Heads Up...supplements under attack!

[VALEWIS]

Just in from Anthony Colpo's nesletter:

SUPPLEMENT ACCESS UNDER FIRE: LIFE UNDER CODEX

Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may
end in June
of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and
controlled by the
World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization
(WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the supplement
standards for all
countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will over
ride U.S. laws.

The U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO
Treaty was signed. Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions.
CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other
supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized Step 8
(the final stage) to begin implementation in June, 2005.

The CODE includes:

(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.

(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a "drug"
requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over
5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned, terminating
health stores as we now know them.

(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.

(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX
testing and approval.

CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc
tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient
immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now
allowed by prescription only). They are now "drugs". Vitamin C above
200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg over-the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine, lysine,
carnitine, etc. = essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids
(omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential supplements such as DMEA,
DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed.

The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a few
people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily
scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all
supplements under restriction and prescription. But over 4 million
Americans told Congress and the President to protect their freedom of
choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which
does so. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World Trade
Organization.

Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug
corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by
sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. What can
be done at this late hour?

(1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at
http://www.codexinfo.org
http://www.iahf.com
www.alliance-natural-health.org .

(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX
restrictions with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.

(3) Support H. R.1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the U.S.
Constitution over CODEX, etc.

(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and Representatives
(They got us into this!) ASAP.

(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their
members to inform the government.

(6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural
Health (see web site above). It has succeeded in challenging the CODEX
directives in World Court later this month or next. They need help
financially, having carried the fight effectively for everyone. CODEX
and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the same
way they do prescription drugs.

A study of the latter by three medical scientists was reported in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998, Vol. 279,
No. 15, p. 1200 "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR's) was
found to be extremely high." Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was
found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients
per year (290 per day) die from ADR's and 2,200,000 need more
hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs, properly
administered by competent professionals in hospitals--none were
considered malpractice!

This is the number four cause of death in the U.S. When combined,
these account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent
to a 9-11 attack every ten days. There are very few fatalities from
supplements or the news would be on every front page. There is no need
for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is
substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why
doesn't the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous
pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major
airline crash per day?

Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.
1145 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225
www.pulseplus~earthlink.net

---

[Duparc]

Ah, yes! Codex Alimentarious reminds us of modern history and while we might, indeed, have won the battles of WW2 we failed miserably in winning the war against fascism.

The German pharmaceutical companies have the monopoly in the world drug trade. In 1933 the cartel of German pharmaceutical companies were behind Hitler becoming Chancellor and were actively involved in the extermination camps. The Nuremberg Trials, at the conclusion to WW2 hostilities banned the cartel (or attempted to do so) and sentenced the strategic-level managers to short-terms of imprisonment (although, typically, for political reasons not all guilty were imprisoned).

The association of German pharmaceutical companies still operates today although not under the guise of the cartel. The association was subsequently behind Helmut Kholl becoming Chancellor and when last heard of he was an active member of Codex Alimentarious! Undoubtedly there will be many others in the pay of those companies engaged in decision making or in an advisory capacity to Codex, but, regretfully, a knowledge of modern history is not a prerequisite of membership.

It doesn't take a leap-of-imagination to recognise the ulterior motives. The only investigative journalist of whom I am aware, who is ahead of the field in those political manoeuvres is the Australian, John Pilger. Read his book, 'The New Rulers of The World' to gain a basic understanding of global corruption and why there is so much strife in today's world.

Take action to gain the cooperation of those representing you to oppose the coming moves; it is not too late. Another alternative will be to obtain medical prescriptions as often as possible to buy vitamins, although not actually buying them, in view of their escalating cost. This will put additional pressure on MD/GPs most of whom have no more knowledge about vitamins than the average member of the public. It never ceases to amaze me how complacent and acquiescent we are to government decisions that adversely affect us. Clearly, fascism still lives!

[JHTuresson]

Well,

a simple solution could also be to eat healthy food and thus not ever have the need for any "supplements", with or without prescription.

[Duparc]

Of course, Turesson, you're right, just in the same manner that socialist Germany acquiesced to allow fascism to rule, but, you may not remember that!

Keep trying.

[JHTuresson]

Guilt by association. Hitler had brown pants, shame on you all that wear brown pants..

I will stay as far away from supplements as I have done until now and let you take care of the politics.

[Harpoo]

Why not a happy medium? Why so extreme?

[LOOPS]

yes, well, that's all very well eating healthy food but some of us rely on supplements for mental survival. I have a mild form of bipolar and rely on high dose fish oil for my mental wellbeing. If I don't have my fish oil, I go into crazy land and will eventually end up going back on meds.

So this law will be a total disaster for people like me. So much for finally finding a more natural solution. And no, eating more fish is not going to do the job - I would need to eat about 5lbs of salmon a day to get the dose I need of EPA.

I guess that's the whole point right? Take away the supps and a lot of people will be forced to take meds. It's disgusting.

Loops

[Kristine]

It's not just an issue of meeting the requirements for essential nutrients. Supplements serve a far greater purpose than that. My boyfriend has the flu and I don't want it, so I'm taking echinaceae. I don't like eating a lot of fish and flax seed, so I take an omega-3 supplement. I'm taking vitamin D because it's too cold and dark in winter for me to produce much on my own. And I'm in good health - I'm sure there are a lot of people with diagnosed conditions who prefer to treat those conditions with supplements rather than expensive drugs. That should be their (our) choice.

I'm going to have to read more on those websites... surely they can't have that degree of restriction to grown adults in free societies.

[Zuleikaa]

I do believe the entire point of this bill is to force people to buy more expensive drugs. I would be kind of naive not to when the bill, and the bill's language was proposed by drug makers and not supported, in fact, opposed by many in the medical establishment.

I believe in supplements. I feel that many people don't need them until their mid to late twenties. But I have seen too many cases of supplements preventing, alleviating, curing, and treating conditions that have boggled the minds of doctors and/or been resistant to treatment by drugs or the drugs treating the condition having serious side effects.

I believe an even more subtle and insidious intent of this bill is to ruin the reputation of supplements. Many supplements, in order to be effective, need to be taken in therapeutic/high doses and in conjunction with their coactive partners. Well if you dilute the strength of the mg/IU dose that contained in/sold in a single pill, people would need to take 10 to 20 times the number of pills to get the dose that they used to be able to get in one or 2. I take 20+ pills a day now and many people have expressed awe at my ability to do so. I can't fathom the notion of having to take 200 to get the same effect, though if forced to, I hope I will. How much more daunting to others to even give supplements a try.

Too, the per pill cost will go up. It's estimated price will increase 3+. I'm generous in suggesting a supplement for a specific condition and giving a one or two week supply to someone so they can try it out and see if it works for them. I wouldn't be able to do that when this bill passes, nor would a lot of people be willing to purchase a supplement to try if the costs were multiples of what they are now.

Finally, as I've said, supplements need to be taken with their coactive partners; they are synergistic. A supplement taken alone, i.e. vitamin E, will just sit in your system and not do anything. Or conversely, it might do damage to your system, i.e. vitamin D taken without calcium. So people would need to purchase at set of supplements at a time; now we're talking prohibitive expense.

I see conspiracy in everything having to do with power and money. I see conspiracy in the medical "studies" showing that specific supplements do not have a positive effect or are unhealthy. The study showing vitamin E was not effective and that doses over 400 IU were dangerous was a travesty of bad science. As all doctors and nutrient scientist and even many lay people know, vitamin E is useless alone (you didn't need a study for that!!). Vitamin E is a synergistic supplement and only "works" in the presence of other antioxidents. And there are many studies proving that!!

[Ginga]

LIFE UNDER CODEX

Excerpted from a Feb 2005 Vitality Magazine article

by Helke Ferrie


If the following were a horror movie, we could all sit back with our popcorn
and enjoy it. Unfortunately, this is not fiction, and if we don't do
something about it, this nightmare will soon become waking reality in the
USA and Canada.

In the mid-1990's my mother, then in her 80's, had a stroke. She lived in
Germany. When she left hospital, I was ready with a nutritional plan that
included high-dose vitamins: C, E, and B-complex, especially inositol, as
well as Co-enzyme Q 10. I went to the pharmacy, whose owner was a family
friend for some 25 years, and handed him my list.

The pharmacist handed me a small packet with a price sticker of DM 200 (then
about $200) containing vitamin E capsules manufactured by one of Germany's
largest pharmaceutical companies. The source was synthetic, not the "mixed"
version from living plant sources I wanted which contains the whole E
spectrum. The package contained a total of 10,000 international units of E,
the equivalent of a mere 25 capsules of 400 IU each that we are used to
buying (I take that many in 3 days). In Canada, our bottles contain 90
capsules and cost about $20.


He then handed me a tube-shaped metal container with vitamin C effervescent
tablets. Each tablet, when dissolved in water would release 10 mg of vitamin
C in a refined sugar solution. The cost: about $10 for 12 tablets. Twelve.

Then he asked me, "What's Co-enzyme Q-10? Are you allowed to buy all this in
Canada in such dangerous dosages?"

When I told him what I take daily, his eyes popped. Then I asked, "Why can't
I buy these supplements here?"

He replied, "Well, Germany is a CODEX country." Oddly, Germany has several
government-run hospitals where environmental illness is treated with
nutrients only, such as intravenous vitamin C.

Effective August 1, 2005, all vitamin and mineral supplements on a so-called
"positive list," including everything from beta carotene to zinc, will only
be available in the 25 European Union countries if they comply with specific
rules set out in the June 10, 2002, European Union Directive Relating to
Food Supplements, or CODEX. What does it specifically mean?

1) All products must show "maximum safe levels, as established by science."

2) Those nutrients found in the mythic "balanced diet" are to be subtracted
from the final values.

3) Article 6 decrees that labels shall "not attribute to food supplements
the property of preventing, treating or curing a human disease, or refer to
such properties."

So, the Directive's "science" knows nothing of vitamin C preventing and
curing scurvy, vitamin D preventing and curing rickets and osteoporosis, or
vitamin B complex curing and preventing pellagra and anemia. It also ignores
the mountain of evidence showing our diets are chronically deficient in
essential nutrients because of factory-style farming practices. To "ensure a
high level of protection for consumers and facilitate their choice", they
even included baking soda and table salt. Must assume they, too, will be
unavailable as of August 1 anywhere in Europe? What interesting consequences
for the tourist industry in the baked goods paradises Austria, Switzerland
and France.

Now, there is also a "negative list" covering essential fatty acids,
phytonutrients, all the enzymes and more. Those cannot be marketed AT ALL,
until the EU scientific committee in charge has made a final decision. So,
forget omega-3, cod liver oil, and much more. The effect of this directive
will be that thousands of products and businesses will be gone this year. In
the UK alone some 21 million people will suddenly have no access to any
supplement vitamins, minerals, enzymes, fatty acids and more. Since the onus
is on businesses to produce the scientific information on safety, they can't
produce or sell anything, not even to physicians who have the power to
prescribe any toxic drug as well as any safe and essential nutrient.
Obviously, there will be ludicrous enforcement issues: can you picture
basement-concocted vitamins sold in dark alleys?

Hundreds of thousands of people die every year in North America from
properly prescribed and ingested drugs. CODEX's effort to save us all from
supposedly "dangerous" food supplements, by requiring their (non-existent)
toxicity levels, is a determined backlash against the turn medical science
took starting with Linus Pauling, Abram Hoffer, Carl Pfeiffer and Roger
Williams in the 1950's. They established the concepts of bio-individuality
in absorption and detoxification, high-dose essential nutrients as
disease-curing, and environmental toxins acting as nutrient-depleting.
Today, we have a flood of evidence showing that drugs have a very limited
usefulness and that high-dose nutrients work better than drugs.

The pharmaceutical industry is anything but slow-witted, and good business
practice dictates outfoxing the competition - one way or another - to secure
the market. If the CODEX Directive is not stopped, there will be only one
medical world: the pharmaceutical world. When this whole CODEX project began
in 2001, some 180 million protest letters reached their office, but CODEX
didn't give up on "protecting" us. Now the fight is on in each country,
because the European Union's problem is now everyone's problem.

(Reprinted with the kind permission of the author.)

EDITOR'S NOTE: Unless you like that "back alley" vitamin-buying scenario
that Ms. Ferrie refers to, get out your pen and write to your newspapers.
For more action information:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/codex.html

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex2004pat.htm

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org

http://www.doctoryourself.com/write_now.html

http://www.iahf.com

http://www.glycommunity.com/iahf to watch a free on-line video

For my previous discussions about CODEX:

http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v2n12.txt

http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v3n21.txt

[littlejohn]

I just can't imagine this having a chance in the good ole USA. Nearly half the population has or curently takes supplements I think. There are no pressing issues with safety of supplements. In fact most of the studies into supplement safety have been very good. I am thinkin of a recent study of Fish Oil to see if they contained too much mercury. They found no problem at all in any of the brands tested.

JHTauresson

I wonder if you have done much research on supplements. My attitude was the same as yours about 9 months ago. Supplements were a silly hypocondriac (how do you spell that?) waste of money. I just started taking a little one a day because Atkins suggests it. That started me on a journey of education. The research and approval for supplements is amazing. Fish Oil is the first one that amazed me. Very benificial for the heart, skin, brain, etc. Well even the American Heart Association supports fish oil supplementation.( their first choice is to eat the fish, if not take the supplement) This fish oil or Essential Fatty Acid supplemtation is seen almost everywhere.

Vitamin E is good for heart trouble and other problems. It is interesting to me the several Alzhimers associations (the Alzhimerers equilivant to AHA) suggest taking Vitamin E because it works better than the best pharmacutical in slowing the effects of Alzhimers.

Vitamin C we know will prevent and cure scurvy. Many, and I mean Many other diseases are prevented by taking Vitamin C. Colds last a day or two less when taking Vitamin C.

Folic Acid suppelmentation is suggested to any woman that might become pregnant to prevent birth defects in babies.

CoQ10 has had some very amazing results in a few studies. Patients waiting for a heart transplant started taking CoQ10 and were able to return to normal lives without a new heart.

Ginko Biloba has been studied extensively. The conclusion is that it does improve mental function - specificially memory.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Most of these theraputic effects require much more than the RDA would suggest. And that would also require much more than you cound get from your diet.

I know there a few studies that suggest dangers with high dose Vitamin C and E. But those studies were not convincing at all to me. Also there are way too many with positive results to let these change my mind. It looks obvious to me that there is some political attempt to slow down the use of supplements. I don't know about a conspiracy, but many studies show a clear bias much like the biased studies we see that show low carb is dangerous.

Last night my mother in law called and reported a reduction of 70 points in her cholesterol. She had started taking niacin ( not actually niacin but a subset of niacin that has been isolated as the main help with high cholesterol )and fish oil. She claims nothing else changed. I'm impressed.

Supplements work!

[JHTuresson]

littlejohn,

thanks for your nice response. Let me explain my view a little better. What irritated me is the mentality that all my problems should be fixed with a pill (or 20 or 200 pills if needed), be it from the health store or from the doctor. If I think I may need more vitamin C, I rather increase my consumption of vitamin C-rich fruit, just as I eat fat fish, not fish oil. I agree that people should have the freedom to buy and use most supplements as they want as long as they haven’t been proven to be very harmful. However I am convinced that with a good diet most supplements are at best harmless (other than causing some damage to your personal economy) and a smaller part are probably harmful.

I also acknowledge that with such a bad diet as the one AHA recommends, some limited vitamin and mineral supplementation may be good. Even more so for the average American diet. But this doesn’t mean that more is always better. See this link for some cited articles.

http://www.3.waisays.com/

This is the Lancet study that someone mentioned (the second last sentence in the abstract should make people think):
Authors
Bjelakovic-Goran, Nikolova-Dimitrinka, Simonetti-Rosa-G, Gluud-Christian.
Title
Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Source
Lancet (North American Edition), October 2, 2004, vol. 364, no. 9441, p. 1219-1228.

Abstract
Background Oxidative stress can cause cancer. Our aim was to establish whether antioxidant supplements reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer and mortality. Methods With the Cochrane Collaboration methodology, we reviewed all randomised trials comparing antioxidant supplements with placebo for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers. We searched electronic databases and reference lists (February, 2003). Outcome measures were incidence of gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality, and adverse effects. Outcomes were analysed with fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses and were reported as relative risk with 95% CIs. Findings We identified 14 randomised trials (n=170525). Trial quality was generally high. Heterogeneity of results was low to moderate. Neither the fixed-effect (relative risk 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.04) nor random-effects meta-analyses (0.90, 0.77-1.05) showed significant effects of supplementation with beta-carotene, vitamins A, C, E, and selenium (alone or in combination) versus placebo on oesophageal, gastric, colorectal, pancreatic, and liver cancer incidences. In seven high-quality trials (n=131727), the fixed-effect model showed that antioxidant significantly increased mortality (1.06, 1.02-1.10), unlike the random-effects meta-analysis (1.06, 0.98-1.15). Low-quality trials showed no significant effect of antioxidant supplementation on mortality. The difference between the mortality estimates in high-quality and low-quality trials was significant (Z=2.10, p=0.04 by test of interaction). beta-carotene and vitamin A (1.29, 1.14-1.45) and beta-carotene and vitamin E (1.10, 1.01-1.20) significantly increased mortality, whereas beta-carotene alone only tended to increase mortality (1.05, 0.99-1.11). In four trials (three with unclear or inadequate methodology), selenium showed significant beneficial effect on the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer. Interpretation We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent gastrointestinal cancers; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality. The potential preventive effect of selenium should be studied in adequate randomised trials.


If someone have more convincing studies supporting the opposite view, please post them.

Regards

[Zuleikaa]

Here you go

I told you I see conspiracy, lol!!!

Much too long to post all of it but it does make for interesting reading.

http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Cancer/good1.htm
Nutrition and Cancer:
Success is a well-kept secret

Preface
Introduction to the Second Printing

Introduction

Chapter 1: Nutrition and Cancer: Success is a Well Kept Secret

Chapter 2: Vitamin C: The irrefutable Evidence

Chapter 3: Vitamin A/Beta Carotene: Role in Cancer Prevention and Treatment

Chapter 4: Vitamin E: The Anti-Cancer Tocopheral Family

Chapter 5: The Role of Selenium, Zinc, Folic Acid and Vitamin B12

Chapter 6: The Role of Essential Fatty Acids

Chapter 7: Nutrition and Cancer: Critique of the Research Methodology and Evidence

Chapter 8: Dietary Regimes for Cancer: Their Rationale and Efficiency Examined

Chapter 9: Efficiency of Diverse Cancer treatment Substances

Chapter 10: Cancer and the Mind: Psycho-neuro- immunology

Chapter 11: Cancer Life and Death: Statistics, Nutrition and Molecular Biology
For the past year, I have been surrounded by some 5000 Abstracts of published research, from the past decade, in the field of Nutrition and Cancer, of which 3000 have been compiled into a database at the Bristol Cancer Help Centre.1 Other research delved into the historical archives describing geniuses who developed cancer treatments which were denounced, the individuals (doctors and scientists) litigated, closed down or struck off, and the "rehabilitation" of these treatments later on by other esteemed colleagues within the medical profession.2
Research related to Nutrition and Cancer is mega-funded internationally and concerns the identification of cancer-causing agents, the prevention of cancer by diet and nutritional supplementation, and protection from and treatment of cancers by individual or combinations of nutrients and with nutrients in combination with conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments. Research is carried out at many levels, ranging from large cohorts (30,000 people) in epidemiological studies, small-scale human clinical or case-controlled studies, a range of animal-model studies, and at the biochemical and molecular level in cell or tissue lines.
This series of articles about Nutrition and Cancer will attempt to critically review the many facets of present and historical research, and to highlight the most recent promising results relating to cancer prevention and treatment. It will also attempt to critically comment upon political and economic aspects of research as they concern various interest groups comprising the medical research institutions. Topics include:

The Role of Nutrition in Cancer Prevention;

The Role of Antioxidants in Cancer Treatment;

The Role of Fatty Acids in Cancer Treatment;

Anticancer Diets, Alternative Therapies and Regimes;

Who Lives and Who Dies? A Critical Look at Cancer Mortality.

Causes of Cancer
One important area of research has focussed on identifying substances that can cause cancer. These include substances we consume, such as tobacco, chemicals used in the processing of foods, such as nitrosamines, toxic waste products and chemicals, and even the way we prepare food, such as charcoal broiling and pickling. Scientists estimate that perhaps 40-80% of all human cancers, excluding UV-induced cancers, may be caused by the burning of aromatic hydrocarbons, including tobacco, gasoline, coal, fat, oil, etc. Some 90% of lung cancers and 50% of urinary cancers occur in smokers, while some 90% of mouth, larynx, esophagus and liver cancers occur in smokers who also drink.3-5
Researchers have succeeded in identifying key mechanisms behind the development of these types of cancers, including: the generation of toxic oxygen species called free radicals; and the damage to cell membranes caused by the interraction of certain fats with oxygen to form toxic peroxides (lipid peroxidation).6,7 The discovery that many of the body's natural mechanisms to prevent and neutralize damage caused by free radicals are actually nutrients themselves – the antioxidant vitamins A, C, E, the mineral selenium, and certain essential fatty acids, has provided an impetus to the use of nutritional antioxidants in the clinical treatment of many cancers.1, 8-12

Free Radicals and Antioxidants
Free radicals are energetically unstable and highly dangerous molecules which are constantly generated during body functions such as respiration, oxidative energy metabolism and immune activity. Free radicals are also produced from other sources (UV radiation, smoke, pollution, heavy metals, rancid fatty acids, etc). The destructive effects of free radicals are far-reaching, including: cell membrane destruction via the interraction of fatty acids with oxygen to form dangerous peroxides (lipid peroxidation); genetic damage via DNA mutation; decline in immune function; increased inflammatory conditions; growth and spread of cancers; oxidation of LDL cholesterol, leading to atherosclerosis; hormone disruption, contributing to diabetes and other systemic disorders.
Oxygen is a double-edged sword: although we require oxygen to survive, certain oxygen species (such as superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radical and singlet oxygen) are toxic to the body. Antioxidants protect the body from damage caused by these harmful molecules, as well as from free radicals mentioned above. The body has evolved its own natural free radical scavengers, which include the antioxidant vitamins (Vitamin A and beta-carotene, several of the B-complex vitamins, Vitamin C and Vitamin E), the mineral selenium and the enzyme systems SOD, (superoxide dismutase), glutathione peroxidase and catalase. Damage from free radicals can be prevented and even reversed if there are sufficient concentrations of antioxidants, which work individually and together in the body.

The Antioxidant Nutrients13,14
Vitamin A/Beta Carotene. Fat-soluble Vitamin A, vital to eye and retina function (whence its name retinol is derived), protects the mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, throat and lungs from damage, and reduces risk of infection (immune enhancer) and cancer. Carotenoids such as beta carotene, sometimes called pro-vitamin A, are water-soluble and are made into Vitamin A by the body. While you can overdose on fat-soluble Vitamin A, found in liver and fish, large doses of water-soluble beta carotene, found in carrots and broccoli, are non-toxic and constitute an extremely potent source of antioxidant activity.
Vitamin C. Perhaps more research has been performed upon Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) than upon any other nutrient, and with justification, for in addition to being a potent antioxidant, Vitamin C enhances immune function (antiviral and antibacterial), is a modulator in sugar, fat and hormone metabolic systems and is essential for collagen synthesis (skin, muscle, bone, connective tissue). Water-soluble antioxidant Vitamin C works together with the fat-soluble antioxidant Vitamin E at the cell membrane interface.
Vitamin E, potent antioxidant, is actually a family of seven different tocopherols. Being fat-soluble (originally isolated from wheatgerm oil), Vitamin E has a particular antioxidant role with respect to cell membranes, working at times in partnership with Vitamin C. Vitamin E interacts with other antioxidants, including Vitamin A, B-complex vitamins and selenium. Vitamin E prevents lipid peroxidation of cell membranes and thus plays a vital role in maintaining the cell's integrity and use of oxygen within the energy-generating mitochondria. Vitamin E is also an immune-enhancer and protects against pollution-derived lung damage.
Selenium, an essential micro-nutrient whose best source is seafood, is long disappearing from intensively farmed soils. It is toxic in extremely high doses (2.5-3 g/day!); however, normal supplement levels (50-200 micro grams/day) are considered perfectly safe (see below). A potent antioxidant, selenium is an integral part of the body natural antioxidant glutathione peroxidase system, and, at times in partnership with Vitamin E, protects against cancer and prevents lipid peroxidation. Selenium is an effective detoxifier of heavy metals, its antioxidant properties protect against environmental and chemical sensitivities, and its immune functions enhance the body's antibacterial and antiviral defenses.

Essential Fatty Acids15
Fats are broadly divided into saturated and polyunsaturated classes; within the polyunsaturated category, are two families of essential fatty acids (EFA), essential because the body needs them but cannot manufacture them from other sources in the diet or from other fats. These EFAs are:
1 the omega-6 linoleic acid and its derivative, gamma-linolenic acid (present in Evening Primrose Oil);16 and
2 the omega-3 alpha linolenic acid family (present in fish and linseed oils).17 Depending on the type of dietary fat eaten, one of several different prostaglandin pathways result, resulting either in (good) immune-enhancing, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer and anti-clotting properties, or, alternatively (bad) inflammatory action, involving leukotriene synthesis.

Diet does Protect
Nutrition – your diet and the supplements you take – can make an overwhelming difference both to your chances of getting cancer and in its successful treatment. A recently published study from China of 30,000 people who took antioxidant vitamin supplements, demonstrated a 13 per cent reduction in expected cancer deaths over a five-year period.18 This population from Linxian County has one of the world's highest rates of oesophageal and gastric cancer, low intake of fruits and vegetables, and a predominantly grain diet. This study joins the cohorts of thousands of research studies published in the most prestigious medical and scientific journals worldwide over the last three decades, probing the many connections between Nutrition and Cancer.1
One premiere area of intense research, using the discipline of Epidemiology, the scientific study of the distribution of diseases, has been the study of the dietary habits of populations from different nations, measuring risk factors and rates of cancer observed. Epidemiological research has contributed enormously to our understanding of the role of nutrition in cancer. For example, the Japanese, who eat salted and pickled food but a low-fat diet, have a high incidence of stomach cancer, but low colon cancer, while western Europeans and Americans who consume a very high fat diet, have high incidences of colon and breast cancers.
Research results from epidemiological research have been flooding in over the past decades:

* A 30,000 people study from America and Norway showed that eating more fruits and vegetables and Vitamin C reduced the risk of gastrointestinal cancer;19
* A 19-year study of 3000 men, showed that people with low levels of beta carotene (pro-vitamin A) had a 7-8-fold greater risk of lung cancer than those with high levels;20
* Scientists at The National Cancer Institute of Canada predicted that dietary modification (more fruit, vegetables, vitamin C and less saturated fat) could reduce breast cancer incidence by 24% in postmenopausal and 14% in premenopausal women.21
* A 20-year study of almost 5000 Finnish men showed that men (nonsmokers) with low intakes of carotenoids, Vitamins E and C had a 2.5-fold greater risk of lung cancer;22
* The 12-year follow-up of the Swiss Basel 1971-73 study assessed 3000 men with dietary risks of cancer. Overall, those with low levels of antioxidant vitamins had higher cancer incidence and subsequent death rates;23
* A study from The Netherlands showed that the antioxidant vitamins A and E played a role in preventing the development of head and neck tumours;24
* A Spanish epidemiological study of breast cancer and diet showed significant association of lipids, fibre, cereals and vitamin C intake to cancer mortality rate.25
* An American study of 11,000 men showed that high vitamin C intake is strongly correlated with low cancer death;26
* An analysis of some 90 epidemiologic studies devoted to the role of vitamin C in cancer prevention showed that the vast majority demonstrated statistically significant protective effects, in cancers of the esophagus, oral cavity, stomach, pancreas, cervix, rectum, breast and lungs.27
* Finnish research of 36,000 men (Knekt et al, 1991) demonstrated that men with low levels of vitamin E had 1.5 times the risk of cancer compared to those with higher vitamin E levels;28

In fact, such is the weight of scientific evidence from these numerous peer-reviewed published research studies relating diet to cancer prevention, that advice to people to consume more fruits and vegetables and reduce fat intake has already been integrated into UN, US and UK government dietary guidelines policies.29-31

Some Uncomfortable Questions
Having got over the initial euphoria generated by this deluge of research, which shows massive research efforts and promising clinical results, and having completed the database, I have now been reflecting upon several uncomfortable anomalies between the research reality and the every-day medical reality:
Why is it that when the evidence has become almost overwhelming that nutritional antioxidants can prevent cancer, and one would expect exhortations from doctors and health officials for people to supplement their diets with antioxidant-containing foods as well as vitamins and minerals, that there are campaigns across the EC and in America to restrict cancer preventive doses of nutritional supplements to a "prescription-only" status?;32
Why it is that the majority of doctors, including oncologists, seem not to be aware of the enormous role of nutrition in cancer prevention, which has been ongoing for several decades and which has been performed by the most prestigious medical, pharmacological, and oncology research groups around the world?1
Since a significant minority of nutritional research involves the development of patented nutritionally-derived analogues, does this mean that the new anti-cancer "drugs" of the future will really be nutrients dressed up in different clothes?
With Nutrition's considerable successes being recorded in the scientific and medical literature, one begins to wonder whether one is living in a sort of virtual reality or if medical history, at least that related to Nutrients and other non-patented substances, merely relentlessly repeats itself.

References
1. Nutrition and Cancer Database is a comprehensive compilation of published scientific research, with Abstracts. 1993. For information, contact the Bristol Cancer Help Centre (0272) 743 216.
2. Houston RG. Repression and Reform in the Evaluation of Alternative Cancer Therapies. Project CURE. 1989.
3. Doll R and Peto R. The Causes of Cancer. Oxford University Press. 1981.
4. Tuyns. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. D. Schottenfeld and JF Fraumeni, Jr., Eds. Saunders, Philadelphia. 1982.
5. Ames BN. Dietary Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens. Review. In: Mutagens in Our Environment. M. Sorsa and H Vainio, Eds. Liss, New York. 1982.
6. Harman D. In: Free Radicals in Biology. WA Pryor, Ed. Academic Press, New York, 5: 255-75. 1982.
7. Jones GR. Cancer destruction in vivo through disrupted energy metabolism. Part II. Lipid peroxidation and cell death; drug resistance as a consequence of reversible cellular injury; Physiol Chem Phy Med NMR: 24(3):181-94. 1992
8. Odeleye OE et al. Vitamin E inhibition of lipid peroxidation and ethanol-mediated promotion of esophageal tumorigenesis. Nutr Cancer: 17(3):223-34. 1992.
9. Takada H et al. Inhibition of 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene-induced lipid peroxidation and mammary tumor development in rats by vitamin E in conjunction with selenium; Nutr Cancer: 17(2):115-22. 1992.
10. Canfield LM et al. Carotenoids as cellular antioxidants: Proc Soc Exp Biol Med: 200(2):260-5. 1992.
11. Das UN. Gamma-linolenic acid, arachidonic acid, and eicosapentaenoic acid as potential anticancer drugs; Nutrition: 6(6):429-34. 1990.
12. Yang et al. The relationship between nutritional antioxidants and serumlipid peroxides in cancer patients; In Vivo: 3(3):211-4. 1989.
13. Bray GA and Ryan DH (eds). Vitamins and Cancer Prevention. Pennington Center Nutrition Series, no. 3. Baton Rouge/London: Louisiana State University Press. 1993
14. Davies S and Stewart A. Nutritional Medicine. London: Pan. 1987.
15. United Nations World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization. Dietary Fats and Oils in Human Nutrition. Report of an Expert Consultation. Rome: UN-FAO. 1977.
16. Graham J. Evening Primrose Oil. Thorsons. 1993. [Excellent Review of the Literature – Author].
17. Shreeve C. Fish Oil – The Life Saver. Thorsons. 1992.
18. Blot W. J National Cancer Institute. 1993; Chen et al. Antioxidant status and cancer mortality in China. Int J epidemiol: 21(4):625-35. 1992.
19. Bjelke E. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer of the Stomach, Colon, and Rectum with Special Emphasis on the Role of Diet. Scandinavian J of Gastroenterology: 9(Suppl. 31):1-235. 1974.
20. Shekelle et al. Dietary Vitamin A and Risk of Cancer in the Western Electric Study. The Lancet: 1185-90. 28 Nov. 1981.
21. Howe GR et al. Dietary factors and risk of breast cancer: combined analysis of 12 case-control studies: J Natl Cancer Inst: 82(7):561-9. 1990.
22. Knekt P et al. Dietary antioxidants and the risk of lung cancer. Am J Epidemiol; 134(5):471-9. 1991.
23. Stahelin HB et al. Plasma antioxidant vitamins and subsequent cancer mortality in the 12-year follow-up of the prospective Basel Study. Am J Epidemiol; 133(8):766-75. 1991.
24. de Vries N and Snow GB. Relationships of vitamins A and E and beta-carotene serum levels to head and neck cancer patients with and without second primary tumors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 247(6): 368-70. 1990.
25. Morales M and Llopis A. Breast cancer and diet in Spain. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol; 11(3):157-6. 1992.
26. Enstrom JE et al. Vitamin C intake and mortality among a sample of the United States population. Epidemiology: 3(3):194-202. 1992.
27. Block G. Epidemiologic evidence regarding vitamin C and cancer. Am J Clin Nutr; 54(6 Suppl):1310S-1314S. 1991.
28. Knekt P et al. Vitamin E and cancer prevention. Am J Clin Nutr; 53(1 Suppl):283S-286S. 1991.
29. Nutrition and your health. Dietary guidelines for Americans. US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC. 1990.
30. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic disease. WHO Study Group, Geneva. 1991.
31. The health of the nation: A strategy for health in England. UK Government White Paper. HMSO. 1993.
32. Lazarides L. Nutritional Therapy Today. 2(4) 1992.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Duparc]

Anyone who thinks that this directive is not about to affect the US is in for a disappointment; its impact is global and it is about to affect all of us very soon and hence the purpose of this 'thread'. There is manifestly ulterior agendas here and one is profit and the other monopoly.

This legislation is so cockeyed that it is almost tantamount to saying that food items are drugs and can only be purchased through prescription. Obviously this sounds ridiculous but so too is this legislation. Look at it closely. Those who thought it through had their eyes on the 'balls' of profit and the power to marginalise all potential competitors. Common law usage alone establishes the public's right to the freedom to purchase such products, at whatever quantities, OTC but this right has been ignored by the bureaucrats at Codex.

For this legislation to succeed it requires the acquiescence of the 'silent majority' and this is achieved by drip-feeding the public with 'bull'. Whether it works or whether it is illegal or immoral is irrelevant, so long as the power exists and that others are there to do the dirty-work and that is fascism.

The eminent Dr Samuel Johnson (c1709-84) observed that scoundrels hide behind patriotism, and this is what is happening here (has a broader meaning than the 'love of one's country'). Whatever group was responsible for drafting this legislation, it was 'nobbled' but, they wouldn't wish to hear that. Who, indeed, among us, likes to hear bad news about ourselves? The power behind this legislation is not invested in the throne but rests with unscrupulous others, unseen.

Like 'prohibition' this legislation is about to create a 'black' market. What a cockeyed old world in which we live.

[Zuleikaa]

As I said, many supplements are synergisic and it is the nature of many researchers to study a supplement component in isolation. Additionally, until just recently many supplement trials have been conducted with man-made vitamins. The researchers have claimed that the body can't tell the difference and the quality of the vitamin is thus assured and standardized. Many studies since and toxicity issues from these man-made equivilents have shown that the body DOES know the difference.

Another report.
http://www.aurorahealthcare.org/yourhealth/healthgate/getcontent.asp?URLhealthgate=%2232264.html%22

[Hellistile]

Whether or not supplements are effective or not has absolutely no basis in this argument. What is really scarey is that pharmaceuticals don't like supplements, they prefer we take drugs. What is even scarier is that once supplements are outlawed, what's next? Herbs will be next. Then: Eggs? Cream? Fat? Meat? But you can bet that drugs (pharmaceuticals) will not be on the list.

[littlejohn]

Turresson

I read your reference. I think that guy is really wanting us to eat raw eggs and raw fish. He will have a tough sell with me!

I have seen many articles of similar content. Opposition to supplements is abundant. But I think mostly uninformed. You are right that supplements are not magic bullets (where did that analogy come from?). But looking at all the evidence (I have not see it all yet, but a bunch of it) some work.

This is how my infallable ;) logic goes! I think Atkins diet is nuts. I finally try it a WOoooo it works. No it really works. Maybe Atkins is right. Well he says take supplements I try that and humm. I notice some improvements. I do some research and find that he is not alone. In fact he may be behind the curve here. Many in the medical area suggest supplements. Our soils are depleted, Our nutrients processed out of our foods, Our diets not capable of giving us everything we need. But then I find a bunch of articles like the one you posted. To tell you the truth I trust Atkins and my own experience more than I do your sashimi lover. Read Atkins book on Via-Nutrients or any of the dozens in your book store. Weigh the evidence.

[grandpa]

"I just can't imagine this having a chance in the good ole USA. " Did you know that we used to not need a Doctor's prescription to buy drugs in the US? It started with just limiting drugs containing narcotics in 1914. At first, as with most governement regulation, there was a pretty good safety argument, but the power and regulation thirst of the government is never satisifed.

A little history:
In 1914 the Harrison Narcotic Act imposes upper limits on the amount of opium, opium-derived products, and cocaine allowed in products available to the public; requires prescriptions for products exceeding the allowable limit of narcotics; and mandates increased record-keeping for physicians and pharmacists that dispense narcotics. A separate law dealing with marihuana would be enacted in 1937

In 1938 FDA promulgates the policy in August that sulfanilamide and selected other dangerous drugs must be administered under the direction of a qualified expert, thus launching the requirement for prescription only (non-narcotic) drugs.

[littlejohn]

Ok Grandpa

First of all I noticed you are from Ok. Did you see the little football game about a month ago?

As I think about what I said and think about the goofy legislation that I have witnessed, I may need to reconsider. You are absolutely correct that the gov will not leave things alone. The possibility does exist for legislative disaster!

Ok, so what do I do?

[grandpa]

Littlejohn,
Do you mean the game on October 9th? Oh no, you must mean the bloodbath on Jan 4th - ouch - thanks for reminding me ;)

I like to use the example of a non-reversable ratchet with regulation. Once it clicks on a single tooth, there is no way it will ever be backed off, the only direction is more. The only exception I can think of to this was the "national speed limit".

[VALEWIS]

For whoever said this isn't going to happen in the US, did you read the article I posted? It starts out saying: "Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may
end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the supplement
standards for all countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will override U.S. laws."

I suggest that you write to whatever influential mainstream journalist you can think of as well as your congress person before its too late. This is all going to be thrust upon you, thanks no doubt to Big Pharma, one of the biggest 'megopolies' on the planet, while your media sits by and ignores it.

The removal of human freedoms and rights is systematically being carried out in the name of various fears: fear of terrorism, fear of unrestricted self-medicating, and so on. Behind it all see the hand of the oil empires and the pharmaceutical empires. The medical community is no doubt going to be split on this issue- some seeing that they will have total control alongside the pharmaceutical industry, others hating it, just as they hate the privatized insurance groups that now run the mainstream medical industry in the US. It is interesting to us outsiders how the word' freedom' is used to justify all sorts of removals of freedom. The old-style Republicans of old who believed in isolationism, the corner stores and freedom of choice will be spinning in their graves. Big Business has removed what they believed in.

What frightens me as some folks have already mentioned, is that along with the total control Big Pharma and doctors will have, is a total disregard for the importance of nutrients..so for example we see the ignorance by many doctors who prescribe statin drugs right and left about the effect of statins on the vital enzyme CoQ10. With the right of individuals to buy their own supplements taken away, I can only see disaster ahead for many...doing your own research and thinking for yourself regarding what ails you will become a thing of the past.

I agree with one person here who said that it reminds them of Fascism in another guise..it does me too...those of us who are old enough to remember it, and also remember Viet Nam etc are getting all sorts of déja vu experiences these days. The American public whose values once led the world are being sold down the river, just as the German people were.

I only hope that the media for once will respond to this threat appropriately and expose it.

Maybe Gary Taubes? Anyone know where to write to him?

Val

[Angrenost]

This is horrible news! So we're going to be restricted to the pitiful RDA-approved vitamin levels? I guess this will be a great chance for big medicine to sell those expensive designer drugs. :help:

Most RDA amounts are just the bare minimum one would need to avoid becoming sick due to deficiency. Most people could stand to do with a great deal more than the RDA amount, especially with the water-soluble vitamins.

Americans are going to get the same lack of freedom that Europeans have with their healthcare with none of the benefits.

[Zuleikaa]

Food for thought.

I pasted this in my journal http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?p=3000678#post3000678 and can't attach it here again.

Please cut, paste and pass on.

[VALEWIS]

This site does not refer to the WTO agreement and how that is going to over-ride existing rules. (Also, I was unable to access links within the site.)

If we are looking at a bottle of echinacea tablets costing over $100, and disallowing Omega 3's, then this is URGENT and all of you need to alert /inform your congressmen and women as well as top level media. I have been trying without luck to find an email address for Gary Taubes.

Val

[Jenni-star]

If this new line of bureacratic stupidity is caused by the WTO then it is likely to affect more than just the USA and Canada. Australians (amongst others) are probably also at risk. Is there any info on it affecting Australia? If so, we, too, need to rally our morons, oops I mean politicians. There are many countries besides who are probably also at risk. Is it too optimistic to think that if every country the WTO tried to enforce this upon told them where to stick it then they would give up?

[VALEWIS]

OK, here's a site for all Americans reading this who want to send a letter to the person in question re Codex. Please pass it along to everyone you know.

http://www.healthactioncenter.com/action/index.asp?step=2&item=23609&ms=c4

[Kristine]

Here's what's going on in Canada. (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=232566)

[mgw]

Hold on a moment.

First, thank-you to VALewis for posting this "heads up". I am an American, and thus am most immediately concerned about how this changes availability of supplements in the U.S.A. (While I understand that this is also bad for other places, there is less I can do about it.)

I looked for H.R.1146 and H.R.3377 and S.722 in http://thomas.loc.gov/ and was told

"The text of <bill> has not yet been received from GPO"

If the bills named actually say what we think they say, then we should know in a day or two. If they don't, and especially if no-one has introduced a bill to forbid high dosage supplements in the U.S.A., writing to Congress might actually have the opposite effect from the one we want.

I have heard that past attempts to suppress the supplement industry were squashed with great enthusiasm and speed, so we might or might not have cause to be alarmed this time.

[cartersg1]

I tell my students that the WTO is as corrupt as the UN. International treaties of any variety is distributive socialism - forcing the wealthy to supplement the poor. In an effort to make the world "equal" when we are inherently unequal in many complex ways, multinational organizations impose a universal one-size-fits-all approach that violates the very sovereignty of nations to make laws that are best for their people, their situation, their ideals. In this case, it's the ugliness of greed. It's that simple and greed could be territory (Hitler) or money.

I do take daily supplements - yeast fighters, calcium (milk allergy), Vitamin A, C and D (cold weather climate and no citrus fruit because of sugar content) and Vitamin E every other day. When it's winter, I add echinacea to build up my immune system. I didn't ask for this physiology or body chemistry that doesn't allow me to have refined sugar or milk or citrus, so I have to eat creatively to get in good nutrition but I still need supplements. It's not always a matter of eating well and daily exercise.

[VALEWIS]

Thanks MGW...do keep an eye on it and keep us posted. I hope you are right, given that places like Norway are now suffering from the effects of the WTO agreement re Codex.

CartersG1, while I understand your point re international treaties, it seems to me that big business has been using the WTO to achieve their own goals re greed...why else do so many thousands of people travel great distances to protest the people who attend, self immolate etc. The net result of such org's has not been to reduce poverty- that is increasing while wealth for a very small group of folks in first world countries increases. Would you say that poverty in the US is going down or going up? Last time I visited your major cities I saw a lot more people sleeping on the streets and begging than I had the time before..I was pretty shocked. The hand of Big Corp is behind most everything. I just learned that 3-4 of the Board of Directors (6 years ago) of Reuters had been CEO's or Directors of Big Pharma, to take one small example.

In any case, it is likely going to have to be fought at the grass roots level with the help of folks who know how to fight and how to lobby.


Val

[Nancy LC]

You're not assuming that supplement manufacturer's are small businesses are you? Good grief, supplements are one utterly enormous marketplace. That industry might even be bigger than Pharma.

[VALEWIS]

No, but then to me that is a bit like comparing many smaller retail stores with Wal Mart. Yes, quite a few supplement manufacturers are very big...but do you believe they are as big as Big Pharma? I think collectively they are perhaps, but Big Pharma is well ahead in the greasing palms and infiltrating the media stakes. Can you think of 3 supplements manufacturers' execs who are on a major media board of directors? Or are behind the scenes controlling university research via grants?

I hope you are right nonetheless...we need them to be as big, so as to balance out this imbalance and to assist with choices.

One problem of course is that Big Medicine is not lining up with Big Supplement which gives Big Pharma a better profile and a bigger say in the eyes of government who make decisions about such matters. But if grassroots is strong enough, getting voted out of government can be an incentive.

Sigh.

Val

[GeorgeMead]

You're not assuming that supplement manufacturer's are small businesses are you? Good grief, supplements are one utterly enormous marketplace. That industry might even be bigger than Pharma.

If only that were true, or even close. Total dietary supplement sales in the US are roughly half the net after tax profit of the ten largest pharmacuetical companies, ( ~18B v ~38B). Which by the way exceed the combined profit of the other 490 companies on the Fortune 500 list.

[Beryl]

"Take away the supps and a lot of people will be forced to take meds. It's disgusting."

This is what the CODEX is all about, and you are so right.... it's down right DISGUSTING. Whay kind of century are we living in? The phama. industry has so much power, even here in Europe.

I hear about a health store that sold Stevia (FYI, stevia is a 100% natural sweetner (from a plant) that has been used by indians for 1500 years, and several studies shows that is is very good at regulating blood sugar) - that were contated by the national sugar corporation who ordered them to stop selling Stevia "and respect their industry".

Excuse me? :(

Several European studies shows that the soil is depleted in many countries and you can actually find fresh oranges with NO vitamin-C... non at all.

I don't understand why they are screaming about the decrease of our health in the West - and in the same breath steering us towards the vortex of the medical indstry who ONLY focuses on the SYMTOMS, not the CAUSE to our bad health.

[datahamstr]

Here is a letter from Neil Levin, who is very involved with Codex and similar matters. You can also see www.citizens.org and Neil Levin's activist site at Now Foods --www.nowfoods.com
from Leigh,
Here it is:

It's amazing how these "secret meetings" have generated so many
detailed
reports by the opposition. I have a colleague who was a NGO observer at
the
CODEX meetings, and his report is far different than what you are being
told. There were numerous observers there who participated in the
debates
and influenced the voting, including our allies. So that allegation is
patently false.

Nor do the CODEX rules apply anywhere yet. The final proposed rules
were
sent to the WTO for ratification later this year, but have not yet been
approved by that body. So the claim that Norway and Germany now have
CODEX
as their legal standard is either an outright lie or (at least) a gross
misrepresentation. That shows how inaccurate or uninformed these
sources
are.

The WTO only sets rules for resolving trade disputes. So the
proposition
that WTO rules will automatically become US law are nonsense. We have
rejected rulings by the WTO and have been engaged in trade wars and WTO
sanctions in the past. But the US can do whatever we like as long as
we're
willing to stand up to the WTO. The only ways that WTO rules can become
US
law are either by Congress passing such changes or the US government
settling a trade dispute with regulations or executive orders.

CODEX approved standards rejecting RDA levels of maximum allowable
nutrients
in dietary supplements, agreeing to use a higher standard of scientific
risk
assessment. Those are the standards that will be set by the WTO,
although we
will have to continue to fight for reasonable standards there.

S.722 is not a desirable bill and I have fought against it and
personally
lobbied both Illinois senators, including the sponsor. But it has
nothing to
do with CODEX.

The future of the WTO/CODEX regulations is still uncertain and we are
wise
to support groups like our British friends. But the BS coming from some
of
our allies will not serve our cause, because if I can easily disprove
their
charges, how can they expect our government representatives to take us
seriously?

[datahamstr]

Since I'm Canadian, I also asked Neil Levin about Canada's position on Codex, this it what he answered: (see also my previous note just above this one, re the US)

Canada's position on codex issues, specifically CCNSFDU, mirror those
of
> the U.S. for the most part. Typically, Canada will support the U.S.
on
> most positions.
>
> Both countries agreed to the draft guidelines for dietary supplements
and
> the setting of USLs based on risk analysis. Currently, Canada
co-chairs
> an NRV (Nutrient Reference Value) committee with South Africa that
will
> present their findings at the next codex meeting this fall.

[quietone]

Sorry, but I don't see any of this going on with them. I've been studying it since the thread began and I've asked some professors of international law about it.

From what I can tell, this is just simply to make certain that all the different countries foods are safe and that they are all using the same daily % values on the labeling. The changed in daily values is to up it, to again make certain the daily values of food and proper labeling is going on.

Besides that, there is no way the US would pass a law saying you cant' take vitamin supplements. That is totally preposterous.

[arc]

Sorry, but I don't see any of this going on with them. I've been studying it since the thread began and I've asked some professors of international law about it.

From what I can tell, this is just simply to make certain that all the different countries foods are safe and that they are all using the same daily % values on the labeling. The changed in daily values is to up it, to again make certain the daily values of food and proper labeling is going on.

Besides that, there is no way the US would pass a law saying you cant' take vitamin supplements. That is totally preposterous.

My understanding is that, since the US is part of WHO, if this passes and the US doesn't follow along, the US will come under serious sanctions by other members of WHO.

[quietone]

And...???

I still see nothing wrong with changing the labeling of products. I personally believe the % daily values may be wrong.

I also think that they need to retest foods. With the soil the way it is now from overuse, I don't believe you can get the same nutrients from foods that you did 30 years ago.

If our country going along with the changing of labeling and testing of foods will make food stuff better for other countries, then I am all for it. There is too much food in this country and other parts of the world, for the third world countries and others going hungry. It makes no sense and if the WHO can step in and fix that, then that is great as far as I am concerned.

[nobimbo]

According to Snopes.com, this is an "urban legend". Here's Snope's take on it:

Vitamin See


Claim: American consumers risk losing their right to purchase and use vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.

Status: Multiple — see below:


In June 2005 the USA will be forced to accept Codex regulation of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements: False.

Bills proposing the regulation of dietary supplements are currently before Congress: Not any more.

Origins: This e-mailed alert began circulating on the Internet in January 2005. Although the call to arms is worded in such a way as to convince those who receive that their right to purchase vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements in the U.S. is about to be lost to them unless they act decisively in defense of it, it is outdated and the facts of what is being considered by American lawmakers and why are radically dissimilar from the red cape being waved.

First of all, this is another case of an issue that is now largely moot due to outdated information. Back in 2003, two versions of a bill that proposed the regulation of dietary supplements (S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003," and H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act") were introduced to Congress. Neither of these bills was ever voted upon, much less passed. They both expired with the end of the 108th Congress in 2004 and have not been reintroduced to the currently sitting 109th Congress.

Moreover, neither of these items of potential legislation was forced on the U.S. by an outside regulatory body, nor did they say anything about restricting the American public's access to vitamins and minerals. Their sole target was dietary supplements, a class of products that has been unregulated since 1994, when Congress passed legislation that exempted them from federal regulation. Claims that your right to take vitamins and minerals is about to be impaired or that you will require doctors' prescriptions to obtain such products should be regarded as attempts at rabble-rousing, deliberate moves to spur you into action against one thing by convincing you that something very different and far closer to your heart is at stake.

Vitamins and minerals are not under the gun. Dietary supplements are. And no outside regulatory body is behind this move: the proposed legislation is the work of American lawmakers looking to safeguard the public from the unscrupulous and the hazardous. If you take nothing else from this article, take the preceding three sentences.

Despite their presence on store shelves, not all dietary supplements are safe for consumers to use, let alone are beneficial to their health. Products can be 100% natural yet deliver a deadly payload, as have some in the past. Lacking regulation of such ingestibles, there is no protection afforded consumers, and authoritative-looking labels are no guarantee that what is being vended in those bottles they envelope is not harmful. Under current law, dangerous supplements get onto the market and stay there, with serious physical harm resulting among those who use them, as was the case with ephedra, which caused strokes, heart attacks, and upwards of 150 deaths before the Food and Drug Administration was finally able to get it out of the stores.

In 2004, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, almost one in five Americans (19%) reported using a supplement, which means the pool of folks at risk is great. Yet the incentives are there for the dietary supplement industry to keep on doing what it has been doing: in 2002, it reported $18.7 billion in sales. With so much profit at stake, there is little desire on the part of manufacturers to police themselves or their products all that carefully.

It's not just about inherently dangerous substances being sold to the unwary as the latest miracle answer for what ails them — even when dietary supplements contain nothing obviously harmful, the current lack of regulation results in improperly manufactured or contaminated products reaching the public. Quality control is missing. Absent regulation, consumers have little reason to trust they are getting the dosage they believe they are taking. ConsumerLab.com, an independent laboratory that tests dietary supplements, found that some name-brand products contain only small quantities of the active ingredient on their label. "Some have none, some have 80 percent, some have 20 percent," Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of the lab, told ABC News. Also, some contaminated supplements reach the market and thus fall into the hands of unknowing consumers. In December 2004, pesticide was found in ginseng being vended on the East Coast, and heavy metals such as mercury and arsenic were discovered in herbal supplements.

Two bills put before Congress in 2003 looked to regulate dietary nostrums by imposing quality and safety standards on them, and giving the FDA the ability to take them off the market before a great number of folks have been harmed by them. In March 2003, Senator Richard Durbin introduced bill S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003" in the U.S. Senate. The purpose of this legislation was to "protect consumers from dangerous dietary supplements such as ephedra and other stimulants by requiring manufacturers to submit proof that their product is safe prior to bringing it to market." The bill would require manufacturers of the most dangerous types of dietary supplements (stimulants) to submit proof of their products' safety prior to bringing them to market. The bill also expands the FDA's authority to require from any dietary supplement maker proof of its product's safety if that agency has received information suggesting the product is causing death or other serious adverse health effects. It would also require manufacturers to report serious adverse health events (e.g.; heart attack, seizure, stroke, death), to the FDA no later than 15 calendar days after they learn of them. The bill also looks to close a loophole in current law that, according to Senator Durbin, "has been exploited by many dietary supplement manufacturers, allowing anabolic steroids to be sold widely as dietary supplements" by clarifying that anabolic steroids are not dietary supplements and are subject to regulation that restricts their availability under the Controlled Substances Act.

In October 2003, Representatives Susan Davis (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (DMI) introduced bill H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation would increase the FDA's authority over dietary supplements, enabling that agency to monitor the health risks of dietary supplements and take appropriate action if problems develop. The proposed law was not intended to have any impact on the regulation of vitamins and minerals, which are specifically excluded from the bill. In addition, for dietary supplements that contain herbs, amino acids, and other botanicals, the bill will ensure that FDA has basic information about who makes them and the products' ingredients. It would also require dietary supplement manufacturers to provide FDA with information about all adverse events, so that the agency could spot warning signs and investigate if necessary. It further allows the FDA to prohibit sales to minors of supplements that may cause significant harm to children. Finally, it allows the FDA to demand safety information from a manufacturer if the FDA has evidence that a particular supplement may pose serious risks.

Getting back to the e-mail's claim that a foreign regulatory body is behind all this, we address the claim that:
Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. It is the body of government representatives and non-governmental organizations charged by the United Nations with establishing international guidelines on food law. This commission is empowered to set standards of operation for the health industry and 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 U.N. member nation.

However, what it seeks and what it can do are very different things. It has no power to force its will on any nation. Codex standards are voluntary, which means if the U.S. doesn't adopt them, they will not govern the regulation of vitamins, minerals, or dietary supplements in the USA.

In November 2004, the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) reached agreement on the definitions and regulatory guidelines for the worldwide use of vitamins and minerals in food supplements and will present its "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements" to the Codex annual meeting in Rome in July 2005 for formal approval. Once approved, countries are expected to consider these new guidelines in developing or modifying their national food laws.

The Codex guidelines form a key reference point in case of international trade disputes in the area of food supplements. That, in a nutshell, is the extent of its teeth.

The e-mailed exhortation to rise up against Codex claims that commission's guidelines regarding dietary supplements "will over ride U.S. law." That's just plain wrong. United States law governs trade within the United States. Codex standards come into play only when American manufacturers of dietary supplements look to vend them on the international market, and even then only when the other nations involved have incorporated Codex guidelines into their food laws.

Claims that in various European countries vitamins are now selling for a horrendous amount or are available only by prescription are strawmen, because the U.S. (as does every other nation) makes its own laws, and the new laws it is proposing in S. 722 and H.R. 3377 specifically and deliberately omit mention of vitamins or minerals, both of which are already adequately regulated.

Barbara "vitaminimized" Mikkelson

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/vitamins.asp

[VALEWIS]

Thanks for that. And what a relief. I have passed it on to Anthony Colpo who sounded the alert to his readers....this one certainly had a ring of truth about it, as none of us would put it past Big Pharma to be fanning the WHO Codex flame.

Val

[arc]

Thanks for that. And what a relief. I have passed it on to Anthony Colpo who sounded the alert to his readers....this one certainly had a ring of truth about it, as none of us would put it past Big Pharma to be fanning the WHO Codex flame.

Val

From The Omnivore:


Is Codex an Urban Legend? (http://www.theomnivore.com/IAHF_vs_Snopes_Feb_2005.html)

[VALEWIS]

I must admit to relying on Snopes to spot urban myths and so may have been sucked into believing this one due to wishful thinking. But truthfuly, I know that Colpo will have done his due diligence of both sides of the question, including the Snopes response...and if he still comes out being worried about it, then so am I. In these days of globalization, the bottom line is the last dollar, not our health, our environment nor our right to choose.

Val

[Jiggy Puff]

HMmmmmmm Scary!

[datahamstr]

I had already posted some news on this thread re Codex coming to Canada and US (I'm Canadian). I received info. saying our vitamins were in no danger--this is looking to be WRONG.

Please go to this site :
www.kospublishing.com
and click into where it says (in red), Codex Alert! It looks like the first post in this thread is correct and our supplements are indeed under attack.

The story has links to enable us to email letters of protest to Parliament, etc.but here is the direct link:
http://www.friendsoffreedom.org/
It's great because they have already set up the emails....

Please sign the protest emails, and send this on to everyone you know. If you know how to post this news as a headline, please do so (I have limited Library time only). We must take action now....
regards,
Datahamstr

[datahamstr]

I had already posted some news on this thread re Codex coming to Canada and US (I'm Canadian). I received info. saying our vitamins were in no danger--this is looking to be WRONG.

Please go to this site :
www.kospublishing.com
and click into where it says (in red), Codex Alert! It looks like the first post in this thread is correct and our supplements are indeed under attack. I originally found the link and info. from Common Ground mag., and I believe their info. is correct.

The story has links to enable us to email letters of protest to Parliament, etc.but here is the direct link:
http://www.friendsoffreedom.org/
It's great because they have already set up the emails....

Please sign the protest emails, and send this on to everyone you know. If you know how to post this news as a headline, please do so (I have limited Library time only). We must take action now....
regards,
Datahamstr

[datahamstr]

Home | Contact Us | Search






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. James Lunney, MP
Nanaimo-Alberni News Release


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, March 10, 2005

Lunney’s Natural Health Product Initiative Goes to Committee

OTTAWA—Dr. James Lunney, MP for Nanaimo-Alberni, congratulated all Members in the House of Commons for passing the second reading of Private Member’s Bill C-420, which he originally introduced in the last session of Parliament. “The election interrupted progress on this bill, and I’m delighted to see it move forward this time around. Greater freedom of choice in personal health care is one step closer to becoming a reality,” said Lunney.

Bill C-420, reintroduced in this Parliament by Lunney’s colleague Dr. Colin Carrie, MP for Oshawa, would amend the definition of food in the Food and Drugs Act to include Natural Health Products, and amend the definition of drug to exclude food. “Most Canadians are shocked to learn that vitamins, minerals and other food products are drugs under Canadian law, and that any product can be reclassified as a drug just by making a claim that it has health benefits,” said Lunney. “That is out of touch with modern science, and out of touch with the needs of Canadians.”

The bill would also repeal antiquated clauses in the Act that prohibit claims of any kind on a list of diseases that include diabetes, heart disease and cancer. The move was originally recommended in 2000 by a team of seventeen experts appointed by the government to bring in new rules for Natural Health Products.

“These clauses have been used for years to take effective products, even those with the most scientific evidence behind them, off the market without evidence of harm,” said Lunney. “The government has refused to listen to its own experts, who say these clauses do not reflect the prevailing science. It is time that our law caught up with science.”

The bill will now go to the Standing Committee on Health, where it will be examined and possibly modified before coming back to the House. Lunney said the bill is a major step in the right direction for health care reform.

“Bill C-420 is about releasing the tremendous amount of information that supports the judicious use of natural health products, and it’s about greater freedom of choice in personal health care. With a minority government, we have the opportunity to advance effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in health care,” concluded Lunney.

http://www.jameslunneymp.ca/news_detail.php?recordID=273


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 2005

Editor's notes: for those who don't know, Bill C-420 will put neutraceuticals, supplements and vitamins back into the food category guaranteeing that Canadians will have the right to choose their supplements with good selection and affordable prices. If C-420 doesn't go through we will see most of the selections on store shelves go down to just a few products and most of these will only be available under prescription or in dosages that are ineffective. Drug type regulations will take effect and many medium to small businesses in the industry will vanish. Get in touch with your local member of parliament. Ask for a personal meeting to discuss your concerns. Get involved now before it's too late. Turning back the clock is much harder than effecting change now.

The bigger picture involves CODEX, EU directive and the World Trade Organization. The pharma-cartel is trying to ensure their suvival by eliminating the natural competition. Once CODEX becomes law, all signing countries (Canada included) must comply by these "world" regulations or face court action. Say goodbye to your human rights to manage your own health and say goodbye to those supplements you've been taking the last few decades.

Find your local Member of Parliament here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/mpscur.asp?lang=E

Here is a list of those MP's who voted YEA or NAY in the last vote on this bill. Contact those "NAY" MP's and try to change their mind.

These MP's that voted NO for C-420 need to realize that once consumers see their selection of supplements dwindle to nothing on store shelves and their right to choose products for their health gone, they will have a lot of very angry voters on their hands.

Details on the Bill: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/C-420.pdf


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C-420 was re-introduced by Dr. Lunney's colleague Colin Carrie, MP for Oshawa, on October 21, 2004. Dr. Lunney 'passed the puck' because Dr. Carrie was higher in the Order of Precedence, and would have a much greater chance to see the bill move forward.

Bills are automatically deemed passed first reading when they are introduced in the House of Commons; therefore, there was no vote at this stage. The bill received its first hour of debate at second reading on November 29, 2004. A transcript of the debate can be found here:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/034_2004-11-29/HAN034-E.htm#OOB-1038861

The second hour of debate at second reading is currently scheduled for March 3, 2005, with the vote to take place shortly after. We are encouraging everyone to call, write, fax, e-mail and visit their MPs to encourage them to support C-420 at second reading.

From the information we have been given, the federal lawsuits have been withdrawn due to some procedural matters, and will be redrawn and filed again shortly.

Thank you for your continuing interest in and advocacy for bill C-420 and freedom of choice in personal health care.

Sincerely,

Dave McEachern
Legislative Assistant
Office of Dr. James Lunney, MP
Nanaimo-Alberni
Ph: (613) 992-5243 Fax: (613) 992-9112
www.jameslunneymp.ca




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to webmaster~naturalhealthcoalition.ca .
Copyright © 2005 NaturalHealthCoalition. All rights reserved.
Last modified: 03/11/05.

[mgw]

Some of you might recall that earlier, I posted:

I looked for H.R.1146 and H.R.3377 and S.722 in http://thomas.loc.gov/ and was told

"The text of <bill> has not yet been received from GPO"

I tried again.

H.R. 1146 is a bill to remove the United States from the United Nations.
I would be muchly surprised if it passed.
H.R. 3377 still has not been received.
S. 722 still has not received.

I looked at bills containing
vitamin
nutritional
and dietary
and while I found some,
none of them looked like an attack on the
status quo in the U.S. regarding Vitamins
as far as I could tell.

[acohn]

I have read every single post, followed every single link, read every article at those links, and even followed a few of those links. The only cogent and factually-based information I found were the analyses by Suzanne Walter of the American Holistic Health Association and snopes.org. Since the snopes.org information has been previously shown here, let me summarize the relevant points of contention brought up by Walters:



There are no internationally accepted scientific protocols to determine either supplement purity or upper safe limits for ingredients in a supplement.
Therefore, the people whom the Codex chooses to establish these standards, and the methods they use need to be scrutinized closely to ensure that political agendas take a back seat to scientific rigor.
The WTO can use Codex standards, but only to settle international trade disputes, not to impose national standards.
In addition, the British organization, Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), obtained an opinion from the EU's Advocate General, Leendert Geelhoed, in April, 2005, stating that the European Supplement Directive's restrictive provisions, especially the limitation of allowed ingredients to a short list of mostly synthetic sources of vitamins and minerals, is invalid (http://tinyurl.com/5tkva). While this is not the final decision of the court (expected in June 2005), the opinion of the Advocate General gives hope that the directive may eventually be re-drafted to allow products currently on the market to remain on sale. This directive is part of the backbone of the Codex's guidelines on vitamins and minerals. If the EU court abides by the Advocate General's view, the guidelines will say virtually nothing about supplement content.

Most of the arguments in this thread about losing our sovreignity (the right to control what happens within our borders) proceed from false premises and make basic logical fallacies, when they even bother to deal in logic.

Every other bit of discussion I've read here is either off-point or unsupported. For example, I reviewed the legislation that some posters called on us to support or oppose. None of them dealt with standards for the contents of supplements. S. 722, for example, dealt with amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level.

While I appreciate a passionate debate, debate must be informed by fact. I suggest we terminate this jingoistic, scare-mongering discussion, and move on to real nutrition issues.

[acohn]

I am publicly apologizing for my prior post on this topic. I had not read Anthony Colpo's article that started this thread, and I regret it. I'm going to send my donation to the British organization ANH tomorrow.

[VALEWIS]

If you go to Colpo's website, he posted a recent update there.
http://www.theomnivore.com

Not looking good at all.

Val

[mgw]

Let's for a moment imagine that the WTO eventually forces the U.S. and other countries to treat supplements in dosages greater than the RDA as "drugs".

If one buys them as drugs, they become more expensive than they are now. However, presumably those who can afford the drugs get whatever benefits one might have from controls over whether the dosage is what the package says, whether the supplement contains the appropriate chemicals in a form that one's body can absorb, etc. I can say from experience that I have taken supplements and herbs that were ineffective, and I have no way to know whether the problem was the ingredients or the temperature at which they were stored.

High level government employees, who presumably have never lacked for medical care, might find it hard to understand why this change is a problem. Can we make it clearer to them?

Can we demonstrate that there is a population who cannot afford to pay drug level prices, and who would be harmed by this change? I think the only countries where this restriction exists now are places where everyone can get health care to some level. Clearly, the difference would be greater in the U.S. where many people cannot afford to get health care. Canada might have less of a problem than the U.S.

In theory, anything in a supplement could be found in a food, but in smaller amounts. If the big pharma industry became aware of an organized effort to spread recipes for making one's own supplements out of food, so they not only don't get the drug prices, but they don't get any money at all, would they perhaps rethink their level of greed at trying to make the supplements more expensive? Clearly, where the codex laws were in effect, spreading recipes to circumvent them would be illegal, but in places where this hasn't happened yet, web sites could be posted, unless there are laws I don't know about.

This could have the effect of killing the codex by changing the financial incentives for it. Maybe.

Thoughts?

[Dodger]

Let's for a moment imagine that the WTO eventually forces the U.S. and other countries to treat supplements in dosages greater than the RDA as "drugs".

Thoughts?
One of the problems with dstreating supplements as drugs is that a prescription may be required. I have already run into this problem. At one time my doctor had me take high doses of vitamin B12, B6 and folic acid to lower homocysteine. The required dose of folic acid exceeded that which the government has deemed safe and a prescription was required. Now taking large doses of folic acid has never been found to have harmful effects, but the large amounts can mask the symptoms of B12 deficiency. The purpose of requiring the prescription was to force the person wanting to take large amounts to have to go to a doctor so that the doctor could tell him to take B12 also. This of course is expensive for the person wanting to take folic acid. You could also just take more of the smaller amounts that you can get without a prescription and without anyone warning you to take B12, but I guess the FDA didn't think about that. But the smaller pills are more expensive for the same dose.

I have heard that at one time a vitamin maker proposed to the FDA that the requirement be changed so that large pills of folic acid include the B12 in them and the prescription requirement be dropped. For some reason the FDA did not like the proposal and refused to change the prescription requirement.