Christine, Thanks for posting this "rebuttal"--it's full of fascinating
stuff that I would LOVE to see talked about! I'm putting up just a
little excerpt to see if others can add to what they've said:
___
excerpts from
http://www.nocodexgenocide.com/page/page/3312735.htm
CONTROLLED OPPOSITION GROUPS
"Citizens for Health" and "Natural Solutions Foundation" are controlled
opposition groups on the Codex issue. We believe the true purpose of
these groups is to assist the pharma dominated vitamin trade
associations by recommending grass roots actions which appear plausible
on the surface to the poorly informed, but which upon close inspection
fail to hold up to careful scrutiny.
and otherwise) is only a small part of what's threatened. Later they
make the point that FDA is not the only (or possibly even the main)
front on which the battle needs to be fought, but I'm not sure it's as
counterproductive as he is claiming...?
*everything* that has to do with health, except (so far) for "energy"
methods that do not use any machines or "products"; and presumably
those people are still forbidden to make any claims about being able to
"diagnose or treat disease". They are claiming oversight over drugs,
foods, cosmetics, herbs, vitamins, other supplements, homeopathic
remedies (specifically mentioned), and any machines purporting to
diagnose or treat disease. One section notes that if someone sells
e.g. vegetable juice for "health maintenance", that's okay so long as
they've followed the appropriate laws for foods being sold; but if they
sell it as part of a disease management regimen, then it will be
evaluated as a "drug". Which I guess goes along the lines of echinacea
currently being prescription-only in... what country was it? They did
not address the matter of "advice"... Can I still advise a client to
do a juice fast to help their whatever, so long as I don't sell them
the juice? It's the same "grey area" that non-licensed homeopaths in
the US are living in at present; workable for now, but not very secure.
--------
We believe these groups are attempting to intentionally divert grass
roots attention from the strategy of IAHF and allied organizations. In
a nutshell, their mission is to:
A) Con people into believing that we can change Codex AT Codex (despite
the fact that we have zero political influence over the unelected
bureaucrats from the FDA and its international equivalents that serve
as delegates at these highly rigged meetings.) and
Scarbrough"--why? What is his connection with the FDA... But it seems
like a very good question, just how much influence public opinion
*does* have in what venues, esp. in this reign of Mr. "Even if no one
but my wife and my dog agrees with me, we are not leaving Ir**. "
(apologies if that's a slightly inaccurate quote.) But we *have*
staved off numerous supplement-regulation bills and whatnot thus far...
-----------
[...]
C) Con people into believing that they're "fighting back" by signing a
petition to US Codex Manager Ed Scarbrough (an unelected bureaucrat at
the USDA who has never attempted to rein in FDA officials who've served
as US Delegates at CODEX (even when their actions have gone directly
against US law.)
Even when Scarbrough and the US Codex Delegates have obviously IGNORED
this petition at recent Codex meetings, Citizens for Health and the
Natural Solutions Foundation would still have us believe that signing
it and sending it in to Scarbrough are a viable means of "fighting
back."
D) Con people into believing that there is "no connection" between
sovereignty destroying trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and
Codex in an obvious effort to keep people from exercising the political
leverage that we DO have with CONGRESS (but which we DON'T have with
unelected Codex bureaucrats from the world's FDA's.) Citizens for
Health and now also the "Natural Solutions Foundation" have a long
history of doing spin against true grass roots anti Codex campaigns.
why aren't we getting similar petitions from his group? I would LOVE
to be signing anti-CAFTA petitions, but I am not seeing any!!!
Actually I would love to see a real *educational* offering about the
issues of these "free trade agreements"--it's obviously something that
could do good things *and* bad things, depending on how it's handled
and who's handling it, but this isn't looking good.
[...]
Article 3 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.”
The WTO has adopted the Codex Guidelines as their worldwide standards.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps ... _e.htmThis can evolve
to ever-increasing entanglements due to legal and economic pressure.
The U.S. government may or many not wish to harmonize, but it can now
be FORCED to. This contradicts the Natural Solutions Foundation,
Citizens for Health, the FDA, USTR and all of the Pharma Dominated
Vitamin Trade Associations]
to products for international trade; what about for products that will
not be exported--apparently, tho, it's intended to apply to *all*
supplements (and etc.), not just intended for export.
most interesting so far, so if you've read this far, read a little bit
farther!
______________
Question # 2: Is a nation permitted by international and other law to
adopt laws regulating dietary supplements, including vitamin and
mineral supplements, such as the Model International Dietary Supplement
Act based on the Natural Solutions Foundation endorsed Guidelines for
the Use of Food Supplement Trade in the Effort to End World Hunger and
Promote the WHO/FAO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Exercise and
Health?
Answer #2: Yes.
**** [ IAHF Note: Additional misleading information which presumes that
their “Answer #1 is accurate. As we’ve seen above, it is not. Here is
additional evidence: At
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscodex.htmlFDA
says "WTO and its dispute settlement panels do not have the power to
change US law. If a WTO decision in response to a dispute settlement
panel is averse to the US, only Congress and the Administration can
decide whether to implement the panel recommendation, and if so, how to
implement it."
(*** Okay, here's the part I'm especially intrigued by:***) This is
only technically true. The reality is that the WTO has ruled against
the USA in 42 out of 48 cases, including EVERY case impacting our
environmental and public health laws (Testimony of Lori Wallach, JD,
Director of the Global Trade Watch division of Public Citizen before
the House Ways & Means Committee May 17,05
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Wallac ... 7.2005.pdf
The US so far has complied in EVERY CASE including tax law.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst012102.htm
anything at all about. Does anyone know what the 48 cases under
dispute were about?
____________
Recently a WTO tribunal outlawed Utah's ban on gambling,
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/releas ... 166opening the door to
millions of dollars in penalties against all states with anti gambling
restrictions.
over "the right to make lifestyle choices." Now where might that be
leading us...
_________________
Given that as of April 3, 2006 the US has not met the WTO's deadline
for compliance in this matter, the US is now subject to trade
sanctions:
http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=1346
Our undeniable reality is in 42 out of 48 cases the WTO has ruled
against the USA in dispute panels, (including EVERY case involving
environmental or public health laws).
laws, not tighter--anyone know? Would that be what's behind GW's
current disembowling of US environmental law, or is it just that "great
minds think alike"?

________________
Given the total non transparency of these panels and the fact that they
don't follow US rules of evidence, given that the WTO has never given a
private citizen standing to appear before a Dispute panel to provide
testimony, given that the WTO has even made unfair, unethical rulings
against STATE laws, on what BELIEVABLE, FACTUAL BASIS do the Natural
Solutions Foundation & Citizens for Health continue to maintain that a
nation adopting the "International Dietary Supplement Act" model
legislation would be exempt from the imposition of WTO trade sanctions?
laws is only useful if we assume that those US laws will have primacy;
and that protecting the primacy of those laws would be at least equally
urgent. So again--what *should* we be doing, and why aren't we hearing
about it???
Shannon