Sorry to keep bringing up this subject. SORRY ITS LONG DELETE IF YOU ARE NOT INTERSTED.

[Guest guest]

Some of you are probably very aware, others may not have a clue, that why I

am posting this email to this group, to do all I can to let people know

that if you don't stand up to what is happening by supporting the

alliance-natural-health.org, then in years to come your choice of herbal and

nutrititionl supplements will be vastly reduced. This is actually a

very serious situation, so I am trying to my bit- by sharing any

information that I come by.

Things are very serious in Europe, and the lawsuit started by the alliance

to try and stop this happening need all the support they can get. if they

lose this big case, then its likely that Americans to will be the next

victims. They want these laws to screw the whole of the world. Evil or

WHAT! Here is the email.

IAHF Webmaster: Breaking News, Whats New, What to Do, All Countries

IAHF List: in Australia sent me this excellent and timely

article, please read it and pass it on to more vitamin consumers world wide,

and please donate to the ANH lawsuit via

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

I will be in London to monitor the court proceedings. Tomorrow morning I'm

taping a radio show which will air on http://www.goodpoliticsradio.com soon,

I'll let you know exactly when, and next monday I'll be back on Joyce

Riley's show at http://www.thepowerhour.com at 7am west coast US time.

I'm trying to get on more radio shows between now and when I leave for the

UK on January 27th to raise badly needed donations for the ANH lawsuit.

Please encourage more people to donate to the lawsuit, donations can be made

via ANH website at http://www.alliance-natural-health.org The dietary

supplement industry is asleep at the switch. We won't get far trying to

reach out to vitamin companies, they're mostly in denial, we need to focus

on just reaching as many consumers as possible right now as the hour is

late.

http://www.getalife.net.au/mag/nhp_html

Natural Health Products: Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

by

D.Th.D

The complementary medicine industry is huge. World-wide it nets billions of

dollars annually, and in developed countries more than half the population

is increasingly turning to complementary medicine for their preferred

treatment.

Given these statistics it is hardly surprising that governments wish to

rationalize the industry along similar lines to the medical industry.

Currently, there is very little legislation in place that sets the standard

for practitioner training or practice management (standards and monitoring

tends to be under umbrella organizations that represent practitioners), and

most health-related products tend to be listed, rather than registered. A

lack of regulation does not mean that there is risk to the public from these

products or services, it simply means that the industry has few guidelines

at legislative level.

However, governments are now looking to set up international standards which

will then be adopted and transposed into the national law of each country.

When an international standard is applied then this technically reduces

duplication of processes at national levels, lifts some restrictions and

improves trading. For the health market this could facilitate availability

of products and therapeutic advances.

What more could we hope for? Most consumers want guaranteed quality service

and products. We want to know that what we buy works and that we are not

wasting our money. We want safe products and readily available access to

these. What we don't expect is to see is products such as vitamin C, which

have been used for well over 25 years at doses greater than the recommended

daily allowance (RDA) of 50mg/day, stripped from our shelves, placed into a

drug/medicine category which may become a prescription-only item at double

the cost, plus a consultation fee.

What is a drug?

To most people this would be incredible. We all know that vitamin C is not a

drug - or is it? Well let's take a few definitions of what a drug is. The

pharmaceutical classification of a drug or medicine is any product that

" restores, corrects, or modifies physiological functions " in the body. So

technically all our food supplements, herbs and other natural health

products that make any therapeutic claim (either on the label, through

advertising or educational articles) could be classified as drugs. In

Australia, the political stance of the National Medicines Policy 2000 of

Australia1 states " The term " medicine " includes prescription and

non-prescription medicines, including complementary healthcare products. "

In the UK, food supplements come under a food directive (as opposed to a

pharmaceutical directive) but they are still defined as " substances with a

nutritional or physiological effect. " If the pharmaceutical lobby pushes

ahead to have their broad definition enshrined in law then there will be

plenty of hair-splitting over products that have been used safely and

effectively by a large percentage of the community over many years.

Our Protector - The Codex Commission!

We are told that we are being protected. Our interests are represented by

various government and industry bodies at the Codex Commission2, an

international organization of 146 nations (backed by the WTO and UN)

established in 1962 with the aim of setting international standards and

codes for foods. The majority of representations are from the pharmaceutical

industry with little representation from either consumer groups or the

natural health care industry. Through a series of meetings regulatory

frameworks are drawn up by the commission through delegate consensus.

Bringing you up to date on activities, on November 4, 2003, the Codex

Commission met to discuss a science-based framework to establish upper

limits on vitamin and mineral supplement dosage, where any finalized

recommendations become the international standard. They announced a positive

outcome which would pave " the way for the global sale and marketing of

dietary supplements based on objective standards that will simultaneously

preserve consumer safety and fair trade. " 3

However, the Codex Commission deals with food regulations, and their stance

is that under their specific directive you cannot make statements that

ascribe therapeutic action or even the prevention of disease to a food or

food supplement as the two do not go together. In simple terms, as soon as a

therapeutic action is attributed to a product or food it becomes a medicine.

So we have an organization that is going to regulate the industry according

to the view that vitamins and minerals must only be sold in amounts to

prevent deficiencies and designed to be taken as small unit quantities.

Easily obtaining your large dose of vitamin C, which you take when you get a

common cold, could become an impossibility in the future.4

To the consumer, who knows through personal experience the value of natural

health products, this appears ridiculous. However, it is happening. The

European Union is currently harmonizing its regulations among its member

states and transposing them into national law. Germany has already passed

laws to reclassify all supplements and herbs as drugs and, as an example of

these restrictions, the current upper limit on vitamin C, available as an

over-the-counter product, is 50mg. Iceland, Sweden Norway and Denmark have

also implemented similar regulations and the governments will actively

pursue suppliers who break the law. 5

Alliance For Natural Health - a consumer's group

In the UK, a professional pan-European international campaign and advisory

organization, Alliance for Natural Health

(http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/) is currently fighting EU

legislation to maintain continued access to and the supply of safe,

innovative and effective dietary supplements. If it hadn't been for the ANH

lawsuits6 lodged against the Food Supplement Directive, then probably all

food supplements in Europe would now be classified as drugs. Already the EU

has passed a law which will come into effect in 2005 to ban the sale of 300

nutrient forms from the list of 420 that are currently available. This will

affect over 5,000 products (85% of vitamin/mineral products). The

nutrient-forms that have been banned are the more bio-available food-derived

forms that have appeared over the last decade or so as a consequence of

innovative research. In short, we will be back to low potency, inorganic,

synthetic nutrients such as those sold in supermarkets and available years

ago. The banned items include natural vitamin forms such as the mixed

tocopherols (natural vitamin E), carotenoids, and methylcobalamin (B12),

selenomethionine (the common form of selenium found in foods, but the list

does allow inorganic selenium such as sodium selenate and sodium selenite

which is known to be more toxic and deliver less beneficial results), all

forms of sulphur (no MSM!), boron, vanadium, silicon, and most trace

elements, the most readily absorbed and safest forms of calcium, magnesium,

zinc, chromium and molybdenum, and many chelated and plant derived forms. By

2007 the EU is planning to apply similar restrictions to other nutrient

groups such as fatty acids (no more fish oils?), amino acids, fibre, and

plant extracts.

ANH began its challenge against the legality of this Directive in Oct 03.

They argue that the law is irrational from a scientific and economic

standpoint, that it will devastate the industry - both the innovators,

retailers and practitioners - and that the ban is unlawful and not necessary

for the achievement of the Food Supplements Directive's stated purpose for

harmonization of legislation relating to Food Supplements across the 15 EU

member countries to facilitate trade in and availability of food

supplements.6

As agreements are made via consensus within the Codex Commission, and as

there is an unfair representation biased strongly towards the

pharmaceuticals and the EU (the EU carries 15 votes), it is not surprising

that Codex can be used as a tool to force all natural health products out of

the Food Directive and into the Pharmaceutical Directive. If this occurs,

then the Codex Commission has fulfilled its purpose of banning globally " The

distribution of health information concerning vitamins, amino acids,

minerals and other natural products for the prevention and treatment of

diseases .. the sale of vitamins and other natural products which exceed the

guidelines of this Codex commission ... (and) countries that fail to apply

these laws will be punished by international economic sanctions. " 7

A New Definition of " First do no Harm "

Many would argue that this type of rationalization of the industry may be a

good thing as we would be guaranteed the same rigorous controls applied to

drugs to ensure safety, quality and efficacy of the products we buy.

However, in most countries the safety and quality of natural health products

is not the issue as international GMP (good manufacturing practice)

standards prevail, and government agencies, such as the TGA (Therapeutic

Goods Administration, Australia), have enormous powers to enforce

regulations or to remove licenses as appropriate (as seen in the latest Pan

Pharmaceutical recall).

Recognizing that most natural health products are of low risk, have few

potent pharmacological properties and have been safely used for years, the

issue has conveniently switched away from quality and safety to the efficacy

of the products. Do they work? Bearing in mind that these products are

regarded as safe (and the fact that most governments do not usually bother

whether we waste our money or not or indeed poison ourselves with cigarettes

and alcohol), governments are taking the moral high ground and adopting the

ethical stance where they are concerned that indirect harm, not actual harm,

may be caused by complementary therapies: " In addition to the direct health

risks associated with inadequate quality control there is an indirect risk

that the medicine may not be effective. This may compromise, delay or

replace effective actions. " 8

In order to understand this stance we need to factor in the TGA's broadened

concept of " first do no harm " which is a pre-requisite of ethical behaviour

of every healthcare provider. " Harm " now includes the following:

1. Direct harm - adverse reaction, side effects, medicine interaction

or encouraging withdrawal of current therapy

2. Indirect harm - delay in implementing appropriate treatment,

creating unreasonable expectations that may discourage patients from

accepting and dealing effectively with their health problem

3. Economic harm - encouraging expenditure on ineffective and

unnecessary or unsafe medicines and therapies without providing an awareness

of the unproven nature of the treatment or modality being offered might also

lead to direct or indirect harm if money is otherwise no longer available

for living essentials or more-appropriate healthcare management. 9

By translating " current therapy " , " appropriate treatment " , " dealing

effectively, " as mainstream medicine and " ineffective and unnecessary or

unsafe medicines and therapies " as complementary medicine and treatment we

can begin to understand that this concept of harm denies the right of the

consumer to pursue their chosen therapy unless it is mainstream. However, in

the same document the TGA states the primacy of the right of consumers to be

able to make informed choices on matters of healthcare.

The report also asserts that " More and more Australians are looking for

positive health and lifestyle outcomes through the use of complementary

medicine. The majority of alternative medicine users appear to be doing so

not so much as a result of being dissatisfied with conventional medicine but

more because they find these healthcare alternatives to be more congruent

with their own values, beliefs and philosophical orientations toward health

and life. " 10

If this is the case, it is not mirrored in other countries where a recent

survey conducted in the UK11 to determine motivations for trying

complementary and alternative medicine gave their findings. Positive

motivations include: effectiveness, safety, emphasis on holism, control over

treatment, good patient/therapist relationship, non-invasive nature,

accessibility, and among the more negative motivations - dissatisfaction

with (some aspects of) conventional health care: ineffective for certain

conditions; serious adverse effects; poor doctor-patient relationship;

insufficient time with doctor; long waiting lists; " high tech, low touch " ,

rejection of science and technology, rejection of " the establishment " and

desperation! This portrays a very different public attitude to the political

statements made.

Efficacy - And just how are we going to measure this?

Returning to the issue of efficacy - which translates " that medicine must

achieve the goals of therapy by delivering beneficial changes in actual

health outcomes. " (National Medicines Policy, 2000).1 Currently sponsors of

listed products (low-risk) are required to hold evidence to support

indications and claims of their products. Legislation does not require the

TGA to review this evidence as a) there is no criterion in law for the

assessment of the evidence and the cost of doing so is not justified for

a product that is deemed low-risk. Registered health products, which carry a

higher risk, are evaluated by various complementary medicine committees who

make recommendations to the TGA to the suitability of the product for

inclusion into the registered list.

What evidence is required for efficacy and how is it going to be measured?

Will our natural health medicines be subject to the same lengthy drug

approval procedures that cost millions of dollars? Will we have to conduct

clinical trials, and if so, what criteria will be imposed to assess these?

How many drug interactions will have to be tested before a product is deemed

safe? It is acknowledged that formulating the criteria for the evaluation

process will be difficult as many complementary medicines are complex and

may not conform to traditional criteria or methods of evaluation, the

components responsible for their medicinal activity may not be easily

identifiable, and they are rarely used in isolation but part of an

integrated program. Meeting traditional data requirements for an approval

process may prove impossible in the long-term.

If this is the case, is it justifiable to remove or ban products with no

track record of risk, on the basis of being guilty until proven innocent? Is

this really protecting our interests bearing in mind the percentage of

complaints for adverse reactions in 2002 in Australia from complementary

medicines was only 3% but 94% from prescription medicines and 3% from

over-the-counter pharmaceutical products. 12

However we have to accept that there is a substantial gap between the

extensive use of complementary medicines and the evidence to support that

use, and we have to ask ourselves why this is the case. Unlike drugs,

natural health products do not attract a patent, and without patents there

is no data protection or market exclusivity, hence no incentive for

investors to support the complementary medicine industry as the costs

involved in research to generate data needed to supply evidence may not be

recouped.

So if we can't rely on philanthropic investors, how about public funding? It

appears that this is not forthcoming either. " The (TGA) committee noted the

apparent disparity between public funding for prescription and

over-the-counter medicine research and that for complementary medicine

research and the possibility of a bias against complementary research " 13 and

agreed that compared with other medicines some complementary medicines may

offer lower risk and more cost-effective options for the prevention and

treatment of some diseases, conditions and disorders.

Which begs the question - Will we also see the same type of disparity

between approval of complementary health medicine and pharmaceutical drugs

that we see with funding? Drugs are synthetic chemicals used in the

treatment of serious disease or to effect changes in the normal metabolism.

Drugs are clinically tested in trials before approval because of their track

record in causing serious health risks for the population. Natural health

products do not fall into this category, they are not used to treat serious

disease, nor do they carry serious risks.

Take the drug Thalidomide which was responsible for one of the most horrific

" accidents " in medical history. This drug was never approved in the USA as

there was insufficient proof of its safety in humans. However, it was

approved in Canada and the UK. It was soon banned worldwide when it was

discovered that it caused tragic birth defects. The drug affected more than

10,000 children worldwide who were born with gross deformities after their

mothers took the drug during pregnancy. After a long legal battle the drug

manufacturer was forced to pay compensation. The burden was left to the

consumers to take the company to court - not our regulatory " protectors. "

Furthermore, as the drug manufacturers refused to accept legal liability in

the settlement, a pathway was left open to exploit the patent for the drug

to re-enter the marketplace in the future, of which it has recently done.

At issue is who accepts the responsibility for consumer protection in the

pharmaceutical category - the pharmaceuticals who produce the drugs or the

regulatory bodies which set the rules and regulations and give the drug

approval? Both parties can wriggle and make statements such as correlative

evidence is not proof (in simple terms this means that just because a higher

incidence of specific symptoms or even death is noted in a population taking

a specific drug than in the community at large, this does not constitute

sufficient evidence or proof that the drug is the causative agent). We have

an interesting twist to " first do no harm. " By contrast we see an entirely

different interpretation placed on complementary medicine where a widespread

ban on these products may occur not through scientific evidence of harm, but

not enough scientific evidence to prove they either work or don't cause

harm.

This is the way things are going in our move towards harmonization. Our

natural health products will be classified as drugs unless consumers take

moves to protect their health freedom. The outcome would establish the

adoption of stringent laws preventing the use of any food, herb, or

supplement that has physiological benefits. In some cases this will be

achieved by requiring food, herb or supplement manufacturers or growers to

an uneconomic compliance framework similar to the same requirements as for

medical drugs before consumers could use them. From experiences to date this

would have the effect of either making the existing product either too

expensive for the average consumer, forcing the total withdrawal of the

food/product from the market-place and in extreme cases even banning

consumers from growing their own produce or herbs. We are already seeing the

removal of nutritional supplements from the market, and those that remain

have maximum limits known to be of little or no therapeutic value; there are

already reports of police raids on members of the community growing their

own herbs to use as teas - what will it be next - the humble apple and

carrot juice?

A Market Ripe for the Plucking

So why is this all happening now? There are two reasons - the market is ripe

and technology exists to exploit it. To understand this we need to know how

much the industry is worth and how many people use it. According to figures

supplied by a research report organized by the WHO and Geneva Foundation for

Medical Education and Research 14 it is estimated that the complementary

health industry is worth: $US2.7 billion in the US; $US2.3 billion in the

UK; and $US1.0 billion in Canada. It is estimated that between 40% and 90%

of the entire world population use complementary medicine. Cultures that are

more dependent on traditional medicine include in India and Africa, while

elsewhere in countries such as China, Latin America, Chile and Colombia,

traditional medicines are still used widely. In the developed countries 90%

of the German, 75% of the French, 70% of the Canadian, 46% of the UK and 48%

of the Australian populations have all used complementary medicine at least

once in their lifetimes. Furthermore, in Australia the personal expenditure

of complementary medicine is twice the patient expenditure on pharmaceutical

medicines; in the UK, during the year of 1998, 90% of the & #8356;450million

was met by out-of-pocket expenditure,15 and in Malaysia the estimated outlay

on complementary medicine ($US500,000) outstripped that of modern medicine

($US300,000).

Given these statistics, it is far from the minds of governments and

pharmaceuticals to destroy the complementary medicine industry; no, they

want to replace it, control it and if necessary, regulate natural products

out of existence to secure investment. Their ethical stance on natural

substances that have been safely and effectively used by millions of people

for thousands of years, with little to no track record of harm (unlike

pharmaceutical drugs) can be summed up by the words of Professor Ivor Ralph

, Director of Drug Monitoring for the Collaborating Centre (USA)

" About 80 percent of all therapies in use in many countries are made from

herbs according to tradition and experience, and most of these are

multi-molecule herbal medicines that previously could not be standardized

into pharmaceutical versions. As a result, it was previously impossible to

clinically establish whether or not they perform as intended and some may

even cause harm if used incorrectly. " 16

With the market in place, the health industry has been waiting for the

ripening of a technology that will enable industry to patent new products

based on natural medicines. Natural products cannot be patented, but what

can be patented is the technology that isolates and measures the bioactivity

of each active compound of a natural health product and then replicates this

in a laboratory. In the industry this is known as PharmaPrinting or the

production of pharmaceutical versions of natural health products that are

standardized and clinically tested as a pharmaceutical for government

approval.17 We now have patents in the making (or possibly approved by now)

for pharmaceutical versions of Mistletoe, Saw Palmetto, Echinacea, Ginkgo,

St.'s Wort, and Valerian.

What are the costs involved in PharmaPrinting a botanical drug? The initial

cost is approximately $US0.5 million (this cost includes validating

manufacturing under Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines and filing for

patent protection), and the clinical trials between $US6.5 million - $US21.5

million.17 The total process takes between four and five years to complete.

But unless market exclusivity is assured, investors will not invest. In

order to guarantee market exclusivity, the removal or banning of the natural

product is essential. If they are able to ban the use of natural health

products under the guise of protecting consumers from themselves and the

well-publicized unscrupulous natural health industry rogues, then it

provides multi-nationals with the potential to acquire a royalty to be paid

each and every time a patient or consumer uses one of their replacement

products.

The estimates on the size of this market potential vary dramatically making

it almost impossible to define the actual revenue that they are trying to

acquire, but currently if you consider the entire natural, holistic,

alternative market, including the use of foods (like juicing for health

benefits) and factor in the existing healthcare market (last year in the US

alone this was worth $US1.5 trillion) - that is the magnitude in scale of

the market that a small number of multi-nationals are trying to corner and

control. If we factor in genetically modified foods we have quite an ugly

scenario. As many of our natural foods are increasingly producing

" side-effects " and allergic reactions (which may be fatal in some cases) in

a significant number of the population, I have to ask what the future holds

for us regarding legislation on our food: will the offending compounds be

isolated and replaced by new genetically modified foods, and if so, will our

natural foods be banned as unsafe with global regulations to enforce

legislation and the use of GM foods? Or will we be allowed to revert to

sustainable organic farming practices, a clean food chain, and enjoy a diet

that has sustained the human population for thousands, if not millions, of

years? In a millisecond of time, we have managed to devastate the

environment to a point where it may no longer be sustainable, and we are

watching the increasing toll of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes - the

so-called affluent diseases - on human life. The most worrying aspect is

that history shows us how powerful chemical companies appear to enjoy thirty

years grace in which to market a product that has previously been found to

have toxic effects on the environment and despite the catalogue of

environmental disasters (DDT, dioxins, PCBs, PVCs) that have taken such a

human toll, the companies responsible have been able to avoid true

accountability on the basis that correlative evidence is inadmissible. In

the meantime we, and our children, carry the cost and the burden.

Do You Care Enough?

Within the next decade most people will may not be able to afford medical

treatment. A report from the US indicates that due to the rising costs of

new patented drugs and procedures that the industry is expected to account

for 17% of the US gross domestic product by the year 2012 leaving those

consumers, who already pay the equivalent of their annual mortgage on full

healthcare insurance, unable to absorb these rising costs. 18 How much of

our disposable income does this industry want, especially if it corners the

alternative sector as well.

Do you care now? Will you care if you become locked into a system where you

may not be able to afford healthcare and are impotent to rectify it? Will

you care if you are robbed of the tools with which to handle your own

health? You probably will.

Looking to the immediate future the changes we may face within the next few

years will impact various sectors of our community:

§ Manufacturers who supply the raw materials may bear the brunt and

those for whom it isn't cost-effective to provide the dossiers and the

funding for approval may sell out to the pharmaceuticals.

§ Companies that formulate the products, if the raw materials are

not approved, will be unable to produce and supply their products, and they

may sell out to the pharmaceuticals.

§ Distributors of products that are banned for over-the-counter

sale (dosages exceed the upper limit) may be able to continue with existing

products (providing they are not banned) or new products, providing they

supply to a practitioner market.

§ Those who have built businesses through network marketing and

sell to the general consumer will find that both the restrictions on dosage

and the banning of some of the more bio-available nutrients will limit the

range of their stock and be the death of the exclusivity factor that their

brand may have offered in the past.

§ Retailers will not be happy to see the size of their stock

diminish, but if something comes along to replace it - then this may

suffice.

§ Practitioners may still have access to certain products, but

again many products may be banned. It will make it extremely difficult for

practitioners to do their job without the tools of their trade. The TGA have

also raised questions as to the professional ethics of practitioners who

prescribe and dispense products, indicating that commercial incentive could

bring bias in product choice. It is possible that chemists may be required

to undertake this role of dispensing all natural health products.

Practitioners who genuinely supplement their income from profits made on

products will have no choice other than to raise their fees.

§ Consumers for whom the medical industry can give no hope and who

are getting good results with their chosen natural therapy, will be

devastated.

§ Consumers may not tolerate the inflated prices of previously

low-cost, safe products. We have already experienced this inflation when

tryptophan, a common amino acid, became a " drug " - the price nearly doubled.

Many products will become prescription-only and this will incur the

additional cost of a consultation.

§ Some consumers will oppose the legislation on ethical grounds,

but many may not care at all.

What is certain is that the full force hasn't hit yet because these changes

are being phased in. By the time we wake up it would take an unlikely event,

such as mass consumer outrage to reverse legislation in a single country and

even if this were to occur it's likely that the country in question would

evoke retribution from the WTO through trade sanctions. However, consumers

have never been so well organized due to the internet and we may well see

this battle being strong enough to generate the world's first global

consumer rejection of international policy.

If you feel concerned about these issues there are many ways you can support

these efforts. You may write, join or set up your own e-petition to Members

of Parliament. Fundamentally, the issue is simple and I have listed a few

important points that you may like to consider when making your

representation:

§ We feel that natural health products have a long track record of

safety, they are not dangerous and therefore should not be banned

§ We wish to see the high standards of manufacture maintained

§ We wish to maintain the current listing and registration of

products on the ARTG (Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods), which

currently lists around 16,000 products, and encourage the Agency to broaden

their lists to include products which are currently available from other

countries which have equally stringent regulations, such as the USA.

§ Any new compliance framework should be economic and not unduly

onerous for low to medium risk products.

§ Public funding should be made available for research into

Complementary Medicine as it is for pharmaceuticals

§ The burden of proof should lie within the government to produce

evidence to show lack of safety of any Natural Health Product before its

removal from the market. We are not making the statement " Innocent Until

Proven Guilty " as the compounds used in formulations are already rigorously

controlled before approval, and in the case of herbs, have been used for

thousands of years to no ill-effect. Legislation which bans or removes

Complementary Health Products upon any other basis can only raise the

question of collusion with multi-nationals.

If you wish to make a financial contribution to the Alliance for Natural

Health then this is a good way forward. This group is legally challenging

the EU on its Pharmaceuticals Directive, its Food Supplements Directive, its

Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive, Health Claims Regulations

and Codex Alimentarius. You may feel that Europe is very far away but what

happens in Europe at a legislative level paves the way for the rest of the

world. By addressing these issues through the European Courts we stand the

best chance of legally halting the process, negotiating fair terms and most

importantly, preserve our access to natural health products in their

natural state. If you wish to make a donation then please go to their

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

In Australia you may like to join and make financial contributions to the

Natural Health Care Alliance http://www.nhca.com.au This group's primary

aim is to speak with a united voice for natural therapies, to lobby at

governmental level and respond to industry needs. " The primary goal is to

bring together Natural Healthcare / Complementary Medicine under a common

banner to take the positive story to the media, politicians and regulators,

and to protect the valuable contribution we ALL make to the healthcare of

Australians. " This group needs our support.

© , 2004

Print as a PDF

is an author and publisher, who lectures widely in the UK,

USA and Australia. She holds regular workshops around Australia in

Detoxification and Nutritional Healing. Her book " Get a Life: the

Detoxification Diet Made Easy! " and her double audio CD " The Principles of

Detoxification " are available on-line from her web-site, www.getalife.net.au

A copy of this article is also available at

http://www.getalife.net.au/file_folder/nhp.pdf

If you would like permission to publish or reprint this article then please

contact the author at kathryn@...

Other useful sites include:

http://www.IAHF.com

http://www.paradigm-changes.com

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/

http://www.nhca.com.au

1. National Medicines Policy, 2000.

http://www.nmp.health.gov.au/pdf/nmp2000.pdf

2. Jackie Buchanan: " Codex Alimentarius and what it means to you. "

http://ahha.org/codexbuchanan.htm

3. Council for Responsible Nutrition: " Codex Committee Backs

Science-Based Safety Standards for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. "

http://www.crnusa.org/shellnr110403.html

4. Tips: " Rearranging the Ships on the Titanic. " January 2004,

Whole Foods Magazine http://www.thenhf.com/codex_09.htm

Eve Hillary: " TGA Skeletons - who privatized the Regulator? "

http://users.bigpond.com/spiney.norman/tga.eve.hillary.htm

" ANH lodges lawsuit against the Food Supplements Directive. "

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action=news & ID=35

Dr. Rath Foundation: " The Documentation About Codex Alimentarius; What are

the aims of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. "

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/health_movement_a

gainst_codex/health_movement02.htm

TGA expert committee report, September 2003: " Complementary Medicines in the

Australian Health System. " p65 http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/cmreport.pdf

Ibid., p8

Ibid., p43

School of Postgraduate Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Exeter,

Exeter EX2 4NT: " The role of complementary and alternative medicine

Department of Complementary Medicine "

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7269/1133

TGA expert committee report, September 2003, p12

http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/cmreport.pdf

Ibid., p25

Postgraduate Course: Research Methodology in Traditional Medicine and

Complementary/Alternative Medicine.

http://www.gfmer.ch/TMCAM/PGC_TMCAM_2004.htm

KJ, Nicholl JP, P: " Use and expenditure on complementary

medicine in England: a population based survey. " Medical Centre Research

Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield,

Sheffield, UK.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_ui

ds=11264963 & dopt=Abstract

Hammell: " 'PharmaPrinting': The Medical Industrial Complex Wants

Control of Your Herbs. " http://www.iahf.com/pharma.html

Ibid.

Lusetich; " Condition Critical for US Healthcare, " The Australian,

January 9th, 2004.

http://www.usc.edu/ext-relations/news_service/chronicle_html/1997.01.06.html

/Meet_USC's_New_Health_Eco.html

Return to Magazine

For Health Freedom,

C. Hammell, President

International Advocates for Health Freedom

556 Boundary Bay Road

Point , WA 98281-8702 USA

http://www.iahf.com

jham@...

800-333-2553 N.America

360-945-0352 World