and Europeans?

Americans have a very libertarian streak.

Get over it.

[K-W]

68. Wow, an obvious straw man argument,

followed by an overgenerlization and an appeal to nationalism, and concluding with a snarky comment.

You certainly have me convinced.

[marmadogg]

69. I could careless about persuasion at this point

Anyone who believes their government has their best interests in mind is a fool.

Anyone who believes that a GOP run government (i.e. FDA) has their best interests in mind then they are Republicans.

Take a good hard look at the FDA. You will find that the folks running the FDA and the folks running Big Pharma travel in a revolving door.

Do you really believe that a GOP run government has your best interests in mind?

What happened to questioning everything? The FDA is putting Vioxx back on the market but they should make decisions your vitamin C purchase?

Yeah...real logical.

[K-W]

72. Do you care about facts or logic?

"Anyone who believes their government has their best interests in mind is a fool."

Sraw man, nobody is arguing that. The issue isnt whether government is good, it is whether government regulation is better than no regulation.

"Anyone who believes that a GOP run government (i.e. FDA) has their best interests in mind then they are Republicans."

See above. Only this time its not just a strawman argument, its an attempt to smear your opponants as Republicans.

"Take a good hard look at the FDA. You will find that the folks running the FDA and the folks running Big Pharma travel in a revolving door."

Again, nobody is arguing with that, but you keep on forgetting that it doesnt have to be good, just a better option than an unregulated market.

"Do you really believe that a GOP run government has your best interests in mind?"

Again, irrelevent.

"What happened to questioning everything? The FDA is putting Vioxx back on the market but they should make decisions your vitamin C purchase?"

Another reptitition of the same straw man argument.

"Yeah...real logical."

No, the arguments you invented in your head, that nobody ever made are not logical, but because you invented them, they arent relevent to this discussion.

[marmadogg]

84. OK

Please give me your argument for more granular regulation of the supplement industry?

[K-W]

89. Granular? I don't follow.

My argument is simple. The FDA is more open and accountable than an unregulated market. Neither are satisfactorily so, but you have to take what you can get.

Also, I will never forget reading The Jungle and Id rather not have rodent poop in sausages, or whatever the equivalent is for a homeopathic pill.

Just as pharma companies care about profit over people, supplement companies care about profit over people.

[greyl]

91. bullSHIT

give us your evidence that pharm corps initiated this democratic process in the UK.

[greyl]

79. Do you really mean you could NOT care less? nt

[HuckleB]

145. Huh?

The FDA is putting Vioxx back on the market? Interesting. A Canadian panel has reported that Vioxx should be back on the Canadian market, but I don't recall the FDA doing anything similar.

I presume that you have concerns about the safety of Vioxx, and don't want people making risk vs. benefit choices for themselves. Can I then assume that you are for this EU regulation of supplements, especially since the only thing the producers have to do is show that the supplements are "safe."

[arikara]

71. LOL!

You dissected it brilliantly... I couldn't wrap my head around what that post was about at all.

:yourock:

[arikara]

73. Speaking as a Canadian

I can assure you that we are NOT arguing for supplement control. We've seen this coming and have been working against it for a long time.

[iverglas]

77. speaking as another Canadian, however

I can't speak for "we", but I can assure you that *I* most definitely support "supplement control".

My contact with these issues tends to be sporadic and peripheral, but I've seen enough (e.g. by reading Federal Court decisions concerning the activities of certain "supplement" purveyors, which I unfortunately can't locate on line now) to know the extent to which such control is truly needed.

There are many other aspects of regulatory harmonization that I have problems with, but the Codex Alimentarius, on the whole, ain't one of them.

[arikara]

80. Well I stand corrected

There is obviously at least one Canadian who likes the idea of their vitamins being controlled by foreign governments as proxy of big pharma.

edit: typo

[iverglas]

85. ooh! where is s/he?!? Lemme at him/her!

There is obviously at least one Canadian who likes the idea of their vitamins being controlled by foreign governments as proxy of big pharma.

Bring that Canadian here, and I'll give him/her a good smacking for being such a quisling.

I'm tempted to say there is obviously one Canadian who has caught the right-wing loonytarian disease from over the border ... but I won't.

Foreign governments ... Jews, communists and bankers ... freemasons ...

I do indeed have concerns about the influence of big pharmaceutical companies on domestic (and other countries') drug policies.

However, this concern does not interfere overly with my ability to discern the need to protect Canadian consumers from profiteering and unscrupulous manufacturers and vendors of snake oil ... or products alleged to contain snake oil ...

[arikara]

147. I do not appreciate

or want your "protection". Feel free to use whatever you want and give the rest of us the same regard. That big pharma is the driving force behind these laws would not come as a surprise to you if you were to do a little research on the subject.

So you can take your condescending right-wing loonytarian disease from over the border Foreign governments ... Jews, communists and bankers ... freemasons ... pleasantries somewhere else.


Sheesh...

[iverglas]

151. well harrumph harrumph

And I don't appreciate being misrepresented. There; we even now?

I do not appreciate or want your "protection". Feel free to use whatever you want and give the rest of us the same regard.

Okey dokey. And when I open a pizza joint on your block, and you eat there, and you get some dread disease from the pizza prepared in my filthy rat-infested pizza kitchen, you be sure to remember that.

It was your choice to buy my pizza, and nobody made you do it, so don't you be expecting anybody to protect you from your own foolishness.

Like I wuz saying ... loonytarianism just ain't all that popular in Canada. But you feel free not to like the way we actually do things here.

So you can take your condescending right-wing loonytarian disease from over the border Foreign governments ... Jews, communists and bankers ... freemasons ... pleasantries somewhere else.

I'll be happy to, sweetie. Anytime you want to start by putting your false and despicable There is obviously at least one Canadian who likes the idea of their vitamins being controlled by foreign governments as proxy of big pharma where it belongs.

Oh, and ...

That big pharma is the driving force behind these laws would not come as a surprise to you if you were to do a little research on the subject.

... whew, talk about "condescending". It's just that it's so hard, really, to condescend to someone whom one is not above.

Ever visit the Canada forum?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x6654

Nah, me, I'm just an ignoramus ... and I wasn't researching regulatory harmonization while you were in braces ...

[Megahurtz]

160. No "snake oil" here!

Vitamins, supplements, and definitely herbs are far more superior and far surpass any bogus poison that the Pharmacuetical industry wants to shove down my throat!:grr:

[HuckleB]

162. How do you know that?

:shrug:

[greyl]

67. Humans have successfully survived and multiplied for 3 million yrs

without the benefit of local placebic beliefs.

If these healing agents are so natural, why don't their dedicated users just grow them on their own?

[marmadogg]

70. That assertion works both ways

For and against Big Pharma.

[greyl]

82. C'mon, gimme something to work with here.

Or else I, and those who agree with you for no reason, may take your "arguments" less than seriously from here on out.

[iverglas]

74. and ...

If these healing agents are so natural, why don't their dedicated users just grow them on their own?

... if there's no money to be made in selling 'em, why does anybody do it?

But if there *is* money to be made in selling 'em, why aren't we questioning the motives of those who oppose the implementation of Codex Alimentarius, f'r instance?

Hmm.

(Shh. That's me being sceptical, as we spell it up here. The Brits spell it that way too, of course, they often just aren't, when it comes to stuff they like to insert into their various orifices ... and a lot of them were really very fond of handing their money over to séance-holders not so very long ago ...)

[greyl]

86. and...

my argument was weak in that it ignored that minerals are part of the inquiry. I don't think many alt health people would be able to injest certain minerals if not for the help of ...Science.

But what the hell, it was still a good point. :)

[marmadogg]

90. Answer me this...

Can a company make more money selling something as a supplement or as a prescription?

[greyl]

92. Ask walmart. They know you just need to fool the consumers. nt

[marmadogg]

96. Heh?

I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart.

Irrelevant.

[greyl]

103. I refuse to shop at walmart too. Do you favor gov reg of them? nt

[iverglas]

97. it depends ...

Can a company make more money selling something as a supplement or as a prescription?

Is the company selling it as a supplement actually required to put any of it in its product?

Or meet sanitary requirements ... or demonstrate efficacy ...

Those kinds of things can get might expensive, I suspect.

[marmadogg]

108. Ummm

Lets assume that the supplement is 100% true to the label's claim.

Can a company make more money selling something as a supplement or as a prescription?

iverglas,

Do any supplement companies stay true to their claims?

Please be intellectually honest and answer these questions without deflecting.

[iverglas]

118. oh, well then

Lets assume that the supplement is 100% true to the label's claim.

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Lets build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..."
-- Paul Samuelson

You must be an economist, eh?

Do any supplement companies stay true to their claims?

Do any car manufacturers care deeply about their customers' safety?

Yes? Well then why the hell do we have laws to impose safety standards their products must meet?

C'mon. Why?!?

Please be intellectually honest and answer these questions without deflecting.

Intellectually honest? Moi?? Surely that's too much to expect of a Martian.

But maybe if you tried it, and asked a question that might actually have an answer relevant to the discussion ... like ...

Do any supplement companies NOT stay true to their claims?

... we'd have something to bring our respective intellectual honesty to bear on.

[Robert Oak]

76. yes

They are shooting for the States also.

It's outrageous.

Health care dramatically increases and many are using natural
supplements to keep their health up.

It's pharmaceutical companies now wanting to "patent the plant"...
which is what a supplement is and what pharmaceutical corporations
cannot do, patent law does not allow one to patent natural plants.

So, instead, what do they do...well, try to wipe out this very important
area of health and medicine.

[greyl]

87. If they are so natural, why not grow and harvest your own?

I mean, why depend on some faceless company for your personal well-being?

[marmadogg]

94. Interesting

Supplement companies are faceless but pharmaceutical companies are not.

ROTFLMFAO!

[iverglas]

99. even more interesting

"Supplement companies are faceless but pharmaceutical companies are not."

Pot fails to recognize facetious kettle.

Watch out how you roll. You might injure yourself and need some penicillin or anaesthetic or something.

[marmadogg]

102. Indeed

Neither pharmaceutical companies nor supplement companies are 'faceless' to me personally.

Arguing for the sake of arguing is tiresome.

Do you have an assertion that you can back with facts?

[greyl]

105. you aren't answering this question either. nt

[marmadogg]

113. You want to know why I do not grow these supplements myself

The same reason I paid someone to put in my stone paver driveway.

Time is money and I do not have time to grow the supplements myself.

I guess you have a problem with that?

Please answer my questions now that I have answered your questions.

[Overseas]

98. Golly Gee Folks -- Just Trying to be Helpful -- It's all for your own good

Golly Gee, you poor public folks, we just want to help make sure your vitamins are labeled correctly. What's wrong with that! And shucks y'all, next month we want to be sure you don't take too much so we'll limit the maximum dosage per supplement per pill available to the public. And after that, you know, we really want to be sure you don't keep taking something that could be dangerous, and gee, Pharma's latest test shows Vitamin C can cause ulcers, so golly, gotta pull it. And you know, those vitamin dosages are hard to calculate, so you'd better get professional assistance. BUT DON"T WORRY FOLKS !! YOU CAN JUST DROP ON IN TO YOUR FAMILY DOCTOR AND GET A PRESCRIPTION ANY TIME, RIGHT?

[marmadogg]

104. BING, BING, BING, WE HAVE A WINNER!

Overseas hit the nail right on the head!

I can not wait until the pharmaceutical employees/lobbyists on this board call that a straw man argument.

[iverglas]

111. hahaha

And shucks y'all, next month we want to be sure you don't take too much so we'll limit the maximum dosage per supplement per pill available to the public.

What's that old saying about having to look up to see the bottom?

A limit on the maximum dosage per unit isn't really going to cause a lot of those supplement folks too much grief, I suspect.

Now, requiring that they actually put some measurable amount of the advertised stuff in their products, that they might squeal about.


(edited to insert omitted word)

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

129. lest it disappear

I have asked for and received independently lab verified analysis of every supplement I take.
If the supplement company can not furnish this for a recent lot production then do not buy from that supplement company.

Congratulations.

And now maybe you can offer some reason why the company does not just supply that information at the point of sale -- and should not be required to do so if it doesn't do so voluntarily.

I can't think of one. And I haven't noticed you providing one, so far.

Your argument is beyond week.

Yes, but is it beyond year?

Isn't it time for you to leave the desk that you occupy at the pharmaceutical company you work for and head home?

And when will it be time for that John Hammer guy and his clients to disclose their corporate interests and profits?

Sadly, while I know that the people whom pharmaceutical companies pay to hang out on internet discussion boards asking questions they get no answers to surely make huge salaries, I'd probably have to take a big pay cut, myself, if I were to take the job.

Self-employed ... no supplemental health insurance ... gotta keep slaving away so I can afford to pay for my partner's insulin ... but wait! From what a quick google tells me, it looks like I already pay about 70% of somebody in the US pays.
http://www.chemeng.queensu.ca/courses/CHEE450/news/Improved%20insulin%20now%20available%20in%20Canada.htm

Lantus has meant a major boost to his blood-sugar control, said Mr. Bromley, who was paying $75 (U.S.) for a month's supply in Blaine, Wash. He bought it in Vancouver this week for about $70 Cdn.

Maybe that's because insulin was discovered in Canada by those Banting and Best guys (who, oddly enough, didn't work for a drug company) ... but I tend to suspect that it's because the GOVERNMENT REGULATES pharmaceutical sales.

But hark -- what could I save by buying him snake oil instead?

http://www.techmedica.com/diabeticine.html

Kia Vang of Minneapolis, MN was diagnosed over 4 years ago. Since then she’s developed other complications including high blood pressure and fatigue, plus the potent drugs she’s taking gives her nausea on most days. “The caring of Kia’s children is the most important thing in her life and it just killed her when she couldn’t do every thing she used to do” said Tony, her brother. “She seems to be always tired and irritable and controlling her condition seems to be a never ending job. It troubled me to think of her health a few years from now since I know her condition will not get better. That’s when I went to the internet to find out what can be done and discovered Diabeticine. Within two weeks, Kia’s doctor was amazed and reduced her medication. Five months later, she’s no longer taking any medication and her life is back on track. Thank you so much for giving my sister back.” -- Mr. Tony Vang - Minneapolis, MN

... The key to Diabeticine's™ effectiveness lies in its secret blend of botanical ingredients combined from over four years of laboratory trials and immuno-pharmacological research. Every ingredient plays its particular role and the botanical blend as a whole represents a powerful tool to normalize your blood sugar levels. ...

A secret blend of botanical ingredients! Why would we NOT want to trust his life to THAT, eh??

You can click on the "clinical study, in its entirety":

DIABETICINE™ (D-200) IN THE
TREATMENT OF DIABETES MELLITUS
Moses Adam, PhD.,
Sesha Weil, PhD.,
John E. Lottae, MD., Ph.D.,
Joseph Davidson, N.D.
Balaji Ramu, NMD., PhD.

ABSTRACT
Efficacy and safety of Diabeticine (D-200) was assessed in thirty NIDDM patients (15 freshly diagnosed diabetic patients and 15 diabetic patients already on a very high dose of OHA). Findings of the present study revealed a significant reduction in fasting and postprandial blood sugar levels as well as in glycosylated haemoglobin levels (p<0.1), in both the groups. However, no significant change was observed in plasma insulin and blood lipid levels after Diabeticine (D-200) treatment. Withdrawal of the drug was not required in any patient and no side-effects were observed. Diabeticine (D-200) did not effect hepatic, renal and haematological functions in any patient during or after months of treatment. All the patients reported a sense of well-being. Diabeticine (D-200) can be used alone or in combination with other OHA’s in the treatment of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus.

Lookie there -- the treatment of NON-INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES. And yet the website repeatedly promotes its product for the treatment of TYPE I DIABETES, which is BY DEFINITION insulin-dependent diabetes.

But oh look ... at $75 US for a month's supply, it costs more than double what we're paying for insulin ($140 Cdn for 3 months' supply at the corner pharmacy). And way, way, way more than we were paying for hypoglycemics when my partner was first thought not to be insulin-dependent -- i.e. to be an apparent candidate for this snake oil. Of course, we could always buy 10 months' worth for $375 US ... and still be paying more than for the insulin.

I wonder ... would they tell me what those secret botanical ingredients are if I asked nicely? (Maybe you could ask on my behalf; you seem to have a good track record, and I'm just so obviously a mole. Or a Martian. Whatever.)

How can big pharma possibly keep making money, when a simple google search for insulin prices turns this up at the very top of the sponsored links list??

[Sgent]

124. By that logic

We should stop regulating beef processing plants, "organic" growers, etc.

Without some sort of regulation, all supplaments (of which I take two) could be no more than corn starch. My MD or ND tells me to take Fish Oil for my heart, and I take corn starch.

At $15/for a small bottle of corn starch, they have made a LOT of money -- better than many/most generic drug makers.

The industry has ignored this problem for over a decade, even though it was obvious. Multiple solutions have been suggested, including such as as everything being USP certified, but no go. Now its come to bite them in the *ss.

I see nothing here that is so bad or evil or wrong. At least with medications we KNOW WHAT we are getting -- even if not the effects of the same. Multiple "Big Pharm" have had the factory's shut down for months or longer in the last 5 years -- costing them billions. The FDA has at least done a good job of me knowing that when my MD gives me a script for Lipitor for my heart, I will at least be taking Lipitor.

[BlackVelvet04]

107. It's enough

to turn a person into an anarchist. Good Lord, is there anything else they would like to control? If I take a vitamin, mineral or herb pill and it makes me feel better I don't particularly care if it is a placebo effect, rat shit, or whatever. I FEEL BETTER so I just don't give a damn why.

Anybody ever have nervous leg syndrome? The pharmaceutical companies now have some high price drugs for that "disorder" but I take a 100mg potassium pill and get rid of it in 30 minutes or less for days.

Anybody ever have psoriasis that can't get rid of? Try taking tumeric. My father suffered for years and spent thousands of dollars on expensive prescription creams. 3 months of taking tumeric and IT'S GONE.

Don't tell me how the government wants to watch out for my well being by "controlling" these substances - follow the money and you'll find the real motivation.

[marmadogg]

109. Right on!

Thank you.

[BlackVelvet04]

120. You're welcome.....

:-) I'm so damn sick and tired of government & corporations messing in my life. I'm a big girl and I don't really need them to tell me what to eat, smoke, drink, pop, watch on t.v., and ask the friggin' doctor!

Is anybody else just plain weary from all this shit?

[marmadogg]

123. I am beyond weary

Bigger federal government does not mean better.

Politicans as a whole are corrupt and are on the take with K street.

It did not use to be that way...

[anarchy1999]

110. Whoops, guess "ya'll" ain't been paying attention. It's a splippery slope

we are sliding down. It's called the "WHO", you know, the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Brought to you by, you guessed it:

BIG PHARMA!

Can't have those herbal remedies on the open market, don't you know?

Bad for BIZ!

[marmadogg]

114. You got it!

[HuckleB]

127. What does the WHO have to do with this EU decision?

:shrug:

[anarchy1999]

131. I'm sorry, I have not the time nor the inclination to do the research for

you. Google or maybe someone here can help you.

[HuckleB]

132. You made the claim.

If you can't back it up, your claim is worthless. Don't tell me to Google something you can't back up. That's just plain disingenuous.

[U4ikLefty]

153. No, you are to lazy to look things up

if you have any evidence to the contrary...please offer it up or you are "just plain disingenuous."

[HuckleB]

157. Baloney.

I'm tired of blanket claims made around here with nothing to back them up. And then I am supposed to spend hours trying to find something that actually backs them up, or finding something that shows they are baloney? Uh, no. If you make a claim, back it up. If you can't do that, then please refrain from spreading unwarranted rumors. It's as simple as that. Take responsibility for the information you spread. It's the least you can do.

I called a spade a spade on this. Acting like a school child and parroting me doesn't change the lack of evidence provided to support the claim.

[iverglas]

137. it's all part of that big conspiracy to enslave ...

Oh, you know how it goes.

But for some actual info:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np17/en/index.html
(media release)
That's what this whole brouhaha is apparently actually about.

Codex commission adopts more than 20 food standards

Sets new guidelines on vitamin supplements; creates antimicrobial resistance taskforce

12 JULY 2005 | ROME/GENEVA -- The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) adopted more than 20 new and amended food standards during its annual meeting, the food standards body announced today. Among the measures adopted were guidelines on vitamin and mineral food supplements and a code of practice to minimize and contain antimicrobial resistance.

Some 120 countries were represented at this year's Codex session, plus the European Community, a member organization. Codex is an international food standards-setting body established by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). It has 172 members, all of which are members of FAO or WHO or both.

Vitamin and mineral food supplements guidelines

The CAC adopted global guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements as one of its first decisions. The guidelines recommend labeling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements, assisting countries to increase consumer information, which will help consumers use them in a safe and effective way.

According to WHO, the guidelines ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals.

The guidelines say that people should be encouraged to select a balanced diet to get the sufficient amount of vitamins and minerals. Only in cases where food does not provide sufficient vitamins and minerals should supplements be used.

Antimicrobial resistance task force

Codex tentatively agreed to a task force addressing antimicrobial resistance. A formal decision is set for next year. WHO, FAO and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) have developed guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials in treatment of human illnesses and animal production, which the task force will carry forward to ensure food safety.

Antimicrobial resistance had been debated for several years and agreement has been difficult because it involves collaboration from different sectors: animal health and production, human health and drug manufacturing. The new task force will bring all these sectors together and develop a holistic approach to this growing problem.

Resistance to antimicrobial drugs, such as antibiotics, is an emerging public heath problem caused by a number of factors, including the inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans; antibiotic treatment of illnesses in animals used for human consumption and, in some cases, to promote faster growth. The use of antimicrobials as pesticides is also a factor in antimicrobial resistance.

Resistant microorganisms developed in animals used for human consumption may be transmitted to humans mainly by contaminated food. For example, resistant strains of salmonella and other food-borne microorganisms are now frequently encountered, limiting the effective treatment of human infections, which in some cases can result in death.

In other decisions, the CAC decided to split the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants into separate committees beginning in 2007, in order to deal more effectively with each issue.

No standard planned on Parmesan cheese

On the issue of intellectual property concerns regarding the labelling and composition of Parmesan cheese, no consensus was reached and the CAC put the issue on hold allowing interested countries to continue consultations among themselves to seek a resolution of the issue. However, no date was set for the Commission to revisit this matter.

Dr Stuart Slorach, the out-going CAC Chairman, said: "This has been an extremely productive session. Even though only one year has passed since the last CAC meeting, we adopted over 20 standards which, when used appropriately, will better protect consumer health and improve their confidence in the products they consume . Moreover, we took important steps this week to involve partner organizations in the setting of these standards and to make the structure of Codex more efficient."

Elections at the 28th session of Codex resulted in the first ever CAC Chairman from an African country. Dr Claude Mosha of Tanzania was elected to the post for a term of one year and is eligible to stand for a second one-year term.

The CAC meeting ran from 4 July through 9 July

http://www.who.int/about/en/

About WHO

WHO's goal is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health

The World Health Organization is the United Nations specialized agency for health. It was established on 7 April 1948. WHO's objective, as set out in its Constitution, is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

WHO is governed by 192 Member States through the World Health Assembly. The Health Assembly is composed of representatives from WHO's Member States. The main tasks of the World Health Assembly are to approve the WHO programme and the budget for the following biennium and to decide major policy questions.

http://www.who.int/countries/en/
Stooges for big pharma, every one of them. Just like moi.

[HuckleB]

144. Oh, yeah, big, bad, scary Codex.

;)

I forgot that the WHO threaten Mutally Assurred Destruction upon the EU if they didn't begin regulating supplements.

[iverglas]

135. and there we go ...

It's called the "WHO", you know, the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. Brought to you by, you guessed it: BIG PHARMA!


Yup, it's that big world government, trying to enslave the patriotic and freedom-loving yanks once again.

http://www.who.int/topics/en/

Pregnancy, prenatal care, primary health care (just taking three of the long list alphabetically) ... all just opportunities for big pharma to make profits, and world government to enslave USAmericans ...

Lots of money to be made by big pharma from fighting female genital mutilation (also on that list of topics).

Filiariasis? Wazzat?? Not something a USAmerican needs to worry about, I'm sure. Schistosomiasis, Helminthiasis? Nah. Onchocerciasis? Nobody going blind in the US from that.

Human rights and health?
http://www.who.int/topics/human_rights/en/
Gender and reproductive rights?
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/gender/index.html

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

Who needs the WHO, when ya've got George W. Bush on the case?

Damn. Life is really so simple, when you don't think about it.

[anarchy1999]

136. Thank you. Peace out. S.

n/t
:Kick: and :hugs:

[iverglas]

138. uh ... you're welcome, I'm sure

Methinks you might have missed the tone of some of what I said, though.

It was, um, sarcastic.

[anarchy1999]

139. Yes, I know, sarcasm. Loved it, absolutely!

Good job.

[arikara]

149. Dig deeper...

<snip>Or the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Run by the United Nations. Codex is empowered to set standards of operation for the health industry. Strangely, 90% of representation is from multinational pharmaceutical corporations but the supplement industry and the general public are barred from attending.

Codex is working to control such things as the sale of dietary supplements for preventative or therapeutic reasons and the potency of natural remedies. It also seeks to convert definitions of many supplements to drugs and to make its rules binding on every UN member nation.

In Germany and Norway, where the Codex proposals are already enshrined in law, even Vitamin C (above 200 mg) is illegal, except by prescription and then only from the pharmaceutical company that supplies the medical system. But first you need to have convinced your doctor that you need it.

<snip>

http://www.biomedicalabs.com/media_room_conventional_medicine_far_riskier_than_supplements.htm

There is a lot of information out there regarding the ties to big pharma. However, I'm too tired to do it now and I don't think you care anyhow.

But I say again... feel free to use whatever you want and allow the rest of us the same right.

[iverglas]

154. and next time I want information from a profit-making corp

with a vested interest in the issue under discussion, I'll let you know.

http://www.biomedicalabs.com/our_company.htm

The company Biomedica Labs - manufacturers of food-based non-drug biostructural medicine.

Good grief. Even if that made a stitch of sense, it wouldn't make them worth listening to.

Biomedica Laboratories Inc. (provincially incorporated in 2001) is a privately owned functional food company located in the peaceful Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada. Biomedica Laboratories Inc. is a sister company of The Nutraceutical Medicine Company Inc. (federally incorporated in 1999).

Biomedica Labs researches, develops and manufactures functional foods. Our innovative products are designed to enrich people’s lives and to help them live longer, healthier, and more productively.

Baffle 'em with gab, eh?

Cripes, if I'd cited a pharmaceutical company site to make a point (which I'm really not likely to do, you see), I'm pretty sure I'd have been facing yet another false allegation that I was in the paid service of big pharma:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1620976&mesg_id=1622452

Would what's sauce for the goose (that I'm not even) be good enough for your gander?

But I say again... feel free to use whatever you want and allow the rest of us the same right.

And I'll say again ... feel free to move somewhere where loonytarianism is actually the public ethos if that's the way you like things ... or, like, vote Reform or something ... assuming you're old enough.

But btw, what the hell was this supposed to mean?

Codex is empowered to set standards of operation for the health industry. Strangely, 90% of representation is from multinational pharmaceutical corporations but the supplement industry and the general public are barred from attending.

Have you considered investigating such things yourself?

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/members_area.jsp?lang=EN

Here's Canada's rep:

Mr. Ron B. Burke, Director, Bureau of Food Regulatory, International and Interagency Affairs, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada

Did the govt of Canada become a multinational pharmaceutical corporation when my back was turned? How 'bout the US?

U.S. Codex Office, Room 4861 South Building, Food Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture

Germany, maybe?

Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft

I actually keep a German dictionary within reach for things I'm too rusty at; that one's "federal department of consumer protection, nutrition and agriculture".

I don't claim to be any expert on the inner workings of the Codex Alimentarius Commission ... but I sure won't be getting my instruction from the folks at Biomedica Labs.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

168. Was somebody being mean?

Naughty. Naughty.

[Bo]

115. More evil from Corporations .....thank you

when will we rise up and say enough is enough

[marmadogg]

117. This thread is finally headed in the only right direction

Gotta drive home now...

[anarchy1999]

125. Are you really ready yet?

it is called www.reclaimdemocracy.org

They will teach you everything you need to know. Peace, S.

[loftycity]

148. Big Pharma wants to rein in the Supplements

Big breakthroughs on natural substances is driving this. Big Pharma has been using synthetic copies of natural herbs and they don't want to spend the money on R&D. It is easier and cheaper to takeover an existing established proven to work industry.
It's the bottomline...money and control of their industry.
Believe this...Codex is not doing this for the protection of the people.
No one was allowed into the Codex meeting in Italy at the beginning of July who was not Big Pharma or Politically connected.
Are voices were not represented...zilch
Guggul (Lipitor), Foxglove (Digitalis) Melatoin and tons of other natural drugs are already being used in Big P. Now Big P, gets to eliminate competition and promote what they want. They now control our choices and make a ton of money.
..it is always about money and control.
Plus if this country cannnot test a cow for MC diease for public consumption. Do you think they care about your supplements?

[WinkyDink]

150. Exactly

It's always about $$$, no more, no less.

Health, schmealth. They don't care when people suffer from deleterious side effects or even death from expensive drugs.

[loftycity]

152. Sometimes I think it is one huge US Gulag

And we don't even know it. American citizens have nothing to compare their live's with.
That's true everywhere, pretty much.
Someday, I hope we the people get to tell our story. And not be confined to the everyday belief system of what we were told years ago must be true. We have to break out of the corporate chains and not believe everything we are told.
Hey, we are doing it right here.
Welcome to DU WinkyDink...it's a great place.
lofty

[HuckleB]

156. As opposed to, in this case, an EU Gulag?

:shrug:

[HuckleB]

158. A little clarification regarding the actual effect of this regulation.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1527367,00.html

"New EU regulations restricting the sale of vitamin and mineral pills will come into force next month following a ruling from the European court of justice yesterday.

However, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said it knew of no supplements that would actually be banned under the EU directive. After a fierce campaign against the regulations in the UK, a derogation will allow most supplement manufacturers to continue to sell their products until the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has checked whether any of them are unsafe, a process that could take up to 2009.

...

The FSA said it had received dossiers on just over 500 ingredients by yesterday's deadline. Well known supplements on the list include selenium-enriched yeast, tin, manganese, boron and vitamin K2. "The great majority of food supplements people take will continue to be freely available," an FSA spokesman said.

...

[Chicago Democrat]

161. I buy drugs I need from England, I sure hope they are not

affected. They don't sell it here and noone knows about it. Paracetam is the one I use, its nootropic.

[iverglas]

164. paracetamol is acetaminophen

Nothing magic there. (I can't figure out a difference between "paracetam" and "paracetamol", but there might be one I'm not seeing.)

That makes it a drug, and subject to the product safety standards that apply to drugs.

http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/pharmwebpic.html

You're apparently just buying Tylenol by another name. Generic acetaminophen bought locally would surely have to be cheaper than importing paracetamol from the UK.

Now ... you may be getting paracetamol with codeine, which may be available in the UK (or on the internet) without prescription.
http://codeine-30mg-paracetamol-500-mg.medicationhelp.net/
It isn't in the US, but acetaminophen or ASA with codeine is for sale over the counter in Canada, for example.

That makes it a heavier duty drug. Still a drug, and not one of those food-based non-drug biostructural medicines, so at no risk of being "banned" by the folks working for big pharma, y'see.

Anyhow, thanks for giving me the chance to figure this out. I've always wondered what those folks on Coronation Street were swallowing when they went for the paracetamol. ;)

[Chicago Democrat]

169. Piracetam is a Nootropic (smart drug) not a pain killer

I get it here.. Sorry about the confusion. its a hard one to spell.

http://www.antiaging-systems.com/

best company in the world for drugs that are not generally distributed here. There on the Channel Islands which makes it less hassle for some reason.


Here's the poop on Piracetam


Piracetam Tablets
(Nootropil)
60 x 800mg tablets Item Code: 0205
Piracetam - brand name Nootropil is made by UCB and is the worlds best selling so-called smart drug. It helps with learning and appears to be a substance capable of extending the intellectual functions of man, even individuals already gifted with high intelligence and good memory.

http://www.antiaging-systems.com/iasstore/acatalog/piracetam.html

Piracetam

The world's best selling smart-drug, available in 800mg tablets and liquid, and used in the fight against age-related memory decline. Clinically proven to be safer than salt, Piracetam is one of the least toxic of any pharmaceutical agent yet developed. You can purchase piracetam by clicking here.

[youspeakmylanguage]

165. Laughable hypocrisy...

Some of the posts on this thread are absolutely laughable and hypocritical.

Apparently consumers should be protected by the government from fraud and unsafe products except for the "natural supplement" industry, which should be allowed to put any anything they want under any label they want on store shelves just because they're, well, natural, man! And because big pharmaceutical companies LIE! And because, well, because they're NATURAL, MAN!

...Did we mention big pharmaceutical companies lie?

Any industry that provides medicinal products should be regulated. Period.