terug naar:  www.jankraak-taichitao.nl
 
Codex Alimentarius om voedsel te vergiftigen met GM, gifstoffen en groeihormonen met medewerking van WHO en FAO. Vitamines en kruiden e.d worden illegaal

Codex Alimentarius is bedoeld om alle macht over voedsel in handen van enkelingen te krijgen met medewerking van WHOen FAO

 

Video Dit is uw toekomst, maar je kunt het stoppen 

Het verbieden van kruiden, vitamines en gezonde gewassen
De Codex Alimentarius komt er aan.
31 december 2009 is het gedaan

Het grimmige complot om dieren, gewassen, voedsel ongezonder te maken
en de macht over voedsel in handen van enkelingen te brengen

In België is de Codex Alimentarius al vervroegd in werking gesteld.

Het verstoren van het evenwicht in de voedselproductie

Het verstoren van de harmonie, door verstoring van het natuurlijk proces

Medische missers leidt steeds meer tot overstap naar alternatieve geneeswijzen


Wetenschappelijk onderzoek niet meer onafhankelijk. Banden met farmaceutische industrie

Er zijn krachten bezig die de macht over voedsel willen hebben. In de Codex Alimentarius wordt dat geregeld. Eind 2008 moet dat wereldwijd zijn beslag krijgen. In de Codex Alimentarius staat de hele agenda. De verwachting is dat regeringen erin mee gaan en de politiek het geen strobreed in de weg zal leggen. Maar hoe zit het met het publiek?
Zolang het publiek het niet weet komt er ook geen publiek opinie en ook geen publiek verzet.

De Codex Alimentarius komt er aan.
31 december 2009 is het gedaan

 

De gegevens zijn gebaseerd op officiële documenten

Niettemin geloven sommige mensen, beroepsverenigingen en media
het niet.

LAAT JE STEM HOREN !!!!

We willen het niet geloven of kunnen het niet geloven en denken dat het allemaal wel mee zal vallen maar... 
de medische industrie is zeer doelgericht bezig om zich van de steeds groter wordende concurrentie van alternatieve geneesmiddelen te ontdoen en als we niet opkomen voor ons recht om zelf te kunnen kiezen waarmee we onze gezondheid willen ondersteunen, dan gaat door wat als wet al helemaal klaar ligt voor de EU om volgend jaar te worden uitgevoerd. Het gaat hier over de Codex Alimentarius en de wet die per 31 dec 2009 ingaat.

De site waarop handtekeningen actie gevoerd wordt: http://www.eliant.eu/new/lang/en/?p=4

Ze hebben 1 miljoen handtekeningen nodig en ze hebben er nu nog maar iets meer dan 300 000. Klik bovenaan op de Nederlandse vlag dan komt er een Nederlands pop-up scherm waar je kunt tekenen.

De handtekeningenlijst is volgens mij niet erg bekend bij de mensen, dus het zou mooi zijn als daar wat aandacht aan besteed wordt. Stuur hem door naar zoveel mogelijk mensen.
Een voorbeeld uit de praktijk:

"Als voorproefje op deze wet is onlangs in Belgie met een distributeur het volgende gebeurd: 
In Belgie hebben ze de Europese wet vervroegd in laten gaan omdat ze geen geschikte wet hadden.
Bijna alle produkten, waaronder vloeibare vitamines, Psylium (wat gewoon een grassoort is tegen koliek) zijn in beslag genomen om te worden vernietigd of wat dan ook. De distributeur is verhoord en heeft een proces verbaal gekregen.
De tijd dringt dus."

Link naar een zeer informatieve site:
http://www.jankraak-taichitao.nl/content/website.php?hoofdpagina_id=1184

www.colloidaalzilver.nl 

www.hvandervet.nl

Je maakt vrijwel elk product verdacht, komt dan met een maatregel en zegt dat dit in het belang van de consument is, maar die is juist de dupe en heeft geen enkele keuzevrijheid meer.

In Amerika heeft de FDA (Food and Drugs Adminstration) er druk werk van gemaakt. Je kreeg gelegenheid om te mening te geven, maar na een paar maanden is die mogelijkheid op 30 april 2007 gestopt

On April 30, 2007 the FDA will close the public comment period on
a "Guidance" which will effectively classify many alternative health practices and supplements as drugs.

Nu al zijn de kruiden-zaken aan regels gebonden. Ze mogen niet zeggen dat een kruid of kruidenmengsel een medicinale werking heeft. Op hun websites mogen ze zelfs geen artikelen over kwalen zetten. Ze mogen dat wel, maar dan moeten ze een aparte site maken zonder hun kruidenproducten. De belemmeringen worden onder de Codex Alimentarius nog strenger. Belachelijk natuurlijk. Want kruiden worden al duizenden jaren tegen allerlei kwalen gebruikt en de kennis hierover is al enkele duizenden jaren oud.

 

Kruidenoverzicht Kruidenhuis Jade. Kruiden duizenden jaren kennis en ervaring

 

Het gaat hier om een ernstige beknotting waaraan inmiddels 149 landen aan mee gaan werken, ook Nederland en België. De WHO, FAO en WTO werken er aan mee. De FDA heeft een lange lijst met beknottingen opgesteld. Ik zal er een paar noemen: groentesappen vallen onder drugs. Ook rauwe groentesappen vallen onder drugs. Als je rauwe groentesappen maakt en aanbiedt als therapie ben je strafbaar. Kersen, zo heeft de Codex uitgevonden, hebben veel gevaren in zich. 

 

Propaganda-campagne tegen vitamines en mineralen begonnen
Negatieve berichtgeving over vitamines begonnen


 

Anti-Supplement Propaganda
4-16-8

 

 

Behalve tegen vitamines en kruiden vallen ook hulpmiddelen voor
aanvullende geneeswijzen onder de Codex

 

Arrestatie

 

Massage olie en cremes idem. Met verbouwen van algemene kruiden word je aangemerkt als drugsdealer en zal je gearresteerd worden. Alles dat in elk systeem gebruikt wordt als therapie wordt als medisch beschouwd en valt onder drugs, inclusief biofeedbackapparaten, acupunctuur naalden, zelfs een kop kruidenthee of water valt onder drugs. Eigenaren van Vitaminewinkels worden gearresteerd en veroordeeld voor praktiseren van medisch handelen zonder vergunning. Burgers die eigenaar zijn van niet bewezen medicijnen, vitamines en kruiden, zullen invallen krijgen door gewapende agenten en de inboedel zal worden geconfiskeerd. De FDA-lijst is nog langer. Het komt er op neer alles wat andersoortig en alternatief is en al eeuwen zonder schade wordt gebruikt wordt krachtig aangepakt. Ook boeken die over alternatieve gezondheidsmethodes gaan zullen op de korrel worden genomen. De FDA beschermt aspartaam, sucralose/Splenda, kankerverwekkende voedingsproducten en bestrijdingsmiddelen, het gebruik van hormoonvlees, genetisch gemanipuleerde gewassen, enz. Docenten tai chi tao, natuurartsen, acupuncturisten, masseurs, makers van natuurlijke biologisch cosmetica etc., krijgen met de beperkingen te maken en worden als crimineel en gevaarlijk betiteld. De criminelen in de FDA en farmaceutische industrie krijgen vrij spel.

Mensen zijn sowieso al de speelbal van de grollen van regeringen en overgeleverd aan de regelingen die overheden treffen. Datzelfde doet de FDA, WHO, FAO en WTO.

FDA Announces Plan to Eliminate Vitamin Companies
Your ability to purchase supplements in the US may be more expensive and far more difficult if this change goes through as planned.

 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/supplmnt.html Rules of FDA aangaande
vitamines

Example of Vitamin and Mineral Guideline Harm: Forbidding Vitamin C Above 200mg/Day

Codex Alimentarius would make Vitamin C above 60-200mg per day illegal (the exact limits have not yet been set). If Codex is implemented in the U.S., Vitamin C of doses higher than a tiny amount would become as illegal as the hard drug heroin! And junk science (toxicology for nutrients) would be used to set the dosage.

Het ministerie van landbouw en het ministerie van gezondheid in ons land wijst ook op de
Codex Alimentarius op hun websites. Maar ze verzwijgen de richtlijnen die beperkingen
inhouden. Wel wordt verwezen naar de procedures van een commissie, maar vrijwel alle
verwijzingen zijn in het Engels, Frans, Chinees en zelfs Arabisch. De werkelijk inhoud wordt
verzwegen. Ik heb de richtlijnen wel, maar de lange lijst is in het Engels die ik hier onder
helemaal publiceer. Voor het gemak heb ik er een uittreksel uit gemaakt.
Maar je kunt ook een video met Nederlandse ondertiteling over de werkelijke bedoelingen
bekijken.

Maatregelen die het welzijn van mensen ontwrichten. Enkele voorbeelden die zijn bedacht
en als inleiding gelden naar de Codex Alimentarius. 
 

Je zou het niet verwachten. in China, het land van yin en yang. De Chinese regering kondigde jaren geleden het één kind beleid af. In een maatschappij waarin men veel liever jongetjes geboren ziet worden dan meisjes, wordt  de geboorte van een dochter als een last gezien. Veel meisjes verdwenen of werden aan buitenlanders afgestaan ter adoptie.

Door het één kind beleid zit China nu met een ernstig vrouwentekort. Een voorbeeld van ingrijpen in de natuur. Want de natuur heeft vrouw en man voortgebracht en de verhouding is 50 procent vrouwen en 50 procent mannen. Dat is gewoon een natuurwet. Als door een oorlog of oorlogen veel mannenlijke soldaten sneuvelen, dan ontstaat er in het oorlogvoerende land een vrouwenoverschot. Wat is nu het verwonderlijke? Een bepaalde natuurkracht zorgt er voor dat er dan weer meer jongetjes geboren worden. Moeder Aarde doet het. Maar er zijn ook meisjes verdwenen en door ouders afgestaan voor adoptie. Nederland heeft aan de adoptie meegewerkt. Maar die adoptie is veroorzaakt door het één kindbeleid.

Nog een voorbeeld van yin en yang. Yin staat onder anderen voor koud en yang voor warmte. Dus tropische gebieden zijn yang. De natuur heeft er voor gezorgd dat daar in grote hoeveelheden vele soorten fruit groeit en fruit is yin. Je hebt dan weer balans in yin en yang. Het fruit is daar niet door mensen geteeld, nee, daar heeft Moeder Natuur voor gezorgd. In koelere (yin) gebieden wordt meer voedsel aangeboden die yang, dus verwarmend zijn. Maar door import van en eten van veel fruit (koud) voeg je in koudere landen koude energie toe. Dat verstoort je lichaamsbalans in yin en yang. Dat doet ook dieetvoeding om gewicht te verliezen.

Als je energetisch leert te denken dan leer je ook over balans van yin en yang. Wat de voeding betreft zijn steeds meer mensen door de voedingsindustrie en zogenaamde dieetdeskundigen in 20 jaar tijd veel zwaarder en zwakker geworden. Vroeger aten de mensen de producten van de seizoenen en volwaardiger voeding maar dat kun je nu vrijwel niet meer zeggen. Om overgewicht te lijf te gaan worden lapmiddelen gebruikt met afslankproducten, minder eten en je in het zweet te trainen. Je spreekt hier over twee uitersten die je energetisch balans geen goed doen. Je bent overgeleverd aan de waan van de dag.

De Frankenstein experimenten

Intussen wordt het evenwicht in de voedselketen verstoord door menselkijk ingrijpen, of beter gezegd doorde macht van de voedingsindustrie en bedrijven als Monsanto, Kraft en Wal-Mart, die zonder geweten aspartaam, sucralose, sorbitol en genetisch gemanipuleerd/gemodificeerde; producten in je voedsel stoppen. Ik keek toevallig op verpakte roerbakgroente bij de super en kon mijn ogen niet geloven: er was al gemodificeerd spul in verwerkt. Mais en soja is al genetisch gemanipuleerd, niet alleen voor menselijk voedsel maar ook diervoeding. De varkens en koeien nemen dat weer op en geven dat na de slacht weer door aan de mens.
Natuurlijke gewassen lopen hierdoor gevaar, maar ook de insecten in en boven de grond. Het ecologisch evenwicht wordt verstoord. Je hebt die beestjes en vogels nodig voor de verspreiding van zaden, de natuur heeft ze niet voor niets geschapen.

Ook zalm wordt in kweekvijvers genetisch gemanipuleerd, 2 zalmen van dezelfde leeftijd. De grootste is genetiisch gemodificeerd.

Experimenten op mensen door wetenschappers

Gerommel met onze voeding, zie animatiefilm:
Dit is uw toekomst, maar je kunt het stoppen 

 

BAD SEED: The Truth About Our Food Video

Wetenschappelijk onderzoek niet meer onafhankelijk. Banden met farmaceutische industrie

Monsanto Workers Ban GMO Foods From Their Own Cafeteria
Personeel Monsanto wil in bedrijfskantie genetisch gemanipuleerd voedsel uitbannen. Dat is een teken aan de wand dat er iets niet deugt.


Naast het genetisch gemanipuleer met de voeding, worden natuurlijke producten verndert in andere Frankenstein voedsel. Er worden al genen van dieren met genen van gewassen vermengd. Minister Hoogervorst heeft een miljoen euro beschikbaar gesteld voor de ontwikkeling van kweekvlees uit stamcellen.
Koeloos en varkensloos vlees. Dat vraagt ook weer om moeilijkheden. De overheid financiert het. Er worden voedselproducten ontwikkeld die slecht voor de mens en de gezondheid uitpakken.

We kennen de bio-industrie, de mestkalveren, de overvolle kippenfokbedrijven, de overvolle varkensboerderijen. Dieren die snel opgefokt worden en aan bloedarmoede lijden. Geen gezond vlees.
Dat gaat ook met vis gebeuren. Je hebt nu al kweekvis. Zalm is alleen zalm als het wildvang is. Maar ze worden nu al gekweekt in kweekvijvers en hier geldt dan ook productie-productie en antibiotica en andere medicjnen om ziektes te voorkomen. Er is al zalm die door genetische manipulatie snel groeien en twee keer zo groot worden. Dus meer zalm van één exemplaar. Hoe meer dit gebeurt hoe bedreigender dit wordt voor de natuurlijke wilde zalm. Want als kweekzalm in het wild terecht komt en paren dan sterft de wilde soort uit. Dit is nu al het geval. Vis is alleen goed vis als het wildvang is. Maar je hebt steeds meer vis uit kweekvijvers. Kijk maar eens bij je visboer of je een lekkerbekje of kibbelingen van kweekvis besteld. Mijn visboer zei: 'Het gevolg van deze ontwikkeling is dat je misschien over vijf jaar geen normaal vis meer kan kopen'. De experimenten met klonen gaat door. Er zijn al enkele jaren wetenschappers bezig om te kijken hoe je mensen en dieren met elkaar kunt kruisen.

Verstoring door Biobrandstof

Nu komt de biobrandstof op. Het kan onder meer gemaakt worden van mais, maar ook van andere gewassen. Daarvoor moet je landbouwgrond onttrekken aan de voedselproductie. Wat zo mooi lijkt wordt voor veel mensen een catestrofe. Nu al stijgt de prijs van mais. Daardoor wordt mais voor menselijke consumptie duurder, waardoor Mexicanen en Indianen het dubbele moeten neertellen voor voeding dat eerder nog betaaldbaar was. Zo gaan nog meer mensen honger lijden. Dat dit zou gebeuren kan je voorspellen. Maar wat gaat er gebeuren? De plannen voor biobrandstof gaan door. Dat het evenwicht wordt verstoord maakt blijkbaar niets uit. Mais telen in Europa voor biobrandstof zal niet gebeuren, want dat is te duur. In arme landen is het goedkoper.

Dit zijn nog maar enkele voorbeelden van wat ons boven het hoofd hangt en ons welzijn en onze gezondheid bedreigen. Het evenwicht wordt verstoord. Gezondheid is een product, de pati?nt is geen mens, maar een product. Als gevolg van de marktwerking. Over de marktwerking in de gezondheidszorg en andere sectoren heb ik al in vorige columns geschreven. Meer medicijnen en vaccins, meer ziektes. Alternatieven manieren worden zullen steeds meer hiner gaan ondervinden door beperkende regels. De Codex Alimentarius is daar een voorbeeld van. Nooit van gehoord. Dan wordt het tijd. Ik heb het al een poos op mijn site staan, omdat de pers het verzuimd om mensen te waarschuwen.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/157198/1/ protest burgers tegen gekloond vlees

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php plus video

Vitaminen, kruiden, mineralen VERBODEN, ILLEGAAL per 31/12/2009
11:17 AM 11th Dec 2006 video Nederlands ondertiteld

Holistische gezondheid houdt niet op bij het lichaam
maar heeft ook betrekking op de Aarde en wat daarop
gebeurt

FDA: Herbs, supplements en juice are drugs De Food and Drugs Administration verklaart juice, kruiden en supplementen tot drugs

How the Government is Threatening Your Freedom to Use Supplements
This interesting video shows how CODEX is a major challenge to your health freedom. Codex Alimentarius

The Real Face of The European Union (EU) video

Column over gevaren Monosodium Glutamaat in voeding

Het nieuwe HPV vaccin tegen baarmoederhalskanker heeft de eerste doden al afgeleverd. Human Papilloma Virus 

De Codex Alimentarius is opgezet om alles wat met voedsel te maken heeft onder controle te krijgen. In de Codex staat ook dat elk dier voor consumptie moet worden behandeld met antibiotica en Bovine groeihormonen van Monsanto (!!!) Het is maar een van de vele voorbeelden wat ons te wachten staat. Dit wordt gedekt door de WHO, World Health Organization en de voedselorganisatie FAO. De Codex vormt een groot gevaar maar ga daarvoor de video zien. Mensen die met gezondheid bezig zijn als docent of als therapeut willen mensen beter maken, maar staan toe dat ze aan de andere kant ongezond worden gemaakt. Als je het over yin en yang hebt moet je de ogen ook open hebben voor wat er om je heen gebeurt.

De ware betekenis van de Europese Grondwet

We zijn gewoon een speelbal. Eén Europa heeft voordelen is ons verteld. Elk land moet daarvoor zijn souvereiniteit inleveren. Brussel trekt steeds meer bevoegdheden naar zich toe. De Europese Grondwet heeft nog meer beperkingen voor ons in petto. Daardoor wordt het evenwicht in cultuur en identiteit van een land en de inwoners afgepakt. Het is goed om dat nu te weten, want straks kun je niet meer terug. Je vraagt je af wat ze met mensen van plan zijn, wat is dit voor een bizarre agenda?

                                      

De logica is zoek

Ja, de logica is zoek. Neem nu de stroom asielzoekers die de overheid wil indammen door een strenger toelatingsbeleid en mensen geen status te geven en terug te sturen. De stroom asielzoekers en vluchtelingen kun je alleen maar stoppen door te stoppen met het zeggen van stop tegen deze mensen, maar stop te eisen aan de oorlogen en conflicten in de wereld. Nu ga je mensen in nood straffen door in onzekerheid te laten zitten en terug te sturen in de levensbedreigende ellende waar ze vandaan komen. De oorlogen en conflicten zorgen voor de ontwrichting en het verstoren van yin en yang..Kijk en behandel de oorzaak. Nederland wordt trouwens steeds meer in oorlogen betrokken. Leiders veroorzaken chaos en dan is het logisch dat je problemen veroorzaakt. Dat het één kindbeleid in China geen goed idee zou zijn was te voorzien. Nu zitten ze met de brokken en is er een drastisch tekort aan meisjes en huwbare vrouwen.

Eén Europa is een puur economische gemeenschap, en een Nederlander of Fransman zal nooit een Europeaan worden. Je levert niet zomaar je cultuur en identiteit in. Met de invoering van één munt, de euro, is alles duurder geworden, maar als je dat zegt, ben je dom, want de voorstanders zeggen dat het niet zo is. Met één Europa zijn er geen grenzen meer, maar dan gaan landen er toe over om tol te heffen en barrieres op te werpen. Ons land heeft ook al eens eerder een autovignet gehad, een hele operatie, maar na een tijdje werd het weer afgeschaft. Nederland richt zich nu op rekeningrijden. Je lost er geen files en verstoppingen mee op. Het betekent ook geen verbetering voor het milieu. Files verminder  je door het openbaar goedkoper en beter te maken. Dan zorg je voor een beter evenwicht, kwestie van yin en yang. Rekeningrijden heeft een nadeel van controle. Per sateliet kun daardoor overal gevolgd worden. Stel nu dat je regelmatig ergns naar je moslimvrienden gaat, een hele vriendelijke familie. Je kunt zomaar de pineut worden, niet door die familie, maar doordat je verdachte wordt.

Kom tot bezinning

Het wordt steeds gekker, ze creëren dingen om het beter te maken en het wordt steeds slechter, waardoor er weer niet populaire maatregelen worden genomen om het minder slecht te maken, waarna het bureaucratischer wordt en een nieuw plan moet worden bedacht die later net zo slecht blijkt te zijn.
Als ze van zogenaamd hoger hand het niet veranderen, moeten de mensen maar eens na gaan denken.

Begin je te bezinnen, begin met overdenken en scheidt zin en onzin van elkaar. Ontdek wat er werkelijk aan de hand is. Het zit anders in elkaar dan ze je willen doen geloven. Begin er mee om harmonie te scheppen. Daar word je een stuk rustiger en gezonder van. Als ze het van hogerhand niet doen, doe wij het wel onderling en samen. Is het nog niet doorgedrongen? Denk dan aan de verloedering, de conflicten, de slechtejeugdzorg, het kweekvlees, aan kweekvis, aan genetisch gemanipuleer, het gestoei met genen, aan de experimenten met klonen en het kruisen van mensen en dieren, denk aan de Codex Alimentarius e.d.

Dan is er nog hoop voor de mensheid, voor je kinderen, het mileiu en het ecologisch evenwicht. Die nieuwe energieën zijn gaan en kunnen je helpen om je op een hoger plan te brengen.

'Je kunt de problemen niet laten oplossen
door degenen die ze hebben veroorzaakt'.
Albert Einstein

Codex Allows Seven Deadly Pesticides Banned by Stockholm Convention and US Law


De zeven verboden toxins in voedsel worden door de Codex wel toegestaan.

The seven restricted POPs banned by both the Stockholm Convention and US law but permitted by Codex are
Aldrin, Chlordane, ,
Dieldrin,
Endrin, Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene and Mirex.


Toxiphene and DDT are the only two POPs pesticides on the Stockholm POPs list which Codex does not allow.

 

 

 

Vaccinaties bedreigen de mensheid

Het nieuwe HPV vaccin tegen baarmoederhalskanker heeft de eerste doden al afgeleverd. Human Papilloma Virus

 

 

Monsanto leus: Wie de zaden levert, controleert het voedsel

 

                                

Monsanto en Codex Alimentarius pakken je steeds meer af en beheersen straks alle voedsel. Ze manipuleren voedsel dusdanig dat ze er patent op kunnen nemen. Boeren die voor Monsanto produceren en hun genetisch gemanipuleerde gewassen en zaden en bestrijdingsmiddel Round Up gebruiken hebben nu niets meer in te brengen en zij kunnen niet terug.

 

+ PATENTENBUREAU ZIET GEREDE TWIJFEL BIJ PATENTEN MONSANTO


Naar aanleiding van verzoeken eerder dit jaar van de Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) zal het Amerikaanse Patentenbureau USPTO dieper ingaan op vier gg-gewas-gerelateerde patenten van Monsanto. De landbouwgigant gebruikt de patenten om Amerikaanse boeren onder druk te zettten, te intimideren, aan te klagen en leiden in sommige gevallen tot hun faillissement. Het USPTO accepteerde de verzoeken omdat het PUBPAT nieuw bewijs had geleverd waardoor ?gerede twijfel? is ontstaan naar de patenteerbaarheid van alle claims die in de vier patenten gedaan worden.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7371

+ DIRECTEUREN DOCHTER MONSANTO BEBOET
Het hooggerechtshof van Carcassonne (Aude, Frankrijk) heeft twee ex-directeuren van Monsanto's voormalige dochterbedrijf Asgrow veroordeelt tot boetes van 15.000 Euro elk. In april 2006 werden sporen van illegale GGO's in soja ontdekt.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7396

 

+ PIONIER LONGKANKERONDERZOEK KREEG GELD VAN CHEMISCH CONCERN
In de tijd dat hij onderzoek deed naar de risico's voor kanker stond de beroemde Britse wetenschapper Sir Richard Doll op de loonlijst van Monsanto. Hij zou in de jaren tachtig bijna 1400 Euro per dag van Monsanto gekregen hebben voor advieswerk.
Epidemioloog Doll kreeg ook geld van de Chemical Manufacturers Association en de bedrijven Dow Chemicals en ICI. Volgens Doll's werk was er geen verband tussen de chemische industrie en kanker, een conclusie die niet overeenkomt met de analyse van de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie WHO.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7376
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7378
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7380

 

+ "GG-DRUIVEN: ANGST VOOR FRANKENWIJN"


Wegens plannen voor veldproeven met gg-druiven in Zuid-Afrika hebben inkopers in Groot Brittannië (een van Zuid-Afrika's belangrijkste exportlanden) en Duitsland bestellingen voor Zuid-Afrikaanse wijn geannuleerd.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7390

Protesteer per e-mail tegen de gg-wijn -erg makkelijk-:
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=87&page=1

 

GENTECH EN GEKLOONDE DIEREN


+ HET OMEGA-3 VARKEN

Een gekloond gg-varken met hogere gehaltes aan omega-3 vetzuren zou niet toegestaan moeten worden op de markt en is een verspilling van kostbare onderzoeksbronnen, zo schrijft dr. Autumn Fiester in een brief aan het wetenschappelijk tijdschrift Nature Biotechnology.

?...het is niet goed dat de neiging zo sterk is om voor elk wissewasje gentechnologie in te zetten. We kunnen daar zulke ingrijpende veranderingen mee doorvoeren, het gaat zo snel, en het heeft dermate grote mogelijke gevolgen voor de dieren, het milieu en onszelf ? voor de wereld zoals we die kennen ? dat we even op de plaats rust zouden moeten houden. Het is naïef om te geloven dat deze techniek, zonder beperkingen toegepast, alleen kleinschalige gevolgen zal hebben. Dit recentste werk [het omega-3 varken] zegt heel veel over ons, en het zegt niet veel goeds. Een wetenschapper zei over het potentieel van het omega-3 varken: ?Mensen kunnen hun junkfood blijven eten. Je hoeft je dieet niet aan te passen, want je zult binnenkrijgen wat je nodig hebt?. We wijzigen het genoom van een dier om consumenten in staat te stellen om hun zelfvernietigende eetgewoonten vol te houden. Wat zegt dit over ons en is het reden genoeg om dieren te manipuleren die het vermogen tot voelen hebben?
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7418

 

+ BINNEN ENKELE MAANDEN MELK EN VLEES VAN KLONEN IN SUPERMARKT VS
 
De verkoop van melk en vlees van gekloonde dieren is een stap dichterbij gekomen nadat de regering van de VS het besluit heeft uitgevaardigd dat de producten veilig zijn voor consumptie en zonder nadere aanduiding verkocht mogen worden in de supermarkt.

Het conceptbesluit werd veroordeeld door consumentenbonden en voedselveiligheidsdeskundigen die hun weerzin tegen dit besluit kenbaar maakten en waarschuwden voor de wereldwijde gevolgen voor voedselconsumptie.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7426

+ BOER MAG VLEES GEKLOONDE KOE VERKOPEN

Een boer in de VS die in financiële problemen zit zal mogelijk zijn gekloonde koe verkopen voor verwerking tot voedsel, hoewel er nog steeds een vrijwillige ban rust op voedsel van gekloond vee.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7417

GM WATCH OVER MELK EN VLEES VAN KLONEN

De lobbyorganisatie BIO stelt: ?We klonen dieren omdat we genetisch identieke tweelingen willen van een dier. Het is geen genetisch gemodificeerd dier, er zijn geen genen gewijzigd of verplaatst of verwijderd.? Maar het is bekend dat klonen helemaal niet zulke perfecte kopieën zijn en dat alle klonen op een of andere wijze meerdere defecten in hun genoom hebben.

Geneticus Rudolf Jaenisch van het Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, VS) schat dat tussen de 4 en 5 procent van de genen van een gekloond dier niet correct tot expressie komen.

En deze genetische defecten kunnen tastbare gevolgen hebben ? sommige subtiel en moeilijk op te merken maar andere maar al te duidelijk. . Er zijn klonen geboren met afwijkingen aan huid, organen en hersenen, dieren die vroegtijdig oud werden en volwassen klonen die plotseling stierven.

Los van de onzekerheden die de afwijkingen vormen voor de consumenten, willen mensen ergvoor kunnen kiezen om geen producten te kopen van een proces dat zo slecht is voor het dierenwelzijn. Maar net als met gg-voedsel wordt hen die keuze niet geboden.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7424

Codex Alimentarius

Een ander internationaal forum dat zich met regelgeving van gentechvoeding bezighoudt is de Codex Alimentarius. Dit is een VN orgaan voortkomend uit de Wereld Gezondheids Organisatie (WHO) en de FAO. Binnen de Codex worden tal van normen en eisen geformuleerd waar voedselproducten aan moeten voldoen en dit zijn regels waar men wereldwijd aan moet voldoen. De Codex heeft het begrip ?wezenlijke gelijkwaardigheid? ook overgenomen, maar geeft ook het recht om gentechproducten te etiketteren. Hoe dat gaat uitwerken is nog de vraag, want de VS en de gentechindustrie zijn helemaal niet blij met gentech etiketten en dreigen de EU aan te klagen bij de Wereldhandelsorganisatie WTO vanwege de Europese etiketteringwetten. Zij stellen dat etikettering van gentechproducten handelsbelemmerend werken en dat mag niet binnen de WTO.

Bestrijdingsmiddelen

Voorstanders beweren vaak dat door gebruik van gemanipuleerde planten het bestrijdingsmiddelen gebruik drastisch vermindert. Daar valt echter heel wat op af te dingen. Alleen bij Bt-gewassen (die ongeveer 20 % van de genetisch gemanipuleerde gewassen in de wereld uitmaken) is er in sommige gebieden sprake van een lichte afname van het spuiten met bestrijdingsmiddelen. Daar staat echter tegenover dat Bt planten hun eigen bestrijdingsmiddelen aanmaken. Bovendien is de de overgrote meerderheid (zo?n 75 %) van de huidige ggo's herbicide resistent. Op deze planten worden juist meer bestrijdingsmiddelen gespoten.
Zie ook:
Biotech.info)

Dieren

Genetische manipulatie van landbouwhuisdieren vindt (nog) niet op grote schaal plaats. De meeste manipulaties bij dieren zijn gericht op het produceren van medicinale stoffen voor bepaalde ziektes. Er leven wel ideeën om dieren genetisch te veranderen zodat ze bijv. meer ziekteresistent worden. Bij het manipuleren van dieren wordt veel gebruik gemaakt van een andere techniek: het kloneren. Op die manier probeert men identieke dieren te maken en is men minder afhankelijk van de grillen van de natuur. Immers, toen het Nederlandse bedrijf Pharming probeerde een koe te maken die lactoferrine in de melk produceerde werd een mannetje geboren: Stier Herman. kloneren van dieren is een zeer omstreden techniek. Er blijkt van alles mis te gaan bij de dieren. Het gekloonde schaap Dolly bleek al jong aan arthritis te lijden en overleed op 6 jarige leeftijd. Een gewoon schaap wordt 10 à 15 jaar oud.

Sinds kort biedt een Amerikaans bedrijf aan om huisdieren te kloneren. Voor $50.000 kan men zijn kat laten kloneren. Ook is er onderzoek bij insecten, om te zien hoe ze minder snel een plaag kunnen worden. Bij vissen is het onderzoek verder en is er een gemanipuleerde zalm die al bijna commercieel op de markt is. De zalm is voorzien van een groeihormoon waardoor hij veel groter wordt dan gewone zalm. Er zijn grote vraagtekens over zowel de gezondheidseffecten van transgene vis en over de milieuconsequenties in het geval de transgene vissen uit de kwekerij ontsnappen. In de VS is sinds kort een transgene vis te koop als aquariumdier.

 

 

 

                                                                     

 Zie onderstaande video's

The Truth About Genetically Modified Foods Video
www.thefutureoff..
1 uur 29 min

The Future of Food Video
1 uur 29 min

The Future of Food: What Every Pers.. Video

58 min

 

Check Biotech.org August 16, 2006
New Scientist August 9, 2006

8 maart 2007 Rechter trekt vergunning proef gentechaardappels per direct in VROM houdt zich niet aan de regels en wordt teruggefloten.

4 maart 2007 The Independent. Sick people used like laboratory rats in GM trials Patienten gebruikt als laboratoriumratten bij gentechaardappel proeven.

17 februari 2007 The Independant; Achtergehouden onderzoeksrapport laat een verband zien tussen kanker en gentech aardappelen. (Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes) .Dr. Arpad Pusztai heeft gelijk; een soortgelijke onderzoek als dat van hem, is gedaan door Russische onderzoekers in 1998 en de resultaten zijn nu via de rechter pas openbaar.

Voeding en gezondheid

 

De ministeries van Landbouw en Gezondheid vermelden op hun websites wel het bestaan van de Codex Alimentarius, maar zwijgen over de beperkende maatregelen. De guidance hebben zij ook.

 

Hieronder de richtlijnen waar aan je moet houden. In Amerika zijn al intensief waarschuwingsbrieven van
de FDA naar producten gegaan, die hun bezwaar binnen 14 dagen na hetontvangen moeten bekend maken.
  
De Nederlandse regering heeft hiervan geen Nederlandse vertaling.

                   

 

Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration DRAFT GUIDANCE
This guidance document is being distributed for comment purposes only.
Comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 90 days of
publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft
guidance. Submit comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments
should be identified with the docket number listed in the notice of availability that publishes in
the Federal Register.
For questions regarding this draft document, contact (CBER) Sheryl Lard-Whiteford at 301-827-
0379, (CDER) Daniel Nguyen at 301-827-8971, (CDRH) Ted Stevens at 301-594-1 184, or
(CFSAN) Wayne Amchin at 301-827-6739.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
December 2006
Guidance for Industry:
Complementary and
Alternative Medicine
Products and Their
Regulation by the Food and
Drug Administration
Additional copies are available from:
Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40)
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration
1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N
Rockville, MD 20852- 1448
Phone: 800-835-4 709 or 301 -827-1 800
Internet:
http://www. fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)
December 2006
Table of Contents
I. Why Are We Issuing This Guidance? ................................ 1
I1. What Is Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)? ..... 2
A. What Are "Biologically Based Practices?" ..................... 3
B. What Is "Energy Medicine?" ...................................... 4
C. What Are "Manipulative and Body-Based Practices?" ........ 5
D. What Is "Mind-Body Medicine? '. ................................ 5
E. What Are "Whole Medical Systems?" ........................... 6
I11. How Do CAM Domains Relate to Products That We Regulate? .7
IV. What FDA Authority Might Apply to CAM Products? ............ 7
A. What Statutory Definitions Might Apply? .............................. 7
1. "Drug" and "New Drug" .................................... 7
2. "Device" ...................................................... 8
3. "Food" ........................................................ 9
4. "Food Additive" ............................................. 10
5. "Dietary Supplement" ...................................... 10
6. "Cosmetic" ................................................... 12
7. "Biological Product?" ....................................... 13
V. Whom Do You Contact for More Information? ........................... 13


Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug ~dministration'
This draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA's) current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on
any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you
want to discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff responsible for
implementing this guidance. If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff, call the
appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance.
I. Why Are We Issuing This Guidance?


The term "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) encompasses a wide
array of health care practices, products, and therapies that are distinct from practices,
products, and therapies used in "conventional" or "allopathic" medicine. Some forms of
CAM, such as traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, have been practiced
for centuries, whereas others, such as electrotherapy, are more recent in origin.
In the United States, the practice of CAM has risen dramatically in recent years.
In 1992, Congress established the Office of Unconventional Therapies, which later
became the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), to explore "unconventional medical
practices." In 1998, OAM became the National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). NCCAM is a center within the National Institutes of
Health. The Institute of Medicine, in its book entitled, Complementaly and Alternative
Medicine in the United States, stated that more than one-third of American adults
reported using some form of CAM and that visits to CAM providers each year exceed
those to primary care physicians.2


As the practice of CAM has increased in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA", "we") has seen increased confusion as to whether certain products used in CAM (which, for convenience, we will refer to as "CAM products") are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("the Act") or Public Health Service Act ("PHs Act"). We have also seen an increase in the number of CAM products imported into the United States. Therefore, we are providing guidance as This guidance was prepared by the Office of Policy and Planning, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, with assistance from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. See Institute of Medicine, Complementary and Alteri~ative Medicine in the Uniterf States, pages34-35 (2005).
to when a CAM product is subject to the Act or the PHs ~ c t . '

 

This guidance makes two fundamental points:
a First, depending on the CAM therapy or practice, a product used in a
CAM therapy or practice may be subject to regulation as a biological
product, cosmetic, drug, device, or food (including food additives and
dietary supplements) under the Act or the PHs Act. For example, the PHs
Act defines "biological product," and the Act defines (among other
things):
o Cosmetic;
o Device;
o Dietary supplement;
o Drug, as well as "new drug" and "new animal drug;"
o Food; and
o Food additive.


These statutory definitions cover some CAM products.
a Second, neither the Act nor the PHs Act exempts CAM products from
regulation. This means, for example, if a person decides to produce and
sell raw vegetable juice for use in juice therapy to promote optimal health,
that product is a food subject to the requirements for foods in the Act and
FDA regulations, including the hazard analysis and critical control point
(HACCP) system requirements for juices in 21 CFR part 120. If -the juice
therapy is intended for use as part of a disease treatment regimen instead
of for the general wellness, the vegetable juice would also be subject to
regulation as a drug under the Act.


We explain these two points in greater detail later in this document.
11. What Is Complen~entary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)?
NCCAM defines CAM as "a group of diverse medical and health care systems,
practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional
medi~ine."~It interprets "complementary" medicine as being used together with
conventional medicine, whereas "alternative" medicine is used in place of conventional
medicine.


NCCAM classifies CAM therapies into four categories or "domains." These are: a Biologically-based practices; a Energy therapies;
When this guidance mentions a particular CAM therapy, practice, or product, it does so
in order to provide background information or to serve as an example or illustration; any
mention of a particular CAM therapy, practice, or product should not be construed as
expressing FDA's support for or endorsement of that particular CAM therapy, practice,
or product or, unless specified otherwise, as an agency determination that a particular
product is safe and effective for its intended uses or is safe for use.
'' See NCCAM, "Get the FACTS - What Is Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)?" available
at l~ttp:l?'nccai~~.nih.~o~~ihealtk~\~~l~atiscai~~ (accessed on November 22, 2005).
Manipulative and body-based methods; and
Mind-body medicine.


NCCAM once had a fifth domain, "Alternative medical systems," but now considers
"alternative medical systems" (now known as "whole medical systems") to be a separate
category rather than another domain because alternative medical systems use practices
from the four domains listed above. For purposes of this guidance, we adopt the same
domains and "whole medical systems" category that NCCAM uses.
A. What Are "Biologically Based Practices?"


According to NCCAM, the domain called "biologically based practices" includes,
but is not limited to, botanicals, animal-derived extracts, vitamins, minerals, fatty acids,
amino acids, proteins, prebiotics5and probiotics: whole diets, and "functional foods".'
Many biologically-based products within this domain are subject to statutory and
regulatory requirements under the Act or the PHs Act. The intended use of a product
plays a central role in how it is regulated. For example:
Botanical products, depending on the circumstances, may be regulated as
drugs, cosmetics, dietary supplements, or foods.8 All four types of
' Prebiotics have been defined as nondigestible food ingredients that beneficially affect the host by
selectively stimulating the growth andlor activity of one or a limited number of bacteria in the colon (see
Gibson, G.R. and Roberfroid, M.B., "Dietary Modulation of the Human Colonic Microbiota: Introducing
the Concept of Prebiotics," Journal of Nutrition, 125: 1401-1412 (1995)). Oligosaccharides are commonly
used as prebiotics.


6 "Probiotics" have been defined as live microbial food supplements which beneficially affect the host
animal by improving its intestinal microbial balance (see Fuller, R., "Probiotics in Man and Animals,"
Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 66: 365-378 (1989)) and as live microorganisms which, when consumed
in adequate amounts of food, confer a health benefit on the host (see Food and Agriculture Organization
and World Health Organization, "Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food including Powder
Milk with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria" (1-4 October 2001)). For purposes of this document, we will
consider probiotics to refer to whole, live microorganisms that are ingested with the intention of providing
a health benefit (such as supporting digestion and nutrient adsorption in the intestine). Our Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, simply refers to such bacteria as "live microorganisms."
"Probiotics" are not defined as a regulatory product category under the Act or the PHs Act, and
products that may be considered to be "probiotics" may be foods or drugs under the Act, depending on the
intended use of the product.


7 See NCCAM, "BACKGROUNDER: Biologically Based Practices: An Overview" (October 2004), at
page 1 (available at l~ttp:/inccan~.nih.pov/health/back~roundsiobasedpac.d (accessed on November
22, 2005)). NCCAM interprets "functional foods" as "components of the usual diet that may have
biologically active components (e.g., polyphenols, phytoestrogens, fish oils, carotenoids) that may provide
health benefits beyond basic nutrition" (id. at page 3). However, "functional foods" are not defined as a
regulatory product category, and products that NCCAM would interpret to be "functional foods" would
either be foods or drugs to FDA, depending on the claims associated with the product.
S Although dietary supplements are a type of food (see section 201(ff) of the Act (last sentence)), for ease
of reference, we will use the term "food" to refer to foods other than dietary supplements (e.g.,
conventional foods, food additives, or GRAS substances intended for use in food) throughout the
remainder of this guidance.

We may discuss specific types of "foods." such as "food additives," separately
products are subject to the Act. For example, a botanical product intended
for use in treating a disease would generally be regulated as a drug; a
botanical product taken by mouth, labeled as a dietary supplement, and
intended for use to affect the structure or function of the body would
generally be regulated as a dietary supplement; a raw or dried botanical
intended for use as an ingredient to flavor food would generally be
regulated as a food or as a food additive, depending on whether the
botanical was generally recognized as safe for its intended use in food; and
a lotion containing botanical ingredients and intended for use in
moisturizing the skin would generally be regulated as a cosmetic.


Probiotics may be regulated as dietary supplements, foods, or drugs under
the Act, depending on the product's intended use. Other factors may also
affect the classification of the product, e.g., whether the product contains a
"dietary ingredient" as defined in section 201(ff)(l) of the Act (21 U.S.C.
321(ff)(l)), whether it is represented as a conventional food or as a meal
replacement (see section 201(ff)(2)(B) of the Act), and, for probiotics used
as ingredients in a conventional food, whether the ingredient is generally
recognized as safe for its intended use (see section 201(s) of the Act (21
U.S.C. 321(s)). In addition to any requirements that apply based on the
product's classification under the Act, probiotics may also be subject to
the PHs Act's provisions concerning the prevention of communicable
disease, due to potential disease-causing microorganisms that might be
contained in such products. Finally, if a probiotic is a drug under the Act,
it may be subject to regulation as a biological product under the PHs Act
as well.


Products that NCCAM would consider to be "functional foods" may be
subject to FDA regulation as foods, dietary supplements, or drugs under
the Act. As with botanicals and probiotics, the classification of a
"functional food" under the Act is based primarily on the product's
intended use and may also involve other factors, depending on the
elements of the statutory definition of a particular product category.
B. What Is "Energy Medicine?"

NCCAM considers energy medicine to involve energy fields of two types:
Veritable energy fields, which can be measured and use either mechanical
vibrations (such as sound) or electromagnetic forces, including visible
light, magnetism, monochromatic radiation (such as laser light), and other
light rays; and
Putative energy fields (or biofields) that have defied measurement to date
by reproducible methods. According to NCCAM, therapies involving
putative energy fields "are based on the concept that human beings are
to explain additional statutory or regulatory requirements or concepts, but those products are still "foods"
under the Act. infused with a subtle form of energy" and therapists "claim that they work
with this subtle energy, see it with their own eyes, and use it to effect
changes in the physical body and influence health."

9
In a sense, "conventional" medicine already uses various forms of "energy" medicine. For example, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device uses electromagnetic waves to create images of internal body organs and tissues.
As another example, an ultrasound machine uses sound waves to create
images of body organs, tissues, and fetuses. Given their intended uses, we
regulate these products as medical devices under the Act.


CAM products that use veritable energy fields in the diagnosis of disease or other
conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or
animals or to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals may be
medical devices under the ~ c t . " Additionally, if the product is electronic and emits
radiation, it may be subject to additional requirements to ensure that there is no
unnecessary exposure of people to radiation.
CAM products that use putative energy fields in the diagnosis of disease or other
conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or
animals may be medical devices under the Act. For example, we regulate acupuncture
needles as "class 11" medical devices."
C. What Are "Manipulative and Body-Based Practices?"

According to NCCAM:

Under the umbrella of manipulative and body-based practices is a heterogeneous
group of CAM interventions and therapies. These include chiropractic and
osteopathic manipulation, massage therapy, Tui Na, reflexology, rolfing, Brown
technique, Trager bodywork, Alexander technique, Feldenkrais method, and a
host of others.. . .
Manipulative and body-based practices focus primarily on the structures and
systems of the body, including the bones and joints, the soft tissues, and the
circulatory and lymphatic systems. . . .

12
To the extent that manipulative and body-based practices involve practitioners
physically manipulating a patient's body, without using tools or machines, we do not
See NCCAM, "BACKGROUNDER - Energy Medicine: An Overview (August 2005), at page 1
(available at ht~://nccam.nih.govihealth~'backer~~~~~~ds/ei~er~med.pd~ (accessed on November 22, 2005).
' O See section 20l(h)(2) and (h)(3) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 32l(h)(2) and (h)(3)) (definition of "device"). " See 21 CFR 880.5580. " See NCCAM, "BACKGROUNDER: Manipulative and Body-Based Practices: An Overview"
(December 2004), at page 1 (available at http:/lnccan~.i~il~.ov~health~back~roundsimanipulative.pdf)
(accessed on November 22, 2005).
9
believe that such practices are subject to regulation under the Act or the PHs Act. If,
however, the manipulative and body-based practices involve the use of equipment (such
as massage devices) or the application of a product (such as a lotion, cream, or oil) to the
skin or other parts of the body, those products may be subject to regulation under the Act,
depending on the nature of the product and its intended use..


D. What Is "Mind-Body Medicine?"
NCCAM describes mind-body medicine as focusing on "the interactions among
the brain, mind, body, and behavior, and the powerful ways in which emotional, mental,
social, spiritual, and behavioral factors can directly affect health."13 It states that mindbody
medicine "typically focuses on intervention strategies that are thought to promote
health, such as relaxation, hypnosis, visual imagery, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, tai
chi, qi gong, cognitive-behavioral therapies, group support, autogenic training, and
spirituality."

14
In general, CAM practices in this domain would not be subject to our jurisdiction
under the Act or the PHs Act. As with the manipulative and body-based practices
domain, however, any equipment or other products used as part of the practice of mindbody
medicine may be subject to FDA regulation, depending on the nature of the product
and its intended use. For example, biofeedback machines intended to help a patient learn
to affect body functions, such as muscle activity, are regulated as class I1 devices.15
E. What Are "Whole Medical Systems?"


NCCAM describes whole medical systems as involving "complete systems of
theory and practice that have evolved independently from or parallel to allopathic
(conventional) medicine."16 ~ h e s e may reflect individual cultural systems, such as
traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine. Some elements common to whole
medical systems are a belief that the body has the power to heal itself, and that healing
may involve techniques that use the mind, body, and spirit.
Although it is unlikely that a whole medical system itself would be subject to
regulation under the Act or the PHs Act, products used as components of whole medical
systems may be subject to FDA regulation for the reasons described above.
See NCCAM, "BACKGROUNDER: Mind-Body Medicine: An Overview" (August 2005), at page 1
(available at hrcp:iinccam.nih.~o\i!health/backr!~'o~i~id~imindbody.pdf) (accessed on November 22, 2005).
l4 Id.
'j See 21 CFR 882.5050.
I6 See NCCAM, "BACKGROUNDER: Whole Medical Systems: An Overview" (October 2004), at page
1 (available at ~:iinccam.nih.govihealtl~ack~rounds/wholemed.pd (accessed on November 22, 2005).
13
111. How Do CAM Domains Relate to Products That We Regulate?
Given the vast array of CAM products, practices, and therapies, it is impractical
for us to describe in detail how each one might be subject to regulation under the Act or
the PHs Act. Our intent, in part IV of this document, is two-fold:
a To indicate which CAM domains might be subject to regulation under the
Act or the PHs Act; and
a To show that neither the Act nor the PHs Act contains any exemption for
CAM products. In other words, if a product meets the statutory definition
of drug, device, biological product, food, etc., it will be subject to
regulation under the Act and/or the PHs Act.
IV. What FDA Authority Might Apply to CAM Products?
A. What Statutory Definitions Might Apply?
To understand how the Act or the PHs Act might apply to CAM products, we
begin by understanding the Act's statutory definitions or, in the case of the PHs Act, our
authority regarding biological products.


1. "Drug" and "New Drug"
Section 201(g)(l) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)([l)) defines the term "drug," in
relevant part, to mean:
(A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopeia, official
Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, or official National Formulary,
or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the
diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other
animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any
function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as
a component of any articles specified in clause (A), (B), or (C).
Section 201(p) of the Act (2 1 U.S.C. 321 (p)) defines the term "new drug" to
mean:
(1) Any drug (except a new animal drug or an animal feed bearing or
containing a new animal drug) the composition of which is such that the drug is
not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and
experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and
effective" for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in
In Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott and Dunning, 93 S.Ct. 2469, 2483 (1973), the Supreme Court stated
that "general recognition" of effectiveness "requires at least 'substantial evidence' of effectiveness for
approval" of a new drug application (NDA). (An NDA is the marketing application for a new drug.)
17
the labeling thereof, except that such a drug not so recognized shall not be
deemed to be a "new drug" if at any time prior to the enactment of this Act, it was
subject to the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, as amended, and if at such
time its labeling contained the same representations concerning the conditions of
use; or
(2) Any drug (except a new animal drug or an animal feed bearing or
containing a new animal drug) the composition of which is such that such drug, as
a result of investigations to determine its safety and effectiveness for use under
such conditions, has become so recognized, but which has not, otherwise than in
such investigations, been used to a material extent or for a material time under
such conditions.


To illustrate how these definitions might apply, consider an herbal product that is
intended to treat arthritis in humans. The herbal product, which would be a "biologically
based practice" insofar as CAM domains are concerned, would be a "drug" under section
201 (g)(l)(B) of the Act because it is intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease (arthritis) in man. The same herbal product would
also be a "new drug" under section 201 (p)(l) of the Act unless it is generally recognized,
among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and
effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed,
recommended, or suggested in the labeling. "New drug" status triggers the Act's
requirements for premarket review and approval by FDA.'~


A detailed discussion of the Act's drug provisions is beyond the scope of this
guidance document. Note, however, that the Act imposes certain requirements (including
requirements pertaining to establishment registration and product listing, pre-market
approval, labeling, postmarket reporting, and good manufacturing practices) on those
who manufacture and distribute drugs. The Act and our drug regulations can be found at
our website at
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws.
2. "Device"
In general, section 201(h) of the Act (2 1 U.S.C. 321(h)) defines the term "device"
as:
an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro
reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or
accessory which is -
Section 505(d) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 355(d)) defines "substantial evidence" as "evidence consisting of
adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations conducted by experts
qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved, on the
basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the drug will have the
effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or
7;ggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof." Thus, "general recognition7' is a high standard.
Under section 505(a) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 355(a)), "No person shall introduce or deliver for
introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to
[section 505(b) or 505(j) of the Act] is effective with respect to such drug."
(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States
Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them,
(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in
the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals,
or
(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or
other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action
within or on the body of man or other animals, and which is not dependent upon
being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.


To illustrate how a CAM product might be a "device" under the Act,
acupuncture is a CAM therapy that seeks to stimulate energy pathways
("meridians") by puncturing, pressing, heating, using electrical current,
or using herbal medicines. Fine needles are often used, and these
acupuncture needles are "devices" under section 20 1 (h) of the Act
because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or
prevention of disease in man or are intended to affect the structure or
function of the body of man. We regulate acupuncture needles (see 21 CFR 880.5580), but not the practice of acupuncture itself.


A detailed discussion of the Act's device provisions is beyond the scope of this
guidance document. Note, however, that the Act establishes classifications for devices
(class I, 11, or 111) that affect how they are regulated. The Act also imposes certain
requirements on those who manufacture devices (including requirements pertaining to
establishment registration and product listing, pre-market review, labeling, postmarket
reporting, and good manufacturing practices). Certain requirements also apply to device
distributors. The Act and our device regulations can be found at our website at
www. fda. ~ovlopacon~llaws.


3. "Food
Section 201(f) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)) defines the term "food" to mean
"articles used for food or drink for man or other animals," chewing gum, and articles
used for components of any such article.
To illustrate how a CAM practice might involve "foods," juice therapy uses juice
made from vegetables and fruits. Absent any claims that would make the juice subject to
the drug definition, the juice would be a "food" under section 201 (f) of the Act because it
is an article used for food or drink for man.
A detailed discussion of the Act's food provisions is beyond the scope of this
guidance document. However, anyone who intends to market CAM products that might
be subject to regulation under these provisions should familiarize himselflherself with the
Act's requirements for foods, particularly with respect to safety and labeling. The Act
and our food regulations can be found at our website at
www.fda.govlopacom/laws.
4. "Food Additive"
Section 201(s) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) defines the term "food additive" to
mean, in part, "any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be
expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise
affecting the characteristics of any food.. ..if such substance is not generally recognized,
among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety, as
having been adequately shown through scientific procedures (or, in the case of a
substance used in food prior to January 1, 1958, through either scientific procedures or
experience based on common use in food) to be safe under the conditions of its intended
,,I 9 use. ...


To illustrate how a CAM product might involve "food additives" under section
201(s) of the Act, some CAM practices involve dietary modifications where substances
such as botanicals or enzymes are added to foods in the diet. If a manufacturer adds such
a substance to a food, the substance may fall within the "food additive" definition at
section 201(s) of the Act. A food additive is subject to premarket approval by FDA
under section 409 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 348). Food additives that we have not approved
or that do not comply with applicable FDA regulations prescribing safe conditions of use
are deemed to be unsafe under section 409(a) of the Act, and foods that contain such
additives are adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C)).
The Act provides that a substance is exempt from the definition of a food additive and
thus, from pre-market approval, if, among other reasons, it is generally recognized as safe
(GRAS) by qualified experts under the conditions of intended use. Whether a substance
added to a food is considered to be a food additive or is GRAS, any claims associating
the substance with the reduction of a disease risk are "health claims" (defined in 2 1 CFR
10 1.14(a)(l)) that require premarket review by FDA.~'


A detailed discussion of the Act's food additive provisions is beyond the scope of
this guidance document. However, anyone intending to market CAM products that are or
contain substances that might be subject to regulation as food additives should familiarize
himselflherself with the Act's food additive requirements. The Act and our food additive
regulations can be found at our website at
www.fda.govlopacom1laws.
5. "Dietary Supplement"
Section 201(ff) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)) defines the term "dietary
supplement" as follows:
The term "dietary supplement" -
The statutory definition of "food additive" exempts certain substances, such as pesticide chemical
residues in or on a raw agricultural commodity or processed food, pesticide chemicals, color additives,
dietary ingredients in or intended for use in a dietary supplement (as defined in section 201(f9 of the Act),
and new animal drugs. '' See 2 1 CFR 101.70.
19
(1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that
bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:
(A) a vitamin;
(B) a mineral;
(C)an herb or other botanical;
(D) an amino acid;
(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by
increasing the total dietary intake; or
(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any
ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E);
(2) means a product that
(A) (i) is intended for ingestion in a form described in section
41 1 (c)(l)(B)(i); or
(ii) complies with section 41 1 (c)(l )(B)(ii);
(B) is not represented for use as a conventional food or as a sole item of a
meal or the diet; and
(C) is labeled as a dietary supplement; and
(3) does--
(A) include an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505 or
licensed as a biologic under section 35 1 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 262) and was, prior to such approval, certification, or
license, marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the
Secretary has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding
that the article, when used as or in a dietary supplement under the
conditions of use and dosages set forth in the labeling for such dietary
supplement, is unlawful under section 402(f); and
(B) does not include-
(i) an article that is approved as a new drug under section 505,
certified as an antibiotic under section 507, or licensed as a biologic
under section 35 1 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262),
or
(ii) an article authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic, or
biological for which substantial clinical investigations have been
instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been
made public,
which was not before such approval, certification, licensing, or
authorization marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food unless the
Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, has issued a regulation. under
notice and comment, finding that the article would be lawful under this
Act.
Except for purposes of section 201(g) [of the Act], a dietary supplement shall be
deemed to be a food within the meaning of this Act.
To illustrate how a CAM product might be a "dietary supplement" under section
201 (ff) of the Act, consider botanical products used in naturopathy. (IVaturopathy is a
CAM whole medical system that views disease as a manifestation of alterations in the
processes by which the body heals it~elf.~') For example, naturopathic cranberry tablets
might be labeled for use to maintain the health of the urinary tract. In this example, the
cranberry tablets generally would be regulated as "dietary supplements" under section
201(ff)(l) of the Act if they were labeled for use to "maintain the health of the urinary
tract" rather than "prevent urinary tract infections." The cranberry tablets would be
regulated as "drugs" under section 201 (g) of the Act if they were labeled for use to "treat
urinary tract infections" even if they were labeled as dietary supplements.
A detailed discussion of the Act's dietary supplement provisions is beyond the
scope of this guidance document. However, anyone intending to market CAM products
that might be subject to regulation as a dietary supplement should familiarize
himselflherself with the Act's dietary supplement requirements, particularly with respect
to safety and labeling. The Act and our dietary supplement regulations can be found at
our website at www. fda.~ov/opacon~llaws.
6. "Cosmetic"
Section 201 (i) of the Act defines the term "cosmetic" to mean "(1) articles
intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise
applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting
attractiveness, or altering the appearance, and (2) articles intended for use as a component
of any such articles; except that such term shall not include soap."
It is possible that certain products used in conjunction with CAM practices may
be "cosmetics" under the Act. For example, if a CAM practice involves massage with a
moisturizer, the moisturizer could be a "cosmetic" to the extent that it is "rubbed, poured,
sprinkled, or sprayed on" the body for beautification or appearance-altering purposes.
However, if the moisturizer's intended use is also for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body,
then it may also be subject to regulation as a drug. Other examples of druglcosmetic
combinations are deodorants that are also antiperspirants, moisturizers and makeup
marketed with sun-protection claims, and shampoos that also treat dandruff.
The Act does not require premarket approval for cosmetics, but it does prohibit
the marketing of adulterated or misbranded cosmetics in interstate commerce. Anyone
intending to market CAM products that might be subject to regulation as cosmetics
should familiarize himselfherself with the safety and labeling requirements for these
products in the Act and our regulations. The Act and our cosmetic regulations can be
found at our website at
www.fda.~ovlopacomllaws.
" See NCCAM, "BACKGROUNDER: Whole Medical Systems: An Overview" (October 2004) at pages
3-4.
7. "Biological Product"

 

Section 35l(a)(l) of the PHs Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)(l)) states, in part, that no
person "shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any
biological product" unless that product has an effective license and its package is plainly
marked with the product's proper name, the name, address, and applicable license
number of the biological product's manufacturer, and the product's expiration date.
Section 35 l(a)(2) of the PHs Act gives us the authority to establish requirements for the
approval, suspension, and revocation of biological product licenses.
Section 35l(i) of the PHs Act defines "biological product" as "a virus,
therapeutic serum, toxin, antitoxin, vaccine, blood, blood component or derivative,
allergenic product, or analogous product, or arsphenamine or derivative of arsphenamine
(or any other trivalent organic arsenic compound), applicable to the prevention,
treatment, or cure of a disease or condition in human beings." The term "virus" captures
a broad spectrum of microorganisms that cause an infectious disease and includes, but is
not limited to, filterable viruses, bacteria, rickettsia, fungi, and protozoa (see 21 CFR
600.3(h)(l)).


It is conceivable that some "biologically based practices" (as defined by
NCCAM) could involve the use of "biological products" as defined by section 35 1(i) of
the PHs Act. For example, the bacteria used in a probiotic product could make the
product a "biological product" subject to the PHs Act.
A detailed discussion of biological product regulation under the PHs Act is
beyond the scope of this guidance document. Note, however, that in addition to our
authority under section 351 of the PHs Act, section 361 of the PHs Act (42 U.S.C. 264)
authorizes us to make and enforce regulations "to prevent the introduction, transmission,
or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions,
or from one State or possession into any other State or possession." If a CAM product
manufacturer attempted to use a live, disease-causing virus as a component of a CAM
product, we could exercise our authority under section 361 of the PHs Act and 21 CFR
1240.30 to take action against the product, in addition to consider the applicability of
section 35 1 of the PHs Act. The PHs Act and FDA's regulations for biological products
can be found at our website at
www.fda.gov/opacom/laws.
V. Whom Do You Contact For More Information?
For more information about how we regulate drugs, devices, cosmetics, foods
(including food additives and dietary supplements), and biological products, visit our
website at
www.fda.gov. We also have many other guidance documents that present our
current thinking on a particular topic.


For more information about products that we regulate, and how they might relate
to CAM, please contact:
For biological products, the Manufacturers Assistance and Technical
Training Branch, Office of Communication, Training & Manufacturers
Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852-1448, 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800.
For cosmetics, the Office of Cosmetics and Colors, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, 301-436- 1130.
For devices, the Office of Communication, Education, and Radiation
Programs (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, 1-
800-638-2041 or 301-827-3990.
For dietary supplements, the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs
(HFS-81O), Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary
Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and
Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD
20740, 301-436-1441.
For foods and food additives, the Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-
200), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food And Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-
3835. 301-436-1200
For human drugs, the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4570 or 1-888-463-6332.
You can also send electronic mail inquiries to
druginfo@cder.fda.gov.

 

Een voorbeeld van een waarschuwingsbrief van de FDA

 

Department of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Central Region
Minneapolis District

 

212 3rd Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 758-7114
FAX: (612) 334-4142

October 17, 2005
WARNING LETTER
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Jim Seaquist, President
Seaquist Orchards
11482 Hwy 42
PO Box 204
Sister Bay, WI 54234

Ref. No. MIN-06-04

Dear Mr Seaquist:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the labeling of your cherry products on your website at www.seaquistorchards.com. This review shows serious violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) in the labeling of these products. You can find the Act and implementing regulations through links on FDA's Internet home page at www.fda.gov.

Under the Act, articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man are drugs (Section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act; 21 United States Code (21 USC 321(g)(1)(B)]. The labeling for your cherry containing products bears the following claims:

·        "[N.W.] ? recently stopped taking drugs for arthritis pain not long after he began eating 50 tart cherries a day. ? It was very dramatic. Within two days the pain was gone.?"

·        "[T]here are beneficial compounds in Montmorency tart cherries that help relieve the pan [sic] of arthritis and gout. ? [M]any consumers are discovering that tart cherry juice and other cherry products can stave off pain."

This list of claims is not intended to be all-inclusive, but represents the types of claims found in your product labeling.

These claims cause your products to be drugs, as defined in Section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 USC 321(g)(1)(B)]. Because these products are not generally recognized as safe and effective when used as labeled, they are also new drugs as defined in Section 201(p) of the Act [21 USC 321(p)].

Under Section 505 of the Act (21 USC 355), a new drug may not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved New Drug Application (NDA). FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective.

The above violations are not meant to be an all-inclusive list of deficiencies in your products and their labeling. It is your responsibility to ensure that products marketed by your firm comply with the Act and its implementing regulations.

Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in enforcement action without further notice. Enforcement action may include seizure of violative products, injunction against the manufacturers and distributors of violative products, and criminal sanctions against persons responsible for causing violations of the Act.

Please advise this office in writing, within 15 working days of receipt of this letter, of the specific steps you have taken or will be taking to correct these violations, including the steps taken to assure that similar violations do not recur.

Your reply should be directed to Compliance Officer Tyra S. Wisecup at the address in the letterhead. Ms. Wisecup may be reached at (612) 758-7114.

Sincerely,
/s/
W. Charles Becoat
District Director

 

 

Here's the list of all of them, dated 2005. The firms are all still advertising the same health benefits on their sites, so I guess they've given the FDA a Bronx raspberry re the Montmorency cherry scandal.  

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/chrylist.html

 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the labeling for your Blueberry Concentrate and Tart Cherry Concentrate on your website at www.overlakefoods.com. This review shows serious violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) in the labeling of these products. You can find the Act and implementing regulations through links on FDA's Internet home page at www.fda.gov.

Under the Act, articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in man are drugs [section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 USC 321(g)(1)(B)]. The labeling for your products bear the following claims:

·        Under "Health Benefits of Red Tart Cherries":

o       "Anthocyanins in tart cherries ? may relieve pain better than aspirin. Studies done ? found that anthocyanins from raspberries and cherries?, including Montmorency cherries, demonstrated a Cox 1 and 2 inhibitory affect [sic] equal to that of 10 microM concentrations of ibuprofen and naproxen ? Anthocyanins inhibit the ability of Cox-2 to cause pain.""Pain relief from eating tart cherries could give relief from arthritis, ? and gout, without side effects like stomach and kidney problems that result from aspirin and ibuprofen."

o       "Melatonin is found in extremely high doses ? in tart cherries. ? The presence of melatonin ? in cherries could have a wide range of health benefits including ? preventing cancer by acting as a powerful antioxidant.?"

o       "Cherries naturally contain perillyl alcohol, a dietary monoterpene. This phytochemical is naturally found in lavender, cherries and mint, and has been shown in several studies to bind with protein molecules to inhibit the growth signals that stimulate tumor development."

o       "In laboratory studies perillyl alcohol has been shown to initiate regression of pancreatic, breast and liver tumors. It has the potential to act as a chemopreventative agent for colon, skin and lung cancer and chemotherapeutic agent for neuroblastoma (a childhood ganglia related cancer), prostate and colon cancers."

·        Under "Health Benefits of Blueberries":

o       "Blueberries contain folic acid, which ? may help protect against cervical cancer."

o       "Ellagic acid, a potent anti-carcinogen, is found in blueberries. Ellagic acid has been shown in laboratory test to shrink colon and esophageal tumors."

This list of claims is not intended to be all-inclusive, but represents the types of claims found in your product labeling.These claims cause your products to be a drugs, as defined in section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Act [21 USC 321(g)(1)(B)]. Because these products are not generally recognized as safe and effective when used as labeled, they are also new drugs as defined in section 201(p) of the Act [21 USC 321(p)]. Under section 505 of the Act (21 USC 355), a new drug may not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved New Drug Application (NDA). FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective.

The above violations are not meant to be an all-inclusive list of deficiencies in your products and their labeling. It is your responsibility to ensure that products marketed by your firm comply with the Act and its implementing regulations.

Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in enforcement action without further notice. Enforcement action may include seizure of violative products, injunction against the manufacturers and distributors of violative products, and criminal sanctions against persons responsible for causing violations of the Act.

 

 

 

Which is Safer - Drugs or Nutritional Supplements?

The products of the pharmaceutical industry have been documented to kill a minimum of 106,000 Americans each year when used properly and about 200,000 Americans per year when you count the numbers of people killed by medical error! The same year that this figure was published (1998), there were ?only? 43,400 deaths due to car accidents in America. So in America, the land of the automobile, with millions in use everyday, pharmaceutical drugs are deadlier than cars!

 

Anything that talks about 'harmonisation' is Newspeak for global laws that every country must obey and it is happening everywhere. The introduction of the Codex Alimentarius will mean:

* Dietary supplements cannot be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.
 
* Potencies would be limited to extremely low dosages.
 
* Only Big Pharma would have the right to produce and sell the higher potency products and dictate the price.
 
* Prescriptions would be required for anything above extremely low doses.
 
* Common foods such as garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs, or a third category (neither food nor drugs) that only Big Pharma could regulate and sell.
 
* Any food with any therapeutic effect can be considered a drug.
 
* Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding with all escape clauses eliminated.
 
* All new dietary supplements would be banned unless they go through Codex testing and approval.
 
* Nearly all food must be irradiated.
 
* Genetically altered food would be sold worldwide without labelling.
 
John Hammell, founder of International Advocates for Health Freedom, said this of the consequences:

'If Codex Alimentarius has its way, then herbs, vitamins, minerals, homeopathic remedies, amino acids and other natural remedies you have taken for granted most of your life will be gone. The name of the game for Codex Alimentarius is to shift all remedies into the prescription category so they can be controlled exclusively by the medical monopoly and its bosses, the major pharmaceutical firms.'

 

The World's First Bionic Burger Video

De voedingsindustrie heeft in 25 jaar tijd al veel kwaad gedaan.
Door de toevoegingen van kleur- en smaakstoffen.. Een kwalijke smaakstof is Monosodium Glutamaat MSG. Dit is namelijk ook
een dikmaker.

 

 

 

 

 

On April 30, 2007 the FDA will close the public comment period on a "Guidance" which will effectively classify many alternative health practices and supplements as drugs. www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/06d-0480-gld0001.pdf

These proposed guidelines are, of course, total nonsense. The key point in the guidelines is that any herb or supplement that actually has any beneficial effect should be regulated by the FDA as if it were a drug if it actually helps with any medical condition unless it is "generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling."

This is nonsense for two different reasons.

  • First, who are these experts? Are these the same experts that approved Vioxx even though it caused heart attacks? Are they the same experts who approved angioplasty -- now proven to be a waste of $48 billion a year? Are they the same experts who condemned hundreds of thousands of children to birth defects because they took forever to acknowledge the importance of folic acid -- whose benefits were long promoted in the alternative health community? Are these the same experts who refuse to accept the safety of stevia even though billions of servings have been safely used in countries throughout Asia and South America? When the failures of these so called experts are so apparent, time after time, it is nonsense to propose that they be the gatekeepers for herbs and supplements that have been used safely for decades, if not hundreds, or in some cases even thousands of years. And if the safety of these alternative remedies is long established (certainly far longer than for any pharmaceutical drug) why deny people access to their possible benefits -- even if the proof of those benefits is merely anecdotal?
  • Second, the regulations are so poorly written that they are guaranteed to lead to absurdity and self contradiction. For example, if you were to claim on a label that drinking bottled water helped relieve a medical condition such as?severe dehydration (not just a medical condition, but a medical emergency), the new guidelines would mandate that water now be regulated as a drug.  

These are badly written guidelines that will lead to:

  • More confusion.
  • More cost.
  • Less access to health.
  • Denial of freedom of access.
  • And ultimately, an increase in civil disobedience, a further diminution of FDA authority as people look for ever more creative ways to flaunt the guidelines in order to maintain access to those herbs and supplements they want.

You might want to contact the FDA and let them know what you think of the proposed guidelines. Make sure to include the docket # (No. 2006D-0480) with your comments. You can write to them at:

Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

Or you can shorten the process and comment online.

An if you have any questions or just want to chat live with them to let them know you feel, the contact numbers listed on the document are:

Sheryl Lard-Whiteford at 301-827-0379
Daniel Nguyen at 301-827-8971
Ted Stevens at 301-594-1184
Wayne Amchin at 301-827-6739

 

Stop Codex Protect Your Health Freedom!

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

Video: Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs

Video: Compulsory Psychiatric Medication in the US

Video: The Codex Two Step: Codex Options for Pro Health Nations (wmv format)

 

About Codex Alimentarius:

Consequences:

Protecting Health Freedom from Codex Alimentarius:

Other Documents:

Why Use the Wrong Science? To Deceive You

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is using the wrong science for the job of assessing nutrients. It is seeking to deceive the public that it is ?scientific? through the use of junk science (applying toxicology to nutrients).

And because many people don?t know the difference between toxicology and Biochemistry, and most haven?t even heard of ?Risk Assessment?, a lot of people have bought the nonsense that Codex is ?scientific?. Codex is not scientific. It has nothing to do with science. It is all about short-sighted economic self-interest.

For example of the type of ?science? that Codex is engaged it, the CAC treats Vitamin C with the same logic as arsenic, lead, mercury, mustard gas, or any other deadly poison. Any reasonable person can see that this is unacceptable.

It?s Not About Science Anyway

The Codex moneymen do not seem to understand the simple fact that the detoxification organs of the human body have the ability to expel excess nutrients because evolution has had millions of years to perfect our relationship with nutrients. So there is no need to treat nutrients as toxins and set ?upper limits?.

Toxins on the other hand are in large part products of the Industrial Revolution and thus they are very new to our bodies, and so cannot be handled properly by our detoxification mechanisms. That?s why toxins are toxic!

Comparing nutrients and toxins with the same assessment method is not even close to comparing apples and oranges. It is more like comparing crude oil and water! It is like saying that because drinking crude oil will kill you, therefore, drinking water will kill you too, and so let us, in our sheer arrogance and ignorance, put an upper limit on the amount of water you can drink - ?to protect you from yourself?! It may sound absurd, but from a scientific point of view, that is exactly how absurd Codex Alimentarius is.

There is not one trace of reason, logic or science in how Codex treats nutrients as toxins.

It is no exaggeration to say that Codex Alimentarius is based on junk science.

The Vitamin and Mineral Guideline

Codex is made up of several different standards for different aspects of food. One of these standards was ratified (i.e. approved and made ready for implementation in WTO-countries) by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2005, in Rome, Italy. The name of this standard is the Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline.

The intention behind the global push for the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline is to allow the legal restriction of natural health products. It has nothing to do with ?consumer protection? as claimed. It is all about banning nutritional supplements from the market so that you will be forced to choose the drugs of the pharmaceutical industry.

Example of Vitamin and Mineral Guideline Harm: Forbidding Vitamin C Above 200mg/Day

Codex Alimentarius would make Vitamin C above 60-200mg per day illegal (the exact limits have not yet been set). If Codex is implemented in the U.S., Vitamin C of doses higher than a tiny amount would become as illegal as the hard drug heroin! And junk science (toxicology for nutrients) would be used to set the dosage.

Vitamin C is one of the most widely used anti-oxidants in the world. It has been proven effective in treating many health conditions. It is a highly affordable substance and is available in abundance on the marketplace. There are no known deaths from Vitamin C. There are well over 3500 scientific articles on the use of Vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of diseases and illnesses ranging from arthritis through cancer and scurvy to cardiovascular disease and a host of other serious conditions.

Linus Pauling, Ph.D., won the first of his two Nobel Prizes for his work on Vitamin C.

It is clear that making Vitamin C above a certain dosage illegal (even with a doctor?s prescription) has nothing to do with people?s health and everything to do with preventing people from having access to products that compete with the drugs of the pharmaceutical industry.

Why Not Just Ban it Completely?

Why not ban Vitamin C altogether? The Codex people are smarter than that. If they moved too fast, then you and others would see the truth about Codex Alimentarius (that it has nothing to do with consumer protection), and the deceptive veil of ?consumer protection? intended to protect the Codex moneymen from being caught red-handed, would be torn down in a heartbeat.

Vitamin C Limit Is Just One Example of Codex Harm

With the restriction on Vitamin C in place, you would no longer be able to rely on this important nutrient to help you through colds. For more serious immune problems, you would no longer be able to use Vitamin C in high dosages.

But obstructing your access to Vitamin C is only one example of what Codex would severely restrict. Virtually every other supplement and traditional remedy would either be banned, or reduced below therapeutic dose levels (using the wrong science of toxicology to set meaningless ?upper limits?).

Who is Responsible for Codex Alimentarius?

Codex is a joint project of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization and is the result of a complex relationship between:

  • United Nations - which created the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a trade committee
  • World Trade Organization - which can enforce Codex Alimentarius Guidelines, Regulations and Standards through coercive trade sanctions
  • World Health Organization - a UN body which is actively contributing to creating Codex Alimentarius regulations despite the fact that Codex directly and explicitly conflicts with WHOs own findings on global death through under-nutrition (the findings conclude that nutritional supplementation in high dosages are important to World health - Codex would ban these supplements in high dosages and thus goes against WHO?s own findings!)
  • Food and Agriculture Organization - another UN body, which is also going against the findings of WHO because of its support for Codex
  • Our FDA and USDA

We have been ingrained, mentally and emotionally, with the message that the above institutions are working ?for the good of all?. Their involvement in the Codex problem may make it seem benign.

But while there are good people in these organizations, the organizations themselves are not working in a benign fashion. They are actively working in concert with representatives of the pharmaceutical, pesticide, chemical, industrial agriculture, and biotechnology industries to push Codex Alimentarius onto the unsuspecting people of the world.

?HARMonization? - Bulldozing National Laws with Codex Standards

How is Codex implemented in a country?

It happens through a process called ?harmonization?. This is an Orwellian term.

There is nothing harmonious, sweet or benign about Codex. We like to call it ?HARMonization?.

The process of how Codex becomes enforceable in a country could just as well be called ?coercion?, and this would be more accurate. The coercion comes from the World Trade Organization.

WTO - The Engine Behind Codex

Here?s how Codex ?happens? in a country: the Codex Alimentarius Commission ratifies proposed standards or guidelines which are presented to it once they reach Step 8 of the development process. Standards and guidelines are developed through the action of one of the Committees of the Commission over a period of years. Until a standard or guideline is ratified it has no standing or impact on either international trade or national law.

Once a Codex standard or guideline is ratified it is not a law per se. The way it works is that it serves as the standard or reference by which international trade disputes are settled through the dispute resolution process of the World Trade Organization.

The WTO can take a country to court in its own courts, as the WTO has done several times in the U.S., winning each time, to force that country to change its sovereign laws or face severe economic punishment (sanctions)! This is a decidedly undemocratic process.

Codex never actually becomes ?law? - it simply forces itself upon a nation by way of the WTO?s sanctioning powers, and through the passing of pro-Codex bills by traitorous insider politicians who play the hands of the Codex moneymen.

Without the coercive powers of the World Trade Organization, Codex is just ink on paper, all 200,000 pages sitting somewhere collecting dust.

Our Unique and Powerful American Defense

Are we doomed to Codex takeover? No. If we, the people, act decisively and in massive numbers, and our Congress acts to protect the people from Codex, we are not doomed at all.

In the U.S., we have a powerful legal tool on the side of health freedom that many other countries don?t have. We have the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) which protects nutrition and health freedom from Codex. DSHEA mandates that nutritional supplements be classed as foods, not drugs, and thus no upper limit may be set for them (which would make the upper limits of Codex illegal). DSHEA was passed in 1994 after grass-roots pressure by millions of Americans, and it is the law of the United States of America unless it is destroyed by the interests behind Codex.

U.S. Codex Office Policy on Codex Alimentarius is Illegal

The U.S. government supports the restrictive, illness-promoting Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), despite the fact that this position is illegal under U.S. law!

The pro-Codex position of the U.S. Codex Office is illegal because Title 19 USC 3512 prohibits America from harmonizing with any international standard that violates U.S. laws. The Codex Vitamin and Mineral Guideline would violate DSHEA (the 1994 law which treats supplements as foods).

As a result of DSHEA, no upper limit can be set for nutrients in the U.S. and thus Codex would violate DSHEA (because Codex would set upper limits for nutrients using the wrong science of Risk Assessment).

U.S. Codex Office Has Been Notified About its Illegal Position

The U.S. Government was notified that it is illegal for the U.S. Codex Office to support ratification of the Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG) by a Citizen?s Petition produced by the Natural Solutions Foundation (sponsor of HealthFreedomUSA.org), submitted on June 1, 2005.

A Citizen?s Petition is not a conventional petition. It is a powerful legal tool to compel action on the part of the U.S. Government to follow its own laws and to lay the groundwork for further legal action if the Government does not change course.

Despite our emergency Citizen?s Petition, Dr. Ed Scarbrough, head of the U.S. Codex Office, unfortunately announced that the U.S. Codex Office has chosen to stand firm on its illegal pro-illness, pro-Codex Vitamin and Mineral Guideline position, which was ratified in Rome, Italy, on July 4, 2005.

The Natural Solutions Foundation (the organization behind HealthFreedomUSA.org) will be taking the U.S. Codex Office to court.

Napoleon Bonaparte and Codex Alimentarius

If you thought what you?ve read so far was interesting, this is where the whole Codex issue gets really interesting:

What hardly anyone talking about Codex ever mentions is that it is based on the Napoleonic Code. Most people are not aware of the Napoleonic Code, so let?s explain what it is and why the Napoleonic Code is not the freedom-lover?s best friend.

The Napoleonic Code - brainchild of the emperor with the same name - conflicts with Common Law (upon which American law is based).

The most notable conflict between the Napoleonic Code and Common Law is that everything that is not explicitly permitted is prohibited by default under the Napoleonic code while everything that is not explicitly prohibited is permitted (i.e. unregulated) under Common Law unless proven harmful by the law.

The Napoleonic Code does not suit a society where the value of individual liberty demands that everything remain legal unless proven harmful to the community.

Under Codex, because of its Napoleonic underpinnings, everything would have to first be approved by the regulatory body before you could legally use it; otherwise you are forbidden from using it.

So, for example, if we have apples, and apples are not explicitly permitted by the government agencies and organizations responsible for implementing Codex rules (FDA, USDA, DOT, HHS, DOC, EPA, etc. here in America), then apples would be illegal to sell, buy and use under Codex!

That is, in a nutshell, the legal aspect of how Codex operates.

Does this sound like a tyrannical scheme?

It sounds like a tyrannical scheme - because that?s exactly what it is!

Codex Would Mean Destruction of Supplement Manufacturers and Health Food Stores

All new and innovative remedies and nutrients would be forbidden by Codex. They would be forbidden because they would not be explicitly permitted by Codex so they would not even be allowed on the market. Remember: anything not permitted as part of the list of Codex-allowed nutrients would simply be illegal.

Manufacturers would stop producing new and innovative nutritional supplements because they wouldn?t be allowed to manufacture such nutrients, since they would be illegal.

Health food stores would stop carrying non-Codex nutritional products because they would not be able to sell them (remember: it would be illegal). Health food stores wouldn?t even have manufacturers to supply them with products to sell since the manufacturers would be out of business!

The only legal products would be those on the Codex ?positive? list (i.e., what Codex allows).

And of course, therapeutic dosage natural health products would never be put on the Codex ?positive? list, because that?s the whole point of the list: to obstruct and thus destroy natural health product competition to the pharmaceutical industry?s drugs.

?Tyranny? - It?s the Right Word

Codex would allow severe government control over people?s health choices. This is tyranny, plain and simple.

Remember Jefferson and the question about what Codex?s rightful name is? The answer: Codex is a tool for tyranny for the sake of the interests of greedy multinational corporations.

But it is disguised by its sponsors and supporters as ?consumer protection?. This disguise is designed to prevent the American people and Congress from taking decisive action to protect health freedom from Codex.

Be Mindful of Subtle Deception

Even supposed defenders of supplements and nutritional products, such as the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) appear to have fallen prey to the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and are spreading false information saying that Codex is harmless and even good for us.

Codex Brings Devastation to the Earth?s Environment

?Pesticides have often been studied for their links to cancer. Populations that are most at risk for pesticide-related cancers include workers with occupational exposure to pesticides, children whose parents have occupational exposure to pesticides, populations living in agricultural areas of heavy pesticide use and children whose parents use pesticides inside and outside of the home.?
- Samuel Epstein, M.D.

Codex would encourage the increased use of pesticides, veterinary hormones and other toxic drugs and unlabelled Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in your food.

This is in violation to evidence about the dangers of these substances brought forward by eminent scientists like Dr. Epstein.

Codex would promote the increased use of toxins while responsible physicians and scientists the world over are calling for moratoriums and bans on pesticides, GMOs, and hormones and antibiotics in animals, due to the devastating carcinogenic effects of these toxins!

Codex is way behind the times. It is way behind the findings of real science.

Our Responsibility is to Help Congress Protect America

We need to remind Congress of its duty, namely, to first and foremost protect the well-being and interests of the American people who have elected them. We need to make friends with our Congressmen and Congresswomen. They are going to suffer as much as any other American if our health freedoms are subjugated to the desires of the pharmaceutical industry.

We must remind Congress not to allow itself to be abused as pawns in this reckless chess-game of greedy special interest groups.

At the bottom of this web page is a link to a tool that allows you to contact your local Congress representative via the Internet.

Our Enemies: Deception, Lack of Knowledge and Inaction

No one in their right mind would approve this corporate-sponsored control over health unless they didn?t know what was befalling them. Codex cannot be agreed with by any sensible American. It is to be stood up against.

Falling for deception, produced by the Codex-sponsors, is our first enemy.

Lack of knowledge about Codex is our second enemy.

Inaction is our third enemy.

HealthFreedomUSA.org helps you neutralize and overcome the first two enemies so your path to effective action is crystal clear. We?ve made it easy for you to take action (see bottom of page).

You have the power to make a difference. Therefore, Codex is not your primary enemy. That person in the mirror, if he or she does not act, is your primary enemy. This may sound too strong, but it is the only way to put the reality of the situation openly on the table. We, as the American people, are faced with the opportunity to protect our health freedom and to use Codex as a catalyst to expand health freedom. But we must act.

Taking Action is Easy and Quick

By now you should have no doubt that Codex Alimentarius is good for no-one but certain industries. They are doing just fine without the tyrannical powers Codex would give them, so let us stand firm and protect our health freedom. Our health freedom is certainly worth more than massive increases in the profits of massive multi-national corporations!

The Codex story is not written in stone. We can avert this tool of tyranny. There is a window of opportunity to change the course of health freedom from devastation (Codex-ruled America) to growth and renaissance (in an America protected from Codex).

It?s time to take action.

Click here for 3 easy steps that allow you to do your part in protecting health freedom from Codex Alimentarius.

 

 

These 14 points provide you with understanding about Codex Alimentarius - health freedom threat number one. It also explains what to do about it.

  1. Consumer Protection? Unfortunately Not
    The first step to understanding Codex Alimentarius is to realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with ?consumer protection?. That?s propaganda for the sake of getting people and Congress to yield to its implementation.
  2. Says Who?
    Rima E. Laibow, M.D. is a successful natural medicine physician who graduated from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970. Dr. Laibow has studied more than 16,000 pages of Codex Alimentarius documentation. Her conclusion? Codex Alimentarius is a very serious threat to health freedom. We must take it seriously.
  3. Meaning of Name and History of Organization
    ?Codex Alimentarius? means ?food rules? in Latin. The organization was born in 1962 when the UN established the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) as a ?Trade Commission?. It was created to regulate, and thus control, every aspect of how food and nutritional supplements are produced and sold to the consumer. It is solely about trade and the profits of multi-national corporations.
  4. Bolstering Profits of Pharmaceutical Industry
    The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they use. Millions are turning to natural health. Big Pharma fears this as it would diminish profits. Codex is designed to protect Big Pharma profits by eliminating natural health products and treatments. Health food stores and wellness companies would be hit hard.
  5. Codex Alimentarius is Unscientific
    Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses ?Risk Assessment? to set ultra low so-called ?safe upper limits? for them. Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, the science for assessing toxins. The proper science for assessing nutrients is Biochemistry. Codex does not use Biochemistry.
  6. Based on Tyrannical Napoleonic Legal Code
    Codex is based on the Napoleonic Code, dating back to Bonaparte. Under this code, anything not explicitly permitted is automatically forbidden. Under Common Law (our system), something does not have to be explicitly permitted to be legal. The tyrannical Napoleonic Code allows the banning of natural health options by default.
  7. Shrewdly, Slowly Raising Heat
    Codex will go into global effect on December 31, 2009, unless we, the People, take action and avert it. Right now, we are like a frog boiled slowly, the heat raised gradually so we won?t jump out of the water. The media is used to make us believe that Codex is about ?consumer protection?. Part of the media strategy is to tarnish the image of natural health options, through for-hire studies.
  8. Beware Codex Wolves in Sheep?s Clothing
    One-time defenders of supplements and nutritional products, such as the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), have fallen prey to new pharmaceutical members and are spreading disinformation saying that Codex is ?consumer protection?. Their boards used to be run by health freedom fighters.
  9. VMG: Banning Our Supplements
    Codex is made up of many standards for every aspect of food. One of these standards was ratified (approved) in July 2005: the destructive Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG). The VMG can ban all high potency and clinically effective vitamins & minerals. For example, Vitamin C would be restricted to only a few milligrams per dose. Other nutrients, such as amino acids, are also under threat.
  10. DSHEA, Our Best Legal Defense
    The U.S. has a powerful legal tool for health freedom: the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), passed in 1994 after massive grass-roots action. DSHEA scientifically classifies nutritional supplements as food and prevents dosage restrictions; Codex unscientifically classifies them as toxins and sets ultra-low doses. The VMG violates U.S. law because it violates DSHEA. We must unite to protect DSHEA, our best legal defense against Codex.
  11. Congressional Effort Underway to Undermine DSHEA
    The pharmaceutical industry works through irresponsible/corrupt politicians to do their bidding. The path to institute Codex in America is to ?influence? Congress to pass laws friendly to drugs and unfriendly to nutritional supplements, so that slowly everyone comes to believe that nutrients are ?dangerous?, and drugs are ?proper medicine?. Susan Davis (D, CA) and other politicians are helping Big Pharma by supporting bills designed to destroy DSHEA.
  12. U.S. Government Illegally Supports Codex
    The U.S. Codex Office (the U.S. Codex ?point of contact?) is unfortunately highly supportive of Codex. So is the rest of the government, including the pharmaceutical-friendly FDA. They should not be. DSHEA and other U.S. law means their support is in direct violation of the laws of the U.S.A.! They are breaking our laws and they know it.
  13. Let?s Enter Coordinal Relationships With Congress
    Congress has the power to keep America Codex-free. It can defeat bills designed to destroy DSHEA, support health freedom bills, and reprimand the U.S. Codex Office and the FDA. Using the Internet we can reach Congress directly to create a lobby of the people, for the people. Families of Congress would suffer too, if Codex is not averted.
  14. Call to Action
    Thanks to the Internet, millions of health conscious Americans can unite to protect health freedom from Codex Alimentarius. We have the power to turn Codex into a blessing if all of us in the natural health community use it to get active, get organized, and stand up for health freedom. Together, we will let Big Pharma know that we see through their deception and will protect our access to natural health care.

Ready to take action now? Click here.

Ready to learn more? Click here.

http://www.iahf.com/20050517.html

 

http://www2.minlnv.nl/lnv/algemeen/vvm/codex/index.shtml  ministerie van Landbouw

 

Voedselveiligheid, te weinig controle

http://www.trosradar.nl/index.php?id=uitzending&itemUid=1190 video

 

Stevia, strange requests, a...

 

Why Is Society Being Dumbed Down? www.mercola.com

 

 

Arrogant Doctors Can Kill You www.mercola.com

 

Simple Trick to Treat the Cold or Flu www.mercola.com

 

Stevia

 

 

 

Disclaimer

 

Origins of Autism VIDEO
One of the world's foremost experts in mercury toxicity and autism research reveals the horrifying truth behind
 the cause of the syndrome.

Autism Epidemic Soars in America

 

Wat bescherming van consument/patiënt?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/03/15/why-do-drugmakers-still-defend-the-use-of-mercury-in-their-vaccines.aspx

Farmaceutische industrie gaan door met toxische ingrediënten in vaccins

Hartkwalen hartfalen, cholesterol, wat te doen. De aanvullende behandeling

 

 

Misverstanden over cholesterol. Wat te doen na een infarct. Statine-sprookje


Medische missers leidt steeds meer tot overstap naar alternatieve geneeswijzen


Wetenschappelijk onderzoek niet meer onafhankelijk. Banden met farmaceutische industrie

 

Energie van het hart. Chi, yin en yang


Hart- en Vaatziekte & ROKEN en vormen van kanker

 

 

Tai Chi Tao - Archief


19 januari 2007
Jan Kraak

 
Pagina Afdrukken
Terug naar boven