Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Imminent Danger of Worldwide Supplement Ban (CODEX)

Expand Messages
  • Kitty Antonik Wakfer
    ... [snip by Kitty] ... The Government Printing Office website gpo.gov, for which two of the above links go, is very slow on our dial-up and today I got error
    Message 1 of 14 , Feb 6, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
      <olafurpall@y...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, mywyskippr@a... wrote:
      >
      > <snip by Ólafur>
      [snip by Kitty]

      > [...I did a bit of searching...
      > For those who want to read the text of S.722
      > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.722: or
      > http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=2.140.64.21&filename==s722is.txt&directory==/diskb/wais/data/108_cong_bills
      >
      > Text of H.R. 3377
      > http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=2.140.64.21&filename==h3377ih.txt&directory==/diskb/wais/data/108_cong_bills
      >
      > Both these bills are listed under the 108th Congress (2002-2004)
      > and must be searched for in this manner in .gov databases. ..... **Kitty]

      The Government Printing Office website gpo.gov, for which two of the
      above links go, is very slow on our dial-up and today I got error
      messages for searches there. This website seems to be very cumbersome.
      Instead I suggest using Thomas; Legislative Information for the
      Public website instead. (It is part of the Library of Congress; see http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt_thom.html ) It's search page for the
      108th Congress has various options.
      http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html
      Entering s. 722 or hr 3377 in the first search area (Bill Summary
      and Status) at the top of the page will bring up links to several
      types of valuable information about each of those bills, which even
      will get to links to the text of The Congressional Record with
      legislators' statements.

      As somewhat of an aside, this research has shown me that legislators
      have created a mountain far larger than I realized of proposed bills
      on every conceivable subject that can or may possibly effect human
      beings. (Health related bills form an enormous mountain alone.) An
      army of assistants and supporting agencies help these legislators
      design a seemingly endless number of links in the chains that bind
      all residents of the country to the government, creating a virtual
      state of servitude which enormously reduces the number and scope of
      actions available to residents for the purpose of maximizing their
      lifetime happiness. All the while these same legislators insist that
      these measures are but to "protect" their constituents. Coming from
      such ilk as are most politicians, such arrogant paternalistic
      notions would be humorous if they were not backed up by naked force.
      Of course it is clear that the actual purpose of all this "activity"
      is to allow these legislators to provide favors to those that have
      contributed to their election campaigns, have other favors to trade
      themselves and, most of all, to wield power over the lives of the
      residents of the US and evermore virtually the entire world.

      This web of chains and favoritism creating a cloak of power by and
      for government legislators is of course devoid of substance without
      the helpers and enforcers of those legislative acts. All that is
      needed for the web to disintegrate, is for a growing number of far
      looking individuals to realize that it is not in their own best
      interest to work for government agencies - especially those that
      enforce restriction on the voluntary interactions of adults. This
      is not an impossibility at all. but a very real question to raise
      to anyone who is or is considering working for any government
      agency, whether it be local, state or federal. **Kitty]
    • Max Watt
      Italy was the most restrictive country I ve been in; I tried to get some aspirin, you cannot buy it anywhere but a pharmacy, and it is behind the counter, and
      Message 2 of 14 , Feb 8, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Italy was the most restrictive country I've been in; I tried to get
        some aspirin, you cannot buy it anywhere but a pharmacy, and it is
        behind the counter, and you have to wait in line to ask the pharmacist
        for it, and he or she will ask you what you want it for, I assume to
        recomment something else if it isn;t appropriate in their opinion.

        You could buy vitamin C in 30 mg tablets off the shelf in the pharmacy,
        however. Also homeopathic products. Not much else.

        [Thanks for the input, Max. That is just one more example and confirmation
        of how bad things are in some other countries and where the US and
        Canada are heading if strong countering actions are not taken by *all*
        concerned. --Paul]
      • Kitty Antonik Wakfer
        ... ... ... ... Clarification is warranted re. the above bills S.722 and HR3377, both of which were introduced in the first session of the
        Message 3 of 14 , Feb 12, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, mywyskippr@a... wrote:
          >
          <snip>

          > Subject: Banning of the sales of Vitamins .. worldwide ...
          >
          > Read this very important health message below and contact everyone.
          >
          > 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. 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.

          <snip>


          > What can be done at this late hour?
          >
          <snip>

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

          Clarification is warranted re. the above bills S.722 and HR3377,
          both of which were introduced in the first session of the 108th
          Congress. Because neither of these had progressed to enactment
          during either session of that Congress, they in effect "died".
          (See "sine die" at http://www.jcics.org/GovtGlossary.htm However,
          http://thomas.loc.gov/home/faqlist.html#six states that bills are
          technically available during both sessions of a Congress.)
          Consequently legislation that would create the same problems would
          need to be reintroduced in the current (109th) Congress for any
          further action. Therefore letters to legislators would best contain
          phrasing that makes it clear that the writer does not want any such
          measures to be reintroduced now or in the future.

          <snip>

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

          <snip>

          As of this morning I do not find any bills listed at Thomas
          http://thomas.loc.gov/ containing the phrases "dietary supplement",
          "nutritional supplement" or "vitamin". Thus, so far it does
          not appear that any bills have been introduced into the 109th
          Congress with equivalent or similar measures as those of S.722 and
          HR3377 in the 108th Congress. But since politicians and bureaucrats
          have a penchant for wanting to control the voluntary mutually
          beneficial actions of others, don't assume that the same or
          different legislators won't busy themselves with introducing bills
          with virtually the same measures.

          It would be helpful if some reader(s) of MoreLife would keep track
          of the bills introduced and notify the group when/if new ones with
          measures that would limit access or availablity of nutritional
          supplements occur.

          **Kitty
        • �lafur P�ll �lafsson
          ... I have horrible news to tell. According to LEFs newsletter today the EU supplement directive has been upheld.
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 13, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, mywyskippr@a... wrote:
            >
            > Let us hope that the power of the internet will send a message to
            > those who would control our freedom of choice. The fight is on.
            > Hopefully, the outcome
            > hasn't been "fixed" as I type......Marti
            >
            >
            > Subject: Banning of the sales of Vitamins .. worldwide ...
            >
            > Read this very important health message below and contact everyone.
            >
            > 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. 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.

            I have horrible news to tell. According to LEFs newsletter today the
            EU supplement directive has been upheld.
            http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=2438&Section=VITAMINS
            Here is the news report:

            Food supplement restrictions upheld

            Press Association

            07-12-05

            The European Union's high court upheld proposed restrictions on the
            sale of food supplements, despite objections from trade organisations
            that claimed the rules would ban popular vitamin pills.

            The European Court of Justice in Brussels said the EU law was
            "appropriate for securing the free movement of food supplements and
            ensuring the protection of human health."

            The law setting up a "positive list" of food supplements approved for
            sale across the 25-nation EU is due to come into force on August 1.

            Food supplements not on the list will be banned.

            Trade groups, led by the Alliance for Natural Health, had lobbied hard
            to overturn the legislation, claiming it would ban thousands of
            vitamin and mineral supplements.

            [According to their press release below, the ANH had *not* lobbied to have the legislation overturned, but instead merely modified to suit their own narrow interest in "natural health". --Paul]


            However the court in Luxembourg backed the rules which were approved
            by EU governments and the European Parliament in 2002.

            The EU said the rules were needed for consumer protection and to
            provide common rules that would allow companies to sell supplements
            across the EU.

            "Certain restrictions can be justified by the protection of public
            health," said a European court statement. The court "considered the
            measures in question to be necessary and appropriate for the purpose
            of achieving that objective."

            Under the rules, only food supplement ingredients approved by the
            European Food Safety Authority will be authorised for sale.

            The campaign to overturn the regulation has been particularly vocal in
            Britain, where the Alliance for Natural Health - a Europe-wide
            association of manufacturers, distributors and consumers - joined
            other groups in mounting a legal challenge.

            [Here is another very different viewpoint from a press release of the Alliance for Natural Health. --Paul]


            PRESS RELEASE

            For immediate release
            12 July 2005


            Major Victory For Alliance For Natural Health
            Vitamins and Minerals found in human diet NOT to be banned - ECJ rules
            Food Supplements Directive is valid but has clarified and sharply
            restricted its scope of application

            1. The Court has accepted and addressed key arguments uniquely put by
            the Alliance for Natural Health
            1. The ban on non-positive list of vitamins and minerals does not apply
            at all to vitamins and minerals normally found in or consumed as part
            of the diet which therefore are not banned as of 1 August 2005.
            2. Where the FSD does apply (which is to vitamins and minerals derived
            from "chemical substances" i.e. not naturally derived) an
            application to have a substance included on the positive list may be
            refused by the competent authorities only on the basis of a full
            assessment of the risk posed to public health by the substance,
            established on the basis of the most reliable scientific data available
            and the most recent results of international research

            A real 'David and Goliath' Victory

            In a remarkable David and Goliath action, the Alliance for Natural
            Health (ANH) has today succeeded in getting a ruling from the European
            Court of Justice that requires the controversial EU Food Supplements
            Directive to be very sharply circumscribed in its application.

            Two main concerns motivated the challenge to the Food Supplements
            Directive.

            The first was that the Directive appeared to ban food supplements
            obtained from natural sources forming part of the normal diet, about
            which there was no reason to believe that there was any risk to health.
            ANH maintained that that was inconsistent with certain recitals in the
            preamble to the Directive, which had not been followed through when the
            lists of permitted food supplements were compiled. On that point, none
            of the opposing parties disputed the fact that the Directive did indeed
            prohibit naturally-sourced food supplements, although there had been
            some confusion about this among different Government agencies in the
            UK.

            The second point was the absence of adequate procedures for obtaining
            amendments to the positive lists: the Advocate General described the
            procedures as having the "transparency of a black box" and
            considered that the Directive should be annulled for that reason alone.

            The Court has upheld the validity of the Directive but, in doing so,
            has addressed ANH's main concerns.

            On the first point, the Court has stated that the Directive is to be
            interpreted as applying only to "food supplements containing vitamins
            and/or minerals derived from a manufacturing process using 'chemical
            substances'", not other food supplements (paragraph 63 of the
            judgment).

            On the second point, while criticising some aspects of the drafting of
            the Directive (see paragraph 92 of the judgment), the Court had
            recourse to the general principles of EC law and has identified the
            main characteristics of the procedures that must be followed (thus
            clearing up an obscurity in the Directive) and has effectively laid
            down the basic criteria to be applied when operating those procedures
            and deciding whether or not to amend the positive lists. (paragraphs
            72-92 of the judgment).

            In doing that, the Court has followed the well-established principle
            that legislation is, wherever possible, to be interpreted so as to
            avoid it having to be annulled. The fact that the Court was able to
            satisfy ANH's main concerns by that means without invalidating the
            Directive (which has undoubtedly some good features) means that the
            judgment has produced a win-win situation.

            This is great news for the tens of millions of consumers across Europe
            who take vitamin and mineral supplements - and the thousands of
            practitioners, retailers and manufacturers whose small businesses rely
            upon them. Well done David. Bad luck Goliath. Had the Directive gone
            through in its proposed form, around 5000 vitamin and mineral
            supplement products that people take for natural and preventative
            healthcare would have disappeared from the shelves from 1st August this
            year. And who in their right minds would have really wanted that?

            Alliance for Natural Health reaction

            Commenting on the verdict, Dr Robert Verkerk, Executive Director of ANH
            said: "This is a fantastic day for the Alliance, the greatest in its
            short history. All we have ever wanted is for regulation in natural
            health to be based on good science and good law. ANH is now ready and
            willing to place its professional expertise and skills in nutrition and
            science at the disposal of the EU to make sure that the same mistakes
            are not made again. This is not a reprieve - this is a real result
            for the consumer and for common sense"

            Legal Director and Solicitor David Hinde added: "I would like to
            thank our external legal team; our barristers were led by Paul Lasok
            QC, and solicitors were led by Jonathan Coad. Many people voiced
            concerns from the outset over the implications of the Food Supplements
            Directive, but ANH remained committed to working hard at the only means
            that would deliver a successful outcome - a professional legal
            challenge. This result is a victory for natural healthcare and a
            landmark legal precedent for EU law."

            A brief history of the Food Supplements Directive

            The controversial Food Supplements Directive passed through the
            European Parliament with a narrow margin of support in early 2002. Its
            purpose was ostensibly to harmonise regulation across Europe and
            thereby benefit trade. As often happens with EU legislation, most
            people are unaware of it until it is too late. ANH was formed in 2002
            specifically to oppose punitive legislation affecting natural health
            worldwide and has campaigned for three years to have the irrational
            parts of the Food Supplements Directive amended. First in January 2004,
            ANH won the right in the UK High Court to mount the challenge. This was
            followed by the hearing in the European Court in January 2005 and then
            by the Opinion of the ECJ Advocate General on 5 April this year, when
            he declared that the Directive was 'invalid under EU law' and that
            key aspects of the legislation were 'as transparent as a black
            box'. And now, ANH has successfully contested the Food Supplements
            Directive in a landmark legal case.

            ANH secures the future of the leading edge of natural health

            >From the outset, ANH vigorously promoted the concept of mounting the
            legal challenge and has worked 'at the coal face' in Brussels,
            Strasbourg and Luxembourg, using the best EU lawyers. ANH's approach
            is based on the use of good science and good law in order to shape
            appropriate and proportionate regulation of the natural health
            industry. It is not an emotions-driven campaign organisation. ANH is
            based in the UK, but is now a worldwide organisation.

            Drawing its support from thousands of consumers, manufacturers,
            retailers, practitioners and some of the world's leading experts in
            nutritional medicine, ANH has taken on the Goliath of the European
            Commission and those who support the unscientific and unlawful ban of
            vitamin and mineral supplements, to protect the interests of everyone
            concerned with the leading-edge of food supplements and natural
            healthcare.

            Supplements are safe without the Directive

            There is concern from some quarters that without the Directive, food
            supplements will not always be safe. This is not true as existing UK
            and EU food law already provides perfectly effective protection from
            unsafe products getting onto the market through existing, comprehensive
            food laws. Indeed, ANH firmly endorses the banning of ingredients or
            dosages that are patently not safe. It adds however, that it is not
            scientifically rational to classify an ingredient as being unsafe
            without taking dosage levels into account, something that was not a
            condition of being admitted onto the Positive List in the Food
            Supplements Directive.

            The system proposed by the EU was going to ban ingredients simply
            because supplement companies did not have the financial capacity to
            meet the high data threshold required for the scientific dossiers
            demanded by EU authorities. In this way, ingredients that have been
            part of the human diet for thousands of years, and which are
            increasingly difficult to derive from conventional foods, would be
            lost, and would not be able to be supplemented.

            The effect of today's ruling will avoid these prohibitive costs
            having to be incurred because if a vitamin and mineral in a food
            supplement is normally found in and consumed as part of the diet it
            cannot be banned under the Directive on 1st August 2005 (paragraph
            135).


            Worldwide negative regulation affecting natural health
            This is just the beginning for the Alliance for Natural Health. Through
            a United Nations sponsored organisation, the Codex Alimentarious
            Commission, there are many other regulatory and industry pressures on
            natural health. Without having to justify any health hazard, and
            without considering any benefits, safety is being used as a reason to
            restrict the availability of natural food products and maximum dosages
            to ludicrously low levels. The victory with the Food Supplements
            Directive is encouraging, but the fight goes on. There are many
            opponents to those who support the right to natural health and much
            work remains ahead here in the EU and in the US.

            What can people do?
            If journalists believe in the cause pursued by Alliance and Natural
            Health, they can help by advising their readers what they can do to
            help. ANH is not a large, well-funded organisation and donations are
            needed to maintain its work. There are many other ways in which
            ordinary people can help - such as 'adopting a health store', and
            writing to their MP/MEP. More information can be found on the ANH web
            site, www.alliance-natural-health.org

            ENDS


            [It appears that this Alliance for Natural Health is not interested in any real freedom of choice, but only in maintaining access to *natural source* vitamins and minerals. They and the EU Court falsely distinguish between synthetically produced chemicals and the exact same chemical stereoisomer derived from a biological source. The result will be that most vitamins will be both far more expensive and harder to obtain in high potencies. In addition, many nutrients of great value which are either only found in animal sources or are found only in extremely minute quantities in biological sources in general, will now be virtually impossible to obtain in any reasonably effective potency. Things in this last category include: CoQ10, acetyl-L-carnitine, L-carnosine, R-alpha lipoic acid, pyridoxamine, l-arginine, melatonin.

            The natural health stores will now be the "guardians" of naturally derived products, just as the doctors will be for all synthetic chemicals manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies. This is anti-freedom, unscientific nonsense that reminds me very much of the situation in the US where the religious right, pro-life, creationists are effectively now the guardians of the morals of the country's residents. --Paul]

            [Instead of assisting the Alliance and Natural Health as they request, I suggest that supplement users let that organization's leadership know that the attempts to label chemicals as "natural is good" and "synthetic is bad" is simply *bad* science. Their desire to find a "silver lining" in this government regulation against the freedom of individuals to engage in voluntary activities (ie. to purchase and consume supplements) comes from the very narrow short range interests of their membership who manufacture and sell items from "natural" sources. This is not the way to stop government regulations; it must be done on principles. And one of the most blatant facts here is that there is no difference between the same isomer of a particular chemical from a plant/animal source or from a manufacturing process completely divorced from anything living (except the humans designing and overseeing the production). (As far as safety, keep in mind that some of the most potent poisons are animal/plant produced.) In summary, there is no scientific basis whatever in the notion: "natural is safe and healthy, synthetic is toxic and unhealthy". **Kitty]
          • Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
            ... wrote: ... Here is a link to the section of the Alliance for Natural Health site which contains their contact
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 13, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
              <olafurpall@y...> wrote:

              <snip by Ólafur>

              > [It appears that this Alliance for Natural Health is not interested
              > in any real freedom of choice, but only in maintaining access to
              > *natural source* vitamins and minerals. They and the EU Court
              > falsely distinguish between synthetically produced chemicals and
              > the exact same chemical stereoisomer derived from a biological
              > source. The result will be that most vitamins will be both far more
              > expensive and harder to obtain in high potencies. In addition, many
              > nutrients of great value which are either only found in animal
              > sources or are found only in extremely minute quantities in
              > biological sources in general, will now be virtually impossible to
              > obtain in any reasonably effective potency. Things in this last
              > category include: CoQ10, acetyl-L-carnitine, L-carnosine, R-alpha
              > lipoic acid, pyridoxamine, l-arginine, melatonin.
              >
              > The natural health stores will now be the "guardians" of naturally
              > derived products, just as the doctors will be for all synthetic
              > chemicals manufactured by the pharmaceutical companies. This is
              > anti-freedom, unscientific nonsense that reminds me very much of
              > the situation in the US where the religious right, pro-life,
              > creationists are effectively now the guardians of the morals of the
              > country's residents. --Paul]
              >
              > [Instead of assisting the Alliance and Natural Health as they
              > request, I suggest that supplement users let that organization's
              > leadership know that the attempts to label chemicals as "natural is
              > good" and "synthetic is bad" is simply *bad* science. Their desire
              > to find a "silver lining" in this government regulation against the
              > freedom of individuals to engage in voluntary activities (ie. to
              > purchase and consume supplements) comes from the very narrow short
              > range interests of their membership who manufacture and sell items
              > from "natural" sources. This is not the way to stop government
              > regulations; it must be done on principles. And one of the most
              > blatant facts here is that there is no difference between the same
              > isomer of a particular chemical from a plant/animal source or from
              > a manufacturing process completely divorced from anything living
              > (except the humans designing and overseeing the production). (As
              > far as safety, keep in mind that some of the most potent poisons
              > are animal/plant produced.) In summary, there is no scientific
              > basis whatever in the notion: "natural is safe and healthy,
              > synthetic is toxic and unhealthy". **Kitty]

              Here is a link to the section of the Alliance for Natural Health site
              which contains their contact information:
              http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action==contact
              The leaders of the organization can be contacted at this adress:
              info@...

              I just sent them the following message:

              While I very much appreciate your efforts to protect freedom of
              choice I am not pleased to hear that you only seem to be interested
              in maintaining access to vitamins and minerals from natural sources.
              There is no difference between a chemical isomer derived from a
              natural source and the exact same chemical isomer derived from a
              synthetic sourse. Neither is there any difference between the safety
              of the two. Any such distinction is false and not based on good
              science. Restriction of chemicals from synthetic sources will result
              in many valuable supplements being unobtainable in effective
              potentcies. I urge you to take into considaration these facts and
              set a goal of protecting access to all supplements not just those
              derived from natural sources.

              Sincerely,

              Olafur Pall Olafsson

              [Thanks Olafur very much for sharing with us your quick action on this matter. **Kitty]
            • chipdouglas3
              It would be best for you to post your questions about the applicability of CODEX to Canada and US to MoreLife Yahoo. There are very likely others, who like
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 17, 2005
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                It would be best for you to post your questions about the
                applicability of CODEX to Canada and US to MoreLife Yahoo. There are
                very likely others, who like you, have been told "don't worry". And
                letting others know that you have registered your protest (email,
                phone or postal mail) to government representatives can be helpful -
                too many think that "the other guy" will do it and therefore they do
                nothing. **Kitty

                [The above is part of a response I made to Marc when he emailed me about having written his Member of Parliament (Canada) in protest of any plans to implement CODEX in that country. The following was his follow-up which he has now posted to the group. **Kitty]


                You're right on the last part of the above paragraph. W still don't
                know exactly how Codex will affect us, althoug we already have a
                good idea. Do you remember when I told you that I found this earth
                to be more and more of an impossible place to live because of
                myriads of factors/issues--well Codex is about to be added to my
                list of unacceptable restrictions. I keep my fingers crossed
                (because I have done what I needed to), that this will not prevent
                us from getting our supps. However this whole thing is not a simple
                matter of good or badluck, it's the responsability of us all to
                manifest our strong disagreement to this pain in the ass that is
                Codex/CAFTA. However even then, how much of an impact will this
                have, I don't know. I dislike governments body of any kind, for
                obvious reasons, as more and more they put a damper on our quality
                of life, affecting us from all angles....i.e. the price of gasoline
                that has recently reach an all time high. These are all things that
                you know though, but I wanted to mention them just the same.

                P.S. Mind you, not that I wish to be a downer, but it might be a
                tad too late to reverse the decision of the CAC/CAFTA. They've been
                having in mind to do this for a VERY long time, and the more
                articles I read on the topic, the more I become aware that, they're
                having it their way, whatever massive public protest they're may be--
                It's a very sad state of affairs. If this trend goes on unstopped,
                in years from now the world will be a horrible place riddled with
                stupid regulations, cramping the lifestyle of masses. On the subject
                of gasoline price, I was about to buy a brand new Honda Accord V6,
                but now I'm giving it serious second thought, although I'm in love
                with the car.

                Marc

                [Some ways to do "something" so that there will *not* be "this trend [that if it] goes on unstopped, in years from now the world will be a horrible place riddled with stupid regulations, cramping the lifestyle of masses" :
                - Let it be known that you don't agree with actual or planned government regulations (you've done that this time),
                - Become sufficiently knowledgable about why governments are not in the widest view longest range best interest of individuals in order to explain your position (use Self-SIP documents as reference),
                - Not associating with or doing business with those who promote government regulations/activities (especially those who work for the government in regulating/enforcement agencies) and letting them know why,
                - Not participating in government functions (I wouldn't vote except possibly to vote "NO" on some measure to use/increase taxes),
                - Not using government agencies/programs whenever comparable private alternatives are available.

                The idea behind the above - and there are plenty of particular examples that you and others can probably think of - is to work around governments and shun those who support and work for them. In this way with time, those who support and work for governments will come to hear about why doing so is counter to their own efforts to maximize their own lifetime happiness. And for those who, despite information available to them, continue in their government supportive/working roles, they will find themselves "on the outside" and eventually with very few others who will associate with them - they will have been discriminated against, a very proper way of showing one's disagreement with behavior and/or ideas of others.
                This is how the government can "wither away" - by decreasing the number of people willing to be the implementors and enforcers of the directives of governments. All the members of Congress and Parliament could sit in Washington or Ottawa (or whatever national/state/provincial capital you name) and vote on all sorts of bills, but if there were but a miniscule number of lackeys willing to enforce those laws/rules/directives, they would be just useless text on some pieces of paper. It is the acceptance of the legitimacy of governments and the continued belief that they are well intentioned and necessary evils by the vast majority that keeps the machine in motion. Take away the acceptance currently given - even by less than the majority - and the trend will take a change. But to give the change a meaningful direction (and then maintain momentum) philosophical understanding is necessary, not just action for action's sake. This is why understanding the basis of the objection to governments is needed. So get your "toes wet" in the essays at the Self-Sovereign Individual Project, if you haven't already done so, to give your dislike of governments a strong foundational basis that can withstand the objections of government apologists from inside and outside the government itself. **Kitty]
              • chipdouglas3
                Hi all, Recently, I ve been hearing again and again about Bill C-51 in Canada indirectly related to Codex Alimentarius I m sure. Even in the U.S. the same
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 7, 2008
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi all,

                  Recently, I've been hearing again and again about Bill C-51 in Canada
                  indirectly related to Codex Alimentarius I'm sure. Even in the U.S.
                  the same threat (although not the same Bill as in Canada) is looming
                  large. Someone on another board posted the below YouTube links. While
                  these doesn't represent the last word in this discussion but probably
                  just a point of view from someone directly affected by those impending
                  stricter guidelines and regulations, I still find them to be
                  interesting and forced me to ponder over this recurrent issue that's
                  Codex Alimentarius. Reason why I'm posting this here is, many if not
                  all members of this forum are on dietary supplements, and hope to be
                  able to keep taking them in the future. What's more Paul and Kitty so
                  far as I can see from my limited time to keep tabs on forum posting,
                  are advocate of people's liberty to choose to use dietary supplements
                  of their choice from their own research.

                  Basically, I wonder : are these scaremongers, or is this the bare
                  truth ?

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7awAo6CA5i4&feature=related
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrF9KjlGsc
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2D4-noTiCg&feature=related
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhApQ3QkG0Q
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvX5lmzfVVc&feature=related

                  Marc Boucher
                  Riviere-du-Loup,Qc
                  Canada.
                • Paul Wakfer
                  ... We certainly are advocates of such individual liberty, and, moreover, the liberty to ingest, or by other means introduce, *anything* into one s own body,
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 12, 2008
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 07/07/2008 06:22 PM, chipdouglas3 wrote:
                    > Hi all,
                    >
                    > Recently, I've been hearing again and again about Bill C-51 in Canada
                    > indirectly related to Codex Alimentarius I'm sure. Even in the U.S.
                    > the same threat (although not the same Bill as in Canada) is looming
                    > large. Someone on another board posted the below YouTube links. While
                    > these doesn't represent the last word in this discussion but probably
                    > just a point of view from someone directly affected by those impending
                    > stricter guidelines and regulations, I still find them to be
                    > interesting and forced me to ponder over this recurrent issue that's
                    > Codex Alimentarius. Reason why I'm posting this here is, many if not
                    > all members of this forum are on dietary supplements, and hope to be
                    > able to keep taking them in the future. What's more Paul and Kitty so
                    > far as I can see from my limited time to keep tabs on forum posting,
                    > are advocate of people's liberty to choose to use dietary supplements
                    > of their choice from their own research.

                    We certainly are advocates of such individual liberty, and, moreover,
                    the liberty to ingest, or by other means introduce, *anything* into
                    one's own body, without any restrictions whatsoever on that choice.
                    Note that this does not mean that we advocate all such ingestions or
                    introductions. Rather, we are very selective about which substances
                    that we would introduce to our bodies and also about which we suggest
                    to others that they too might benefit from such introduction.

                    > Basically, I wonder : are these scaremongers, or is this the bare
                    > truth ?
                    >
                    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7awAo6CA5i4&feature=related
                    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrF9KjlGsc
                    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2D4-noTiCg&feature=related
                    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhApQ3QkG0Q
                    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvX5lmzfVVc&feature=related
                    >

                    Since we do not have any form of high-speed Internet at our current
                    location (in rural Ontaio until November), we cannot examine any of
                    these YouTube videos. Therefore, I will make only the general
                    comment that I do not think any concern about legislation related to
                    Codex Alimentarius should be classified as "scare mongering" since the
                    end result of fully adopting it and regulating accordingly would be so
                    very harmful to the health and life extension potential of everyone in
                    the country of adoption.

                    With respect to the chances of such legislation passing and becoming
                    fully effective, I can only express my opinion based on my knowledge
                    of Canadians and USers. In Canada, I think that it is likely that such
                    legislation will be passed and come into full effect. In the US, I
                    think that it might get passed but that there would be such an outrage
                    from so many people that it would either get rescinded or not ever be
                    fully implemented. OTOH, it might be implemented in stages over time
                    as the outrage subsides, just as have some highly negative and
                    restrictive FDA practices been implemented.

                    --Paul

                    [Although not directly related to Codex Alimentarius, there have been
                    actions by the US FTC (Federal Trade Commission) that are related to
                    the ability of individuals to obtain information and make purchases
                    of, in this most recent instance, herbal preparations. For those who
                    are not already aware of it, the recent article at mises.org,
                    "Consumer Protection or Legal Extortion?" is a good read.
                    http://mises.org/story/3035 **Kitty]
                  • chipdouglas3
                    Paul s quote :
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 12, 2008
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Paul's quote :

                      <<the end result of fully adopting it and regulating accordingly would
                      be so very harmful to the health and life extension potential of
                      everyone in the country of adoption.>>


                      **In the event that such regulations get adopted and regulated
                      accordingly in both Canada and in the U.S. what are you and Kitty and
                      all of us going to do for supplements ? I'm asking both of you,
                      because of all people I know who are on a supplement regimen, no one
                      takes as many as you do, which I reckon you'd wish to go on using.**

                      Marc Boucher
                      Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec
                      Canada.

                      [Although this is an unlikely happening, IMO, and I do not usually
                      answer hypothetical questions, I will answer this one because it is
                      certainly possible and would be very important to address if it did
                      happen.

                      If it happened mainly in Canada, then I would continue doing as now -
                      bringing all my supplements into Canada from the US. If that became
                      impossible, then I would emigrate to the US.

                      If CODEX also became implemented in the US, my actions would depend on
                      just how strongly it was implemented and thus whether I could still
                      get what I needed, albeit with more difficulty, perhaps from some
                      other countries where it was not eliminated, just as now some
                      chemicals can be directly procured offshore. If I could not get what I
                      needed (and then many others also could not) by any legal and open
                      means, then I expect that large underground operations in supplements
                      production and distribution would be created, and I would buy from one
                      or more of them. Unfortunately any such operation would likely have
                      many of the negatives of the current black market supply of drugs and
                      the supply of alcohol in the US during the prohibition era. When
                      governments severely restrict things that people are determined to
                      have, the people will still get them, but at a far higher price and
                      with far less quality control. --Paul]

                      [When governments declare an item or service illegal, they are as much
                      putting out a big "Welcome" sign to those who are unscrupulous and
                      would not hesitate to use whatever harmful means exist to create and
                      maintain what they view as their part of "the market". This does not
                      mean that every person who has provided or does now provide
                      underground products or services uses violent measures to get or keep
                      customers - not at all! But the ones that do are the big players, get
                      lots of publicity as a result of the enormous amounts of taxpayer
                      money spent supposedly to eradicate them. This last is ludicrous since
                      the clear way to eliminate the violence associated with illegal items
                      and services is to remove the illegal label associated with them. But
                      I contend that it is a goal of government to expand itself and adding
                      more enforcers of even more laws is a perfect way to do it - all the
                      while crying that they are "protecting the public".

                      When interactions for trade of any good or services can take place
                      openly without interference from governments, there is no market for
                      the Mafia or any other group of thugs. As it is, I suspect that a fair
                      amount of money or other value is provided to certain politicians
                      and/or bureaucrats, from those who want to maintain their trade in
                      currently illegal items, to keep prohibition laws in effect. And
                      similarly, I suspect that there is a great deal of interest, by these
                      same violence using illegal traders, to promoting the prohibition of
                      even more items that people want. This would obviously increase their
                      business and the fact that they could also charge enormous fees
                      because of the reduced number of suppliers, would put even more money
                      in their pockets.

                      Government intervention in the trade between people will always
                      distort the market with respect to both prices and availability! And
                      it will also make inevitable a certain amount of violence, adding more
                      harm to the lives of people. **Kitty]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.