Archive for Dietary Supplements – Page 11
| One, Two Punch: Codex Attacks Nutrition; Countering the Vax Threat |
|
Keep Health Freedom Free! Donate: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189 |
|
To unsubscribe from this Health Freedom Action Alert, click here and enter your email address. To manage your subscription preferences, click here. |
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
The Voice of Global Health Freedom™
Memorandum
From: Ralph Fucetola JD
Natural Solutions Trustee
Our intrepid Health Freedom trustees, Dr Rima E. Laibow MD and Maj Gen Bert Stubblebine (US Army ret) traveled from the Foundation eco demonstration project at the Valley of the Moon in Panama to Dussledorf Germany for a Codex Alimentarius meeting, the Committee on Nutrients and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. Dr Laibow just skyped me some information about the events at the meeting that we wanted to share with you all.
Updated Links to Dr Laibows four video reports:
Dr. Laibow: Codex and the Theatre of the Absurd: Report No. 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P30Itrfhn8o
Dr. Laibow in Dusseldorf Video Report No. 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqVJI08qL6g
Dr. Laibow in Dusseldorf Video Report No. 2:
http://blip.tv/file/2796528
Dr. Laibow in Dusseldorf Video Report No. 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54v1bjJoUQ
Here are her notes, as I received them:
11/04/09
Examples of insane “Nutrient Reference Values” (read: nutrient upper limit) recommendations for Codex:
Vit C – 45 mg (you need 60 to ward-off scurvy!)
Calcium – 1 gr (women need 1.2 gr to prevent osteoporosis)
… but lots of toxic fluoride permitted…
Malaysia does not want to develop Nutritional Reference Levels for Non Communicable Diseases since they want to work on Vitamins and Minerals as mandated by Codex.
One NGO asked why nutrients should not be considered below 36 months including fetal impact of nutrition. Committee Chairman GK’s response was fascinating, including slip of tongue substituting “contraception” for “conception”:
GK: the fetal programming begins at the moment of [sic] contraception but it would be inappropriate if we go for anything before 36 months since this is where the child starts to e t what the parent eats so we will not consider that.
————
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/143712/barbara_ehrenreich%3A_why_your_children_may_not_get_a_swine_flu_shot_before_they_need_it/
Pretty astonishing!
————
Back to Codex: in the process of setting UPPER LIMITS for intake of nutrients that are implicated in Diet-Related Non Communicable Diseases the expert consultations and data of WO/FAO are to be given primacy despite the facts that:
1. Upper limits through Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for nutrients which are necessary for health like Vitamin A are set so low that they are meaningless in health terms (as we said when we were vigorously opposing the passage of the Vitamin and Mineral Guildelines way back in 2005)
2. Upper limits for NRVs for nutrients which are supposedly dangerous and should be eliminated (like Na, which people seem to be in agreement needs to be limited) make no sense wahtsoever as a publiv heath measure since, despite popular belief, there are wide variations in the need for sodium while some types of saturated fats, such as medium chain triglycerides and CLA, are urgently important in health.
Important update: the planned finishing off of Codex is clearly not going ahead as planned: they are making plans for things to happen in 2013, 2015, etc… we will have time for Push Back! We can stop this if we all work together.
Although CCFL requires CCNSFDU to come up with the NRVs on sodium and Saturated Fat, there is a lot of disagreement here about doing that. US supports inclusion of sat-fat and Na, in a proposed new work document US gives first priority to nutrients referred by CCFL so including them would be appropriate and US supports it. US supports everything… since US, behind the scenes, pre-arranges everything!
International Council for Beverage makers supports the US but wants sodium, not salt, to be included. The Bigs bickering!
Only voice against this is Malaysia and some NGOs
IDF supports Maylasia in its notation that individual sat fats have different activities
Argentina supports Chile.
IFT: the effects of individual sat fats are very different so it is important to not put all sat fats together. Chile put sat fats and trans fats in the same boat and it is important to not lump them together
US proposed an electronic working group for NRVs for NDCs but at a physical working group prior to next meeting we could work on NRVs for vitamins and minerals since they are still in square brackets [which is how Codex draft documents show items for which there is no consensus]
Electronic working group – what languages? English only?
MD: E Working group in English and Spanish
Ralph, this is very helpful. Natural Solutions will be able to submit proposals for safe upper limits that will allow people to choose high-potency nutrition. We’ll do that with the science backing the benefits. We have an opportunity to practice Push Back! It will be a big project and we’ll need help from our Mouse Warriors, but the eWorking Group gives us an opportunity to be heard on behalf of Natural Solutions!
More later…
 |
|
News, alerts, and Other Relevant Health Freedom information |
|
INDEX |
Natural Solutions Foundation
2009 Legislative Educational Agenda
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
Index:
1. Food Freedom
2. Self-Shielding
3. Legislative Education
Three Weeks to Save Health Freedom:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=3209
Three Health Store / community Leaflets for Three Weeks to Save Health Freedom
As Mark Twain is alleged to have opined, “No Man’s Life Liberty or Property is Safe…While the Legislature is in Session” – and certainly no person’s health freedom and food freedom are safe either. Well, Congress is not in session at the moment, and we have about three weeks to educate our representatives while they are home. And as you may have noticed in the media, they are hearing “it” from their constituents!
Please attend any “town hall meetings” held by your representatives. Let them know that your personal health freedom is as important an issue the “health care” debate, which is really mostly about who will pay for conventional medical treatment, and how will it be rationed. To the contrary, we’re concerned about Natural Solutions, so we need to concentrate on protecting people from toxic drugs (including vaccines) and from toxic foods as well. Our agenda is not the same as the agenda being portrayed on the mass media. The 3 Leaflets have bullet point information for you to use in educating your representatives about our Health Freedom Agenda.
Thus the focus of our Three Weeks Campaign needs to be educating decision makers, but also educating the concerned public — people who “get it.” We understand that Health Freedom is Our First Freedom. Therefore, we invite you to help us, by printing the three Health Food Store Leaflets attached to this blog entry and posting them at your local health food store, food co-op or similar commercial or public venue and posting them. Please print and copy as many as you can. Please re-post them on the Internet. We need to make these posters GO VIRAL!
More about the Three Weeks Campaign: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?p=3209
Please use the links below to support each of the three themes of the campaign.
Those themes are:
1. Stop the Fake (sic) “Food Safety” Bill in the US Senate!
One Page Leaflet Link: http://www.lifespirit.org/FoodSafetyBills-leafletFINAL.pdf
Action Item: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714
2. Support Self-Shielding in the Event of an Actual Pandemic
Two Page Leaflet Link: http://www.lifespirit.org/Self-Shielding-Leafletfinal.pdf
One Page Leaflet Link: http://www.lifespirit.org/StayHomeStayAlive-bulletptfinal.pdf
Action Item: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275
3. Support the Natural Solutions 2009 Legislative Educational Agenda;
Support Dr. Ron Paul’s Health Freedom Proposals
One Page Leaflet Link: http://www.lifespirit.org/2009-Legislative-Agenda-final.pdf
Action Item: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732
—————————-
And don’t forget our new Food Freedom eJournal –
www.FoodFreedomeJournal.org
As always, it is your generous, repeated donations that makes all this effort possible. Please help us again to protect your Health, your Food and your Freedom.
Donations: http://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=189
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
The Voice of Health Freedom
Dr. Ron Paul Introduces Health Freedom Bills!
You can support these bills here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732
As of September 1, 2009 over 91,000 emails sent to Congress!
——————–
August 1, 2009 Announcement
Dr. Ron Paul, health freedom’s friend in Congress, introduced two important bills yesterday that, if passed, would rein in the excessive interference in advanced health products by the FDA and FTC.
Here is the Life Extension Foundation’s description of the bills:
HR 3395: The Health Freedom Act. This bill removes FDA’s power of prior restraint over all nutrient-disease relationship claims. Under the bill, the FDA may not prohibit any statement concerning a nutrient affecting a disease (including treatment effects) from being made in the market and may only act against a statement once made if it possesses clear and convincing evidence that the statement is false. Presently the FDA blocks an enormous quantity of truthful information concerning the effects of nutrients and foods on disease from reaching consumers. That barrier is removed by the Health Freedom Act, but the Act preserves the power of the government to prosecute those who communicate falsehood. The essential purpose of the First Amendment is to disarm the federal government of the power to impose a prior restraint on speech. The FDA has imposed a prior restraint for decades to the health detriment of the public. Passage of the Health Freedom Act will restore constitutional governance by reasserting the supremacy of the First Amendment over the Food and Drug Administration.
HR 3394: The Health Information Protection Act. This bill prevents the Federal Trade Commission from taking action against any advertiser that communicates a health benefit for a product unless the FTC first establishes based on clear and convincing evidence that the statement made is false and that its communication causes harm to the public. Presently, the FTC reverses the Fifth Amendment burden of proof on the government when it charges advertisers with deceptive advertising and then demands that they prove their speech true based on contemporaneously held documentation or be deemed to have advertised deceptively. The Fifth Amendment requires that FTC bear the burden of proving advertising deceptive. It may not constitutionally shift the burden to the advertiser to prove its statements not deceptive. The First Amendment requires that FTC not act against speech unless the speech is probably false. It may not constitutionally accuse a party of false advertising yet lack proof that the advertising is false and condemn advertising based on an absence of documentation concerning the truth of the statement rather than the presence of evidence establishing the falsity of the statement.
These bills go to the heart of the issue of valid health claims for nutrient products: how do companies substantiate the claims they are making. Essentially the bills apply Constitutional principles to the making of claims, which are a type of speech, and are therefore protected from excessive bureaurcratic burden.
In this context it is useful to see what then Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the Supreme Court majority in the leading health claim free speech case, Thompson v. Western States Medical Center – 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 – 535 U.S. 357 –
“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last – not first – resort.”
“We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.”
“Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring each …to be labeled with a warning that the [product] had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown.”
The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionally permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction) is a Two Prong Test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If “no” to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is “substantial”, (2) the regulation must “directly advance” the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be “more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest” (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).
Dr. Paul’ s bills make it clear that the government has the burden of proof if it seeks to restrict what marketers say about their health related products. In this way, his bills preserve the Constitutional protections for Commercial Speech.
You can support these bills here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732