EU Supplements Directive 'Is Good For Consumers' - British MP

EU Supplements Directive 'Is Good For Consumers' - British MP

Geoff Sherman of Pembrokeshire asked his Member of Parliament, NICK AINGER MP/AS, the House of Commons' Labour Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, why food supplements are being banned by the British government on behest of the European Community, when there are really no problems with these products as they are, and when many people like himself find nutrients a good way to keep in perfect health.

The response is perfectly typical and could have come from a member of Parliament in any European country. It explains the European "rationale" for regulating supplements. MP Ainger says that "[t]he Directive is designed to provide reassurance for consumers that the ingredients used in food supplements have been thoroughly assessed for safety."

One might ask why consumers need assurance at all that ingredients used in food supplements have been thoroughly assessed for safety, when by actual statistics, food supplements including herbal remedies are by far the safest product category in existence - far safer than normal, everyday foods, and infinitely safer than registered medicines, which are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths every year. If there is no safety related problem with supplements, one might ask, why bother to legislate and restrict consumers' health choices in the process.

- - -

MP Ainger's letter further reads: "It is important to note at the very beginning that none of the vitamins currently used in supplements on sale in the UK are excluded from sale under this Directive."

This statement shows the extent of misinformation that has been spread quite officially about the food supplements directive in Europe. "Don't worry, nothing will be taken off the market". That is simply at variance with the list of "allowed" ingredients and the ingredients for vitamin and mineral supplements that can be found on the market today - not only in England but in many countries of Europe.
Campaigners have pointed out that close to 300 forms of both vitamins and minerals are in fact left off the directive's prescriptive list. Those that are on, are types of ingredients used predominantly in pharmaceutically made supplements of simple formulation and low dose. They are the "less natural" simple chemical salts of minerals and the "active fraction" of vitamins such as alpha-tocoperol in the case of vitamin E.

For a large part, those simple forms have been replaced by closer-to-nature forms of the nutrients in practically all but the mainstream pharmaceutical supplements. Perhaps it is little understood that anyone taking supplements with a serious health related intent would tend to buy the more advanced forms with better bioavailability, rather than those contained in "mainstream" pharmaceutically made supplements.

For that reason, the "don't worry" argument is false. It is really saying "if you want supplements in the future, you will have to be content with what is offered by the pharmaceutical mainstream. Innovative products are out - sorry."

In fact, the confirmation for this state of affairs comes in MP Ainger's next statement: "In addition, the Directive only deals with food supplements - it does not affect vitamins and minerals that are licensed medicinal products and consumers who still need these products will still be able to get them."

When did MP Ainger last check in his local pharmacy for high dose vitamin supplements registered as medicines? I bet he did not, because he's not a "consumer" - if he was, he would know that there are few if any licensed medicinal products sporting vitamins that any health conscious person would voluntarily consider using.

But not to worry, everything should be ok, because we already warned you years ago. In fact, continues MP Ainger, "the suppliers and manufacturers of food supplements have had three years to prepare for the regulations coming into effect. The Government has provided maximum flexibility in national legislation to ensure that as many products as possible can continue to be marketed after the Directive comes into effect later this year on 1st August."

The reference here is to a procedure outlined in the food supplements directive, by which ingredients may be added to the list of "allowed ingredients". The procedure requires - for each form of a nutrient, regardless of how long it may have been on the market without problems - that experiments be performed (yes, that does include experiments on laboratory animals) to show what's known as the "toxicological profile" of the nutrient. The procedure has been characterised "as transparent as a black box" by the Advocate General in a recent hearing of the European Court of Justice in a legal case challenging the directive.
One might argue that this "safety requirement" is going just a bit too far. In effect, foods - supplements are foods, after all - now must "prove their innocence", they must "show safety", before they can be sold. This might be justifiable if there was a widespread problem of unsafe supplements wreaking havoc with consumers' health, but that is clearly not the case. Occasionally we see press reports on supplements and potential safety problems all blown out of proportion, but such reports are usually inspired by "the competition", meaning the large pharma makers, and they are definitely not a substitute for actual scientific data. The real data show that there is no problem that needs intervention.

For all the talk about having been soft on the manufacturers however, the black box does turn out not to be very flexible. Evidence of this is that no ingredient has been newly approved under the directive's procedure in the last three years, and a measly twenty to thirty dossiers have been filed at all.

Dossiers showing safety are one of the trappings of pharmaceutical medicines. Not that they are very effective in showing safety - we see one drug after another taken off the market despite having "shown safety" under these drug related procedures. To require such dossiers for nutrient food substances is not only ineffective by actual record, it also is extremely vexing to producers of natural health products and it is telling consumers: "sorry chap, you must buy pharmaceutical".

Let me be quite clear about it at the risk of being repetitive: there is NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION for such a course of action except to protect the larger pharmaceutical manufacturers over the smaller and medium sized ones that are smart enough to be putting closer-to-nature ingredients into their products. It lets down consumers who spend their own hard earned money on what they believe are the best products they can find, forcing them to go for an inferior thing.

MP Nick Ainger proceeds to explain that looking at "folic acid for example, it's important not to take too much because this could be harmful. Folic acid works together with vitamin B12 to form healthy red blood cells, but if you're not getting enough vitamin B12 - known as vitamin B12 deficiency - taking doses of folic acid higher than 1 mg can hide this fact."

This "danger" is highly theoretical. There are no confirmed cases in medical literature that show excessive intake of folic acid causing real health problems. On the contrary, folic acid is indispensable for our health and - big surprise - most painkillers deplete the body of folic acid.
And let's for a moment assume that there really was a danger of folic acid hiding a possible B 12 deficiency. What would be wrong with recommending to take vitamin B 12 together with folic acid? Problem resolved. What would be wrong with a label warning on bottles of folic acid tablets: "watch our for your status of B 12". Problem resolved. But no, we are rushing to prohibit any supplement containing "too much" folic acid. The intention is clear: limit nutritional health intervention, limit the individual-driven prevention of illness with nutrients in favor of government-driven pharmaceutical "treatment".

Some of the minerals that have been found to be useful for health are banned outright. Not to be used - verboten! MP Ainger mentions six: "vanadium, tin, cobalt, silicon, boron and nickel." He goes on to state: "Long-establish empirical research (sic) carried out by the medical profession has established that deficiency of any of these chemicals is not known in humans."

One should add that the six minerals named are but the tip of a huge iceberg. Beneath the waves we barely see a large number of trace minerals and rare earth elements that have been part and parcel of our nutrition for eons, but they are suddenly "illegal", at least in the new and regulated type of supplements we are meant to swallow in the future.
And the six that are "above the water line"? All of these minerals have some recognized role in human health, although we haven't been able to find specific deficiency symptoms caused by their absence. But is that a good enough reason to prohibit their use?

Are we not throwing the baby out with the bath water here?

It certainly seems so from my vantage point.

The full text of the letter:

From: geoff sherman
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 10:00 AM
Subject: Vitamins and Food supplements

At least my MP has bothered to reply - though I do not trust his reply at all!

I would be grateful if those who know more than me (not difficult!) would be kind enough to comment on what he has sent me.

I have reproduced it below for those who do not like attachments (though the attachment is virus scanned) and as an attachment for those who prefer the formatting to be retained!

Geoff Sherman

NICK AINGER MP/AS

Labour Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire
Aelod Llafur dros Gorllewin Caerfyrddin a De Benfro
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Tel/Ffon: 020 7219 4004 Fax/Ffacs: 020 7219 2690

Constituency Office/Swyddfa Etholaeth
Ferry Lane Works, Ferry Lane
Pembroke Dock
Pembs. SA71 4RE
Tel/Ffon. 01646 684404 Fax/Ffacs. 01646 682954

Our Ref / Ein Cyf M05/014 31 January 2005

Mr Geoffrey Sherman
Swan House
Thomas Chapel
Kilgetty
Pembrokeshire
SA68 0XL

Dear Mr Sherman

EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE ON FOOD SUPPLEMENTS

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Food Supplements Directive and your opposition to its introduction. I know that there has been much campaigning on this issue and first I think it is important to set out the facts.

The Food Supplements Directive sets down measures to ensure that food supplements are safe to use and that they are of adequate quality. The Directive is designed to provide reassurance for consumers that the ingredients used in food supplements have been thoroughly assessed for safety. It is important to note at the very beginning that none of the vitamins currently used in supplements on sale in the UK are excluded from sale under this Directive. In addition, the Directive only deals with food supplements - it does not affect vitamins and minerals that are licensed medicinal products and consumers who still need these products will still be able to get them.

As you know, the EU Directive came into force in July 2002 and the UK Government was required by British and EU law to implement it by the end of July 2003. This was done by a set of food supplement regulations which were approved by the House of Commons on 3rd July 2003. Thus, the suppliers and manufacturers of food supplements have had three years to prepare for the regulations coming into effect.

The Government has provided maximum flexibility in national legislation to ensure that as many products as possible can continue to be marketed after the Directive comes into effect later this year on 1st August.

I am sure that you are also aware that the Directive includes two positive lists. The first covers the vitamins and minerals that may be used in food supplements (eg vitamin C, calcium, iron) and the second list covers the chemical forms of these vitamins and minerals that may be used in food supplements. It is true that the food supplements industry estimates that the second list of sources which might be used excludes over 200 chemical sources of vitamins and minerals used in food supplements currently on sale in the UK. However, for most vitamins and minerals, the second list includes several different sources. So, for example, there are nine different chemical form of calcium and 11 different forms of iron that can be used. Thus, all of the vitamins and most of the minerals currently on sale in the UK will still be available because the second list includes a number of alternative sources.

The aim of this legislation is to protect public health by ensuring that all ingredients used in food supplements are safe for consumption. The legislation is designed to ensure that too high a level of ingredient is not used in food supplements which may have an adverse effect on the consumer. In folic acid for example, it's important not to take too much because this could be harmful. Folic acid works together with vitamin B12 to form healthy red blood cells, but if you're not getting enough vitamin B12 - known as vitamin B12 deficiency - taking doses of folic acid higher than 1 mg can hide this fact. An early symptom of vitamin B12 deficiency is anaemia but taking large amounts of folic acid treats the anaemia without treating the B12 deficiency. If vitamin B12 deficiency isn't noticed, it can eventually lead to damage of the nervous system (neurological damage). Therefore, by regulating the amount of ingredients permitted in folic acid supplements, the legislation is designed so that the amount of ingredient is kept at a safe level, i.e. no higher than 1 mg.

Of the sources on the excluded list only six of them are unique with no alternative chemical form: vanadium, tin, cobalt, silicon, boron and nickel. Long-establish empirical research carried out by the medical profession has established that deficiency of any of these chemicals is not known in humans. Whilst it is true that cobalt is part of vitamin B12, vitamin B12 deficiency is best corrected by taking the vitamin itself and cobalt deficiency is again not known in humans. The lists of permissible vitamins and minerals and the chemical sources for them do remain open and can be added to once manufacturers have proved the safety of ingredient to the European Food Safety Authority.

Thank you for writing to me about this issue and I am sorry that we are unable to agree on this matter but I hope that this letter has helped to clarify my position.

NICK AINGER MP

See also:

The Telegraph: Consumers attack Boots over lower doses in its supplements

Some documents about the passage of the European food supplements directive.

Alliance for Natural Health - the group that is challenging the rationale of the directive both in court and with scientific data.

Why organized medicine wants to outlaw nutrition and turn healers into criminals
How about some truth for a change about the Food Supplements Directive in the European Union? The proponents of this directive say that it's about protecting patients from all these dangerous vitamins, minerals, supplements, plant extracts and antioxidants that are so dangerous for people. They say, "We're going to keep you safe!"

posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday February 3 2005
updated on Tuesday December 21 2010

Print this article

URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/02/03/eu_supplements_directive_is_good_for_consumers_british_mp.htm

Related Articles

What's happening in the UK effects YOU - FSD/CODEX
The following letter does a superb job of explaining the complexities of the EU Food Supplements Directive and is a must read. Understanding the issue is our key to action. Yet again, we see a demonstration on how our elected officials won't and/or can't represent us even in this important issue of health... We really need to take them to task rather than continue to accept this sort of performance... [read more]
February 10, 2005 - Chris Gupta

Food Supplements: European Court To Hear Anti-Prohibition Case In January
The European Court of Justice has set 25 January 2005 as the date for hearing a case challenging the new European Directive on Food Supplements. The EU supplement law's prohibition clause will go into effect in July 2005, taking off the market many supplements consumers are now buying, unless the directive is overturned or substantially modified. The case was referred to the EU court by judge Richards of the London... [read more]
December 09, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

European Commission Financing Own Consumer 'Opposition'
The European Union's Health and Consumer Directorate seems to have a habit of financing its own 'opposition', that is, critical consumers. An example that has come to my attention is a "consumer" campaign in Italy, Spain and Greece, which has the aim of telling people that food supplements "are dangerous" and that regulations, such as the European Food Supplements Directive, recently challenged in the European Court of Justice, are therefore... [read more]
April 14, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

UK House of Lords votes against EU supplements directive
LONDON 1 July 2003 - The House of Lords, in a vote of 132 to 79, approverd a motion last night asking the Government not to transform the European Food Supplements Directive into UK law. While the motion, put forward by Earl Howe, is not binding, it sends a strong message to the Government to return to the negotiating table with the European Commission and Council to work out a... [read more]
July 01, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

EU Commissioner snubs nutrition
26 September 2003 - Kinsale, West Cork, Ireland The Consumer and Health Commissioner of the European Union, David Byrne, in a recent address to a group of business leaders in his home country, Ireland, has spent ample time and many words talking about food quality and food safety but strangely, the word nutrition did not cross his lips. How can we assert food to be "safe" or of "high quality"... [read more]
September 30, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

Supplements case to go to European Court
LONDON 30 January 2004 - The London High Court ruled today that the case against the European food supplements directive may be referred to the European Court of Justice. Mr Justice Richards ruled that there is "an arguable case" and that reference [of the the matter] to the EU Court of Justice "is plainly appropriate and should be made as soon as possible". "This is an important breakthrough in our... [read more]
January 30, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger

Readers' Comments

I find this article very interesting because my MP, Colin Pickthall (Labour), also stated these same points in a letter I received after sending an email asking him to vote for the cross party motion opposing the Directive. What I find annoying is the fact that many MPs have received letters from constituents concerned about the loss of leading-edge food supplements, but I doubt any constituents felt so strongly to have written letters in support of the Directive, which makes a sham of democracy. My MP sent his summary of 'what is actually happening in an effort to dispel some of the myths that have been promulgated about the Directive.' He said his reasons for opposing the motion [against the EU Directive] were made clear in Mike O'Brien's closing speech to the debate, and that the UK managed to negotiate a more flexible regime than what was wanted by the EU.

I emailed a reply outlining some points which have also been stated so well by Geoff Sherman in the above article:

"Thank you for your speedy reply, but I must clarify that despite the assurances of yourself and Melanie Johnson that nearly all vitamins and minerals will still be available, it is not a question of whether, but in what form they will be available. I am afraid that your 'Key Points' list is littered with Orwellian porcine double-speak as is the Directive, which I have read myself and so cannot be under any illusions or have fallen victim to a promulgated myth. I took proprietary brand supplements for years, the ones containing nutrient forms on the positive list, to no effect, not even a placebo - I still got psoriatic arthritis. The reason is that these so called 'metallic' minerals are only 3-5% bio-available after the age of 40, which would necessitate a dose of up to 33.3 tablets just to receive the dose on the bottle - and that is usually quite low in these brands (no wonder drug companies peddle this type!).

Paying considerably more for chelated minerals would get you 40%, but leading-edge liquid colloidal ionised minerals are 98% absorbable and they will certainly be banned unless dossiers can be submitted *and* approved. The latter colloidal ionised trace minerals (not even high dose!) have given me back my life and had an amazing palpable effect after just two weeks - eventually I threw away my wrist splints and insoles, discharged myself from hospital and weaned myself off the awful drug regime necessitating regular blood tests (and just weeks ago the FDA admitted that NSAIDS could cause heart disease).

I must also clarify that, according to a recent earth summit, agricultural land is desperately short of minerals; 76% depleted in Europe over the last century which means that I for one can neither afford nor eat the amount of fruit and vegetables required to get my minerals (organic of course because I want to avoid immune-suppressing pesticides).

It is ironic also that Vitamin A is to be allowed in its *synthetic* form. This is the form that has been shown to be less effective and possibly harmful according to recent trials. However, if you take for example emulsified Vitamin A, there is no harm and considerable benefits from taking larger doses since it bypasses the liver altogether. Leading-edge science. But all we got in the debate was how vitamin A could be dangerous and cause liver damage (24 hour drinking does a better job of the latter but I still agree that people should be free to make up their own minds). Well the synthetic form of vitamin A as manufactured by pharmaceutical companies made it to the positive list, and I can't think why!

These points were not addressed as I watched the parliamentary debate on digital TV. It was sad that some MPs (Con & Lab) ended up playing party politics with people's lives, but nevertheless I thought Kate Hoey, Diane Abbott, John Pugh, Chris Grayling and David Tredinnick spoke with integrity and in the true spirit of representative democracy *on behalf of their constituents*.

I found Tom Levitt extremely patronising since he spoke from knowledge current *when* he taught nutrition (as if science were static!) and seemed to enjoy his moment of floccinaucinihilipilification. The river flows on and he has failed to keep up; not surprising because bio-chemistry is about 20 - 25 years ahead of medicine and the world knowledge for this subject doubles every 4 years.

Vanadium has no biological function? Old science. It has been used with chromium to help treat diabetes and it has been shown to reduce the need for insulin in humans. (for just one reference Mr Levitt could try: Harland, P., et al., Journal of the American Diabetic Association, 1994; 94(8): 891-94).

Among the other banned minerals: boron helps keep calcium in the bones along with magnesium, but the benefits of nickel I am not sure of. However I do know that skin contact with the metal causes allergic reactions in many people and so cannot understand why it is allowed in the Euro coin (I cannot help laughing in contempt at the EU Commission).

I am afraid that Mike O'Brien's speech angered me greatly with its showy display of false emotion as if being feigned by a teacher when addressing a naughty schoolchild. Yes he spoke of how the Government had negotiated the best possible deal and how the other EU countries (presumably Greece and Germany) would have liked a more restrictive regime, but all I could think was, 'well that's just ducky'. Since when has this nation been beholden to an unelected oligarchy? His speech showed precisely why the EU engenders such hostility, and I couldn't care less who got us into the treaties in the past, only that our representatives (whose wages we all pay) stand up for our freedom now."

Jim Cooke

Posted by: Jim Cooke on February 4, 2005 02:17 PM

A comment received by email:

From: b@
Subject: RE: EU Supplements Directive 'Is Good For Consumers' - British MP
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:00:51 +0100

In the simplest of terms.

The EU bureaucrats & brainless politicians use "harmonisation" and "safety" to seriously prejudice EU citizens' power of choice by arbitrarily eliminating goods that have been and are today legitimately marketed as safe in the European Common Market. All this constitutes a flagrant violation of the Free Trade Statute on which the EC was founded.

In fact, the real prejudice concerns the violation of EU's own Statute of Free Exchange of Goods between the Member States. The food supplements that fall by the wayside are the "shot in the handling" victims of the greater plan to deprive EU citizens of the Fundamental Rights given to them by the EU Statutes.

Posted by: Sepp on February 4, 2005 09:27 PM

The big, rapacious pharmaceutical companies have been trying to get control of the supplement market for many years. They are now absolutely determined to do so and with people like MP Nick Ainger and others on their side - they may well succeed!

The EU directive is ill thought out by people who know very little about it but who are relentless in their desire to make money from it.

Posted by: Diane Skene Catling on February 7, 2005 12:15 AM

A comment received through the Alternative Medicine Forum:

Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 15:17:11 +0000 (GMT)
From: Chris Garen chrisgaren555@
Subject: Re: EU Supplements Directive 'Is Good For Consumers' - British MP

Hello Sepp,
I had a very similar reply from my MP when I emailed
him and no reply at all from the Government ministers
who are dealing with the EU directive.
Best wishes
Chris

Posted by: Sepp on February 7, 2005 09:34 PM

geoff sherman writes:

More about the threat to our Freedom of Choice in Health matters which although initiated by the corrupt, bureaucratic EC and allowed to go through by our spineless Government in the UK potentially affects the whole world - and yes that DOES include the USA (land of the free ???). This is a long email - but it DOES suggest there is something YOU can do about it - the most obvious thing in UK of course is at the forthcoming election to campaign AGAINST every single MP - REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY - who is not fighting tooth and nail against this onslaught on our freedom. Only vote for someone who opposes it - and if you have not got one in your constituency then don't vote at all - and tell each candidate WHY!

Read it, acton it, and pass it on !!!

This is one of the many reasons for my choice of email address!

Geoff Sherman

There has been much misunderstanding, and dare I say it, misinformation, regarding the EU Food Supplements Directive and ANH's legal challenge to it.

As ANH Partners and Members it is vital that you understand what is really going on and I am going to attempt in this letter to put you in the picture.

It is quite involved and may take a little time to read but I urge you to persevere as your continued access to quality and effective food supplements depends on YOU taking appropriate informed action.

What's wrong with the Food Supplements Directive?

The British Government and many MPs and MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) when asked about the Food Supplements Directive ("FSD") will insist that it is a good piece of EU legislation because it harmonises the currently very different laws of all EU Member States in respect of food supplements and ensures high quality standards at the same time. Thereby trade in supplements is increased across the EU and consumers can feel safe.

Seems reasonable you might be thinking.

But what is the price tag?

Six key things principally;

1.. The FSD reverses the burden of proof as regards showing that food supplements are safe. Previously a food supplement could generally be sold as food unless the Regulator could prove scientifically that it is unsafe. (This is the position in the USA for example under DSHEA). Now in the EU it will be for the manufacturer to prove at great cost that it is harmless before he can sell it.
2.. It creates a very restricted list (known as the "positive list") of allowable nutrients which favours synthetic nutrients over those much closer to how they are found in nature.

3.. It will, in time set what are anticipated to be very low maximum doses of nutrients

4.. In order to get on the positive list of allowable nutrients a technical and very costly Dossier will required which may or may not ultimately be acceptable to the EU Regulators

5.. If a nutrient (or its source) is not on the restricted list it will be banned across the EU from 1 August 2005 regardless of the fact that it was previously happily allowed to be sold in various EU Member States for perhaps many years.

6.. At present the FSD only applies to vitamins & minerals. However it is a framework Directive and is intended in time to apply to all nutrients and their sources. So the negative pattern we see here applying now to vitamins and minerals will in time be applied to all nutrients.

So what have we got?

Under the guise of a harmonisation Directive ostensibly seeking to improve the supply of food supplements across the EU, we in fact end up with a measure which will ban many nutrients presently on sale in the EU.

And for those that get through, the maximum dose levels are likely to be very impotent.

The Directive thus defeats the whole purpose for which many people take food supplements, namely to supplement their diet in order to promote optimal well being through the addition of key vital nutrients which they cannot get in their normal diets any more (unless they happen to live in an organic tropical paradise).

The fact that the FSD has a negative effect is impossible to hide.

The UK Government when it undertook its Regulatory Impact Assessment (measuring the impact of the implementation of the FSD in the UK) concluded that on balance the FSD had a negative cost / benefit for the UK and conceded that the ban on nutrients which are currently allowed to be sold in the UK (unless they get requalified by submission of a dossier) was "unnecessary".

You'll see many statistics flying around but in essence we are looking at the ban of around 75% of the vitamin and mineral sources ("forms") currently on the EU market. This will translate into a banning of some 300 vitamin and mineral ingredients and possibly around 5000 products currently available.

Now remember, if this is what is happening to vitamins and minerals now what will happen to all other nutrients in the future?

Keep well in mind the 3 FSD bogey men:

1.. The reversal of the burden of proof
2.. The restricted list of allowable nutrients unless proved harmless at huge cost

3.. The very low potencies which will be allowed even if a nutrient gets through and onto the positive list

In summary what the FSD is really doing is to impose quite arbitrarily and unnecessarily, a drugs style licensing regime on food supplements or more particularly on food nutrients which hitherto we have been eating happily for thousands of years!

Well if this is so bad you might be asking how on earth did it get passed into EU law?

Indeed.

ANH has exhaustively researched this question and the bottom line is - no one seems really to be able to justify what has happened.

The usual reason given is as I have explained above. The FSD will promote trade in safe food supplements across the EU.

And yes the price tag for the UK and other more liberal regimes may be high but that was the best we could get in our negotiations in Europe, so says the UK Government in particular.

But we say at ANH that the price is far too high and quite unnecesary and unacceptable.

The international Dimension

You might be reading this from a country outside the EU and thinking well that's pretty tough for those Europeans but we're ok here.

True for now, but perhaps not for long.

You may be aware that the EU has the dominant vote in the setting of Codex international standards for food. Thus what they want they can push through even if other countries protest.

This is a complex area of international law but in brief ANH and others are extremely concerned that an EU regime for the treatment of food supplements may be exported world wide under the auspices of Codex and made to have regulatory teeth through the WTO.

More, on this complicated subject in another letter.

But for the time being I repeat my point.

Bad things that happen in Europe may very well in time also negatively affect the rest of the world.

And that means YOU.

The ANH Legal Challenge

As you are well aware pretty early on ANH came to the view that the only way to deal with the FSD was to challenge it in the Courts and ultimately that meant bringing a case in the EU supreme court; the European Court of Justice ("ECJ").

I will not bore you with the details of our case (for those who are interested, the key documents are available in the "ANH Legal Challenge" documents area of our web site).

But in essence we are saying the following.

Food supplements are food, not drug.

Therefore they do not need a drugs style regulatory regime imposed upon them.

You do not need a license to sell food.

Under existing law throughout the EU, food is perfectly well regulated from a legal point of view ensuring quality and safety.

The Food Supplements Directive, if it really was intended to harmonise and promote the supply of safe food supplements across the EU, did not require a ban on nutrients which were not on the positive list.

It could have and indeed should have had merely a minimum list of acceptable nutrients which all Member States were obliged to accept across the EU (sometimes called a "White List").

Whilst leaving individual Member States free to allow a wider selection of nutrients to be used in food supplements within their particular borders if they wanted to.

Indeed we go further and argue that under EU law, the FSD, in imposing a sweeping and draconian ban across the EU without even attempting to provide a scientific justification
or rationale, actually infringes EU law.

We conclude that the FSD should be allowed to remain and but should do its job properly.

Thus without the ban.

It would then act as a minimum white list of vitamin and mineral nutrients which all Member States would be obliged to accept across the EU.

That would increase trade.

What are our chances of success?

Cautiously we would say that we are optimistic. EU legal precedent is on our side.

The UK Government chose not to present oral submissions at the Hearing of the case in the ECJ on 25 January 2005. Paul Lasok QC, our barrister said that in his experience it is most rare for the UK to not attend an oral hearing where it has filed Written Observations as it has done here.

The only Member State to present oral submissions was Greece.

And despite repeated questioning from the Advocate-General (a very senior independent lawyer who advises the ECJ in its deliberations), none of the Community Institutions were able to adequately explain exactly how the procedure for getting a nutrient on to the positive list actually works.

Indeed in some consternation the Advocate-general exclaimed at one point that as far as he could see it the procedure had "the transparency of a black box".

Aside from being amusing this comment is significant because if the ECJ finds that there was no proper and transparent procedure for getting on the positive list that itself would be a ground for finding the ban as being unlawful under EU law.

As you will have seen from our press releases the Advocate-General will be giving his Opinion on 5th April 2005.

This is not the judgment of the Court which will follow probably in June 2005. However as the ECJ tends to follow its Advocate-Generals' Opinions in 80% of cases this Opinion is going to be very significant.

What you can do

First and foremost please understand that we are all in this together.

It's not a question of you helping the ANH with "its problem."

No, rather we, together with you, are in an alliance to protect the continued supply and availability of natural advanced and safe food supplements in the EU and indeed the world which are able to do their job properly.

What job?

Supplying vital micro-nutrients which are now missing from our western diet.

So when you help the Alliance you need to see that you are helping yourself and your family and those who are dear to you, to be able to maintain optimal health.

More particularly here are some key action points for you:

1.. Tell your friends and contacts about the problem and forward this and other ANH e-mails to them so that they know what is going on.
2.. Recruit your friends and contacts to join the Alliance.

3.. Donate urgently needed funds to ANH.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW!

To make a donation to ANH visit the website given at the end of this letter.

Remember that without you there is no Alliance!

Thanks for all that you do.

Yours in health!

David C. Hinde LLB Solicitor
Legal Director
Alliance for Natural Health"
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org

Posted by: Sepp on February 16, 2005 07:10 PM


	The Individual Is Supreme And Finds Its Way Through Intuition

Home | Site map | About | Contact

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

These articles are brought to you strictly for educational and informational purposes. Be sure to consult your health practitioner of choice before utilizing any of the information to cure or mitigate disease. Any copyrighted material cited is used strictly in a non commercial way and in accordance with the "fair use" doctrine.

1543


Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media