European Tribune

[UPDATE] Nutritional Freedom ?

by Fran
Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 03:16:01 AM EST

Promoted by Colman: I take the view that unless you're ill you shouldn't need supplements, but I know other people will be interested.

Why are our governments restricting our access to nutritional supplements to such an extreme? I hoped that the European Court of Justice would reject this limitation. But, alas he did not listen. I used to be sceptical about the use of supplements, however, it seems that the soil our food is growing on is more and more depleted through industrialized agriculture, especially trace minerals seem to be more and more missing. Furthermore, most processed food is mostly empty food. For a healthy functioning the body needs more than just carbohydrates and proteins. Minerals and vitamins are, for example, needed in the body to build enzymes. Thus I find it frustrating that the access to these nutritional supplements will be almost entirely taken away. Besides I do feel it is a restriction of my personal freedom of choice. As long as cigarettes and alcohol are freely accessible, I also want to have free access to nutritional supplements, which are far less damaging to health, if at all.


Thus the article this morning in the Independent is frustrating. Thousands of vitamin products threatened by ruling

Campaigners for Britain's millions of vitamin and supplement users have reacted with dismay to a ruling that could sweep up to 5,000 products off the shelves.

The European Court of Justice has rejected British health food industry claims that the proposed Food Supplements Directive, coming into force on 1 August, breaches EU rules. Yesterday's decision means some 300 nutrients and nutrient sources in the UK will be banned unless they can obtain inclusion on a "positive" list - a move that supplement manufacturers say requires excessive levels of testing and red tape.

Among the vitamins and supplements facing a ban are boron, important for healthy teeth and bones; sulphur, important for healthy skin; and 1,000mg Vitamin C tablets. The surprise decision of the European Court goes against an opinion delivered by the same court's advocate-general in April, who said the directive was "as transparent as a black box"

It definitely would be good if the supplements have to carry clear contents declarations. But I do wonder if this is not just about money, the pharma companies would like to grab. Vitamins and minerals have not left 27'000 deaths behind like Vioxx. They can cause problems if overdosed, like the fat-soluble vitamins, but most of them do not have severe side-effects as many medicines produced by the pharma companies have.

At the same time the WTO seems to try to add even more restrictions on health food and alternative remedies. This month a very restrictive approach was officially adopted in Rome.

Codex Alimentarius

Vitamins to be Banned Worldwide... - Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

"Big Pharma" won a major victory in Rome, Italy today.  Vitamins and minerals, for over-the-counter sale will be phased out, almost completely, in every country on Planet Earth.  The "German Model" of health care will now be the law of the land - in every land.
...

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

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

However, it is not inevitable - the use of "supplements" and other "alternatives" to conventional medicine regimens represents over fifty percent (50%) of the total US health dollar spent annually.  Eighty-eight percent (88%) of US adults use an "alternative," and believe in them.  Opposition is already gearing up for the battle - (click here).

This is a battle between "We the People," and the free world's biggest, and worst, enemy - ever - "Big Pharma."

And a good overview of the Codex Alimentarius from Wikipedia.

Finally, I would like to point out that I do believe, there should be a control of what goes in to our nutrition. Food safety is important, no doubt. It is helpful if the contents of cadmium in potatoes is regulated, though why there is cadmium in potatoes at all, is another question. But banning vitamins and minerals makes no sense. Especially if you can buy in Germany, which seems to be the model for the new rules, very low dosed vitamins with lots of additives which some consider to be more harmful to health than the vitamins do good.
Update [2005-7-13 13:52:59 by Fran]:I just came accross a more positive source, first for the European Court decision: Link

BANS ON SUPPLEMENTS IN EUROPE ON 1 AUGUST NOW UNLIKELY GIVEN EUROPEAN COURT RULING Although the Directive was upheld following the Court's ruling, important gains have been made to protect the availability of food supplements through clarification and narrowing of the Directive's scope. Prohibitions by Regulators will now be much more difficult, and we predict that the anticipated wide-scale bans set to come in to force on 1 August in countries such as the UK will now not occur. See News item and press release for further information.
European Court Decides: Food Supplements Directive May Go Ahead
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg today announced that it is upholding most aspects of the controversial EU Food Supplements Directive, after a landmark legal challenge by the Alliance for Natural Health. The initial reaction amongst many commentators was that this was disappointing news, as it contradicted the EU Advocate General's recommendation that the directive should be invalidated in its entirety and allowed a positive list system for nutrients. But on closer analysis there is a silver lining to the judgment. There appear to be very significant and positive details within the verdict which vindicate the arguments presented to the Court by ANH and which may be beneficial to the millions who use vitamin and mineral supplements and key to everything that ANH has been campaigning for all along.
This is a more detailed and positive interpretation than the one from the Independent. It was not visible from the Independent that the European Court did not uphold the directives in its entirety. So hopefully this will turn out to be a storm in a glas of water. But I believe it is also a topic that needs watching. And for the Codex here is another, also more positive article: Confusion over Codex
The reality is that all of this means different things to different people. What can be said for sure, however, is that Codex won’t cause all supplements to be banned in a matter of months. Codex will however have very serious impacts in the longer-term, especially if the risk assessment system that it proposes to use to establish maximum allowed dosages is not changed over the coming months. However, please don’t feel despondent. Not all is lost by any means, despite the acceptance of Codex texts in Rome at the meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission last Monday. There is still latitude to move things forward in the interests of consumer freedom of choice, particularly with regard to the precise nature of the ‘scientific risk assessment’ methods to be used within Codex. This is the area that we at ANH are focusing a lot of our attention on. The next Codex meeting in Bonn, Germany this November, will be critical to determining the final outcome and of course central to new information on this issue is the independent risk/safety-benefit assessment project being undertake by the Netherlands-based HAN Foundation, commissioned by the ANH on 27 June.
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll
Do you use Vitamins?
. Regularely 33%
. Never 16%
. Sometimes 50%

Votes: 6
Results | Other Polls
Display:
I live in Germany, and I can get supplements at the health-food store (although they are more expensive than in the US). I can also get organically grown vegetables at the natural foods store.

I tried to find an explanation by following the links on the quackpot.org site, and found only the following assertion:


The current version of what's known as "Western Medicine" has its roots, I'm embarrassed to admit, in Nazi Germany's Death Camps.  Let's not forget that Mengele, and the boys, did the so-called "basic research," and established the philosophy "Western Medicine" operates by today...

I find that, um, less than rigorous.

The documentation also contains the statement:

For the most part, I believe, Planet Earth's pharmaceutical industry (Big Pharma) is a direct descendant of Nazi Germany's I.G. Farben, a company that was forcibly split up into four parts during the "Nuremberg..."   trials.  Those four companies, not only still exist, but control the significant part of the world's pharmaceutical drug trade.

The four "majors" to come out of IG Farben were AGFA,  Bayer, Hoechst and BASF. Of these:


  • AGFA's business is to a large part based on photographic film (insolvency proceedings were opened against them at the end of May);

  • BASF sold off their pharma business;

  • Hoechst is now French (belongs to Sanofi)

Only Bayer is still in the big pharma arena, and they still haven't recovered from the Lipobay debacle of a couple of years back.

I apologize if this comes across as overly negative, and I don't mean to be destructive. I felt it was important to share my reservations about some of the documentation.

For my part, this issue illustrates what to my mind is one of the great shortcomings of the EU, that so many directives are formulated in back rooms, out of public view.

As far as the issue itself goes, I know too little to offer an opinion, but it's interesting to note that the British consumer group Which? is in favor of positive lists for supplements (their position here). (Maybe someone more UK-savvy could tell me if they're the real thing?).

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 04:19:47 AM EST
That's one of the problems with this sort of issue: there are enough, uh, "less than rigorous" individuals on the fringes that it's very hard to follow the arguments.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 04:29:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
dvx, sorry, my error  and thanks for making me aware of it (and I try to check my sources better next time :-) ) - I did not read his definition of the "German Model" - as I have read about it before. I would have warned about these comments, which are offensive. However, the German Model in alternative health care is considered very restrictive. In Germany as in Switzerland there are many things like enzymes, or trace minerals or other nutritional supplements that are hard to come by, which can not be bought or only in very small amounts. Often as is described in the article you can only buy synthetic versions of a vitamin. Here in Switzerland you can only buy very low doses and only synthetic vitamin E in the pharmacies, or in even lower doses at regular food or health  stores, often with lots of additives and of course quite expensive. When I was in Ireland 3 years ago I saw higher doses being sold, from natural sources and many herbs and even homeopathics available in health stores - which are not available here in Switzerland, or as far as I know in Germany. And they also were a lot less expensive.

I do not believe that it is a German attempt to world dominion. But I do think the German model is convenient for the pharma industries, to restrict our access to nutritional supplements. Here in Switzerland we have Roche and Novartis which both are into vitamins.

I have read some studies, have to search for them if I also can find them online, that indicate that even organic vegetables have a lower nutrition content today, than they used to.

One aspect about this topic is, that there is so much controversial information. Thus I appreciate any information that helps to clarify the topic.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 05:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
None of us are immune to damaged sources (the Wikipedia article links to that site as well!).

The subject itself is certainly worthwhile in spite of that, but one I know too little about to comment on intelligently.

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 10:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't understand this ruling at all, and think it really sucks. Is there any recourse? I would much rather be able to take supplements than take the medicines that "Big Pharma" wants me to. I know it is subjective, but I feel better when I take supplements. (Hmm...does living in Switzerland, who isn't EU, make any difference on this?).

And what's the alternative? That a person has to be presribed vitamins by a health professional? This seems also like a gross limitation of trade, besides a gross limitation of nutritional freedom. With all the money in this industry, I have a hard time believing it will stand...

Half the population is under the age of 18. Tanzania's future is NOW...join the 50% campaign!

by whataboutbob on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 04:40:29 AM EST
Bob, unfortunately Switzerland is also very restrictive. See my response to dvx.

Yes, the idea that you can only get vitamins and minerals on prescription has been talked about. I have not yet been able to find out if it is actually included in final draft of the Codex. The Codex would also apply to Switzerland as we are a member of the WTO.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 05:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm afraid this ruling will also find support in the more Luddite wing of the organic/environmental movement. There is an anti-progressive wing to the left that in its moralism often ends up walking hand in hand with the right wingers.

Just the other day I stumbled across an article by the very over-rated historian Jared Diamond in which he championed the notion that the development of agriculture had been one of the worst mistakes in human history.

Instead he praises the pre-farming hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This is the sort of farking idiocy that debases modern academia.

Yes, he admits, agriculture boosted the population. And why was the population so much lower in a hunter-gatherer society? Was it because those noble savages knew the long lost ancient art of turning deer-guts into condoms? No, it was because of near universal starvation and death by wildlife.

"Natural" (whatever that is), often isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Alexander G Rubio (alexander.rubio@gmail.com) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 12:34:56 PM EST
At the risk of getting OT, I personally find that Diamond's argument has its merits. Far from "debasing" academia, he's doing an academic's job: testing conventional wisdom against the body of evidence.

Sure, the agriculturalists outbred the hunter-gatherers. But the skeletal record implies that the latter were better nourished as individuals than contemporary farmers (and probably better nourished than your average African smallholder today).

Seen from a global ecological perspective, it might have been better for the planet if we had remained within the hunter-gatherer niche (although none of us would be here today). We certainly would not have "overgrazed" the available resources to the present extent.

But we're already on this bus, so that point's moot.

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 01:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dr. Weil thinks this panic is overblown, and just plain wrong.

http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA/

Short version:

The thrust of the wrong-headed information being circulated on the Internet is that the Codex guidelines will restrict the availability of vitamins and minerals in the United States. Even more fanciful is the claim that once the Codex guidelines on vitamins and minerals are adopted, supplements that exceed the RDA will be available in the U.S. only by prescription and that this "stealthy" takeover of the supplement industry has been plotted in secret by the pharmaceutical industry working underneath the radar in Europe.

None of this is true.

I have found Weil to be reliable and credible, so this is good news.

Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

by d52boy on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 12:39:15 PM EST
Thanks for the link. Dr. Weill is to me a reliable source, however, there seem to be discussions about how binding the WTO rules are to each country. What use is making this kind of rules if no one has to adhere to them.
by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 01:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I find this statement (from the link above) inflammatory and dishonest: "Vitamins and minerals, for over-the-counter sale will be phased out, almost completely, in every country on Planet Earth."

One wonders why this claim is being made. It is easy to demonize Big Pharma (I'll be first in line) but there seems to be no corresponding skepticism about the motives of supplement manufacturers - and supplements are a multi-billion dollar (euro, etc.) business.

From Snopes "It [the codex] 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."

I think that some supplement manufacturers are spreading these false rumors about the Codex because they want no regulation of their products whatsoever - not even for safety, purity, etc. It costs money to make sure your products are pure, manufactured safely, etc. There are more profits to be made by just packaging whatever into gel caplets and selling it for exorbitant amounts of money.

These are exactly the same rumors that were spread by the lobbyists (and they spent millions on the lobbying) for the supplement manufacturers that resulted in the FDA being stripped of any power to take action against disreputable supplement manufacturers - regardless of what they were packaging and selling - until after consumers have been killed or maimed by their products. And even then, it is very difficult to get dangerous products off of the market.

For those of us who want to buy safe, pure supplements made by manufacturers who take care that their products are uncontaminated and contain what they say they do - this misinformation is not the way to go.

by Janet Strange (jstrange1925 - that symbol - hotmail, etc.) on Wed Jul 13th, 2005 at 01:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]