WE NEED YOUR HELP TODAY!
Call and Fax Your Senators

Right now Senator Dodd’s Senate Bill 3217, Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 is on the Senate floor. We have to make sure to keep out a provision to expand the Federal Trade Commission’s authority. Sadly, the 1700+ page House Version of this bill, HR 4173 includes Section 4901 with the FTC expansion of authority.  Furthermore, we have to make sure that when the Senate and House bills are combined in the ‘conference’ process that Section 4901 is removed from the final bill before it becomes law.

With the expanded power granted in this bill, the FTC will have the authority to develop new rules on what information dietary supplement manufacturers can and cannot use as substantiation of their products. Their goal will be to require the dietary supplements and food industries to have conducted two large, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials on every product they market for which any claim of benefit is made. This is the drug model of information substantiation that cost drug companies a BILLION dollars to bring a patented drug to market. It is not a sustainable model for the dietary supplement and food industries. This will undermine the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. We need to stop this from happening!

It is thought that Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who is Chairman of the Commerce, Science and Technology Committee, is likely to offer an amendment on the floor of the Senate during the current debate on S 3217. We need every Senator to vote no on including the “FTC power grant” in S. 3217.

Please call your two Senators today and tell them you do not want the FTC to have expanded authority, to keep that amendment off the Senate Bill and to keep Section 4901 of the House bill out of the final bill that becomes law.

Please send this letter (PDF) to your senators, or for hand delivery fax to Beth Clay at 202-318-7557.

We are not the only ones opposing this amendment. It has broad-reaching effects. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes this. However, it will take a grass roots effort by you and others in the dietary supplement industry to alert Senators and keep them from jumping on board with Senator Rockefeller. We must act immediately.

It is estimated that more than half of Americans use alternative products, many self-prescribed and often without guidance from skilled health professionals. This bill will open the door to alternative health care services provided by trained practitioners — services currently not offered by most medical doctors. Many experts believe broad access to alternative treatments will substantially reduce health care costs while improving the health of the population. Studies show that consumers pay for these services out of pocket.

Alternative treatments have been provided safely for centuries without substantial risk of harm to the public. Legalizing them formally will assure even safer and more professional provision of these services in our state. The bill requires that practitioners give consumers information about their education, professional training, and certification, and to refrain from certain acts and services, such as prescribing drugs or performing surgery, x-rays, etc.

North Carolinians seek out alternative products and services in increasing numbers. However currently very few alternative practitioners dare to practice openly in North Carolina because, under current law, they could be charged with “practicing medicine without a license” and risk criminal penalties. This is because the North Carolina medical licensing law has a very broad definition of what constitutes “the practice of medicine.”

The North Carolina medical practice act currently restricts to licensed physicians: “to prevent or diagnose, correct, prescribe for, administer to, or treat in any manner or by any means, methods, or devices any disease, illness, pain, wound, fracture, infirmity, defect, or abnormal physical or mental condition of any individual.” This excludes alternative professionals not licensed as medical doctors or other medical specialties.

It is easy to understand how existing law excludes alternative treatments in favor of conventional medicine. Most medical doctors do not offer homeopathy, naturopathy, herbal treatments, nutritional therapies or other natural, traditional and innovative therapies. The Consumer Health Freedom Act will make these services more widely available.

Eight other states already have health freedom laws — Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Rhode Island — and at least twenty-two other states have introduced similar bills. What can you do to help make North Carolina the ninth health freedom state?

Health Freedom Among Top Concerns, Americans Tell Obama in Change.org Poll

“Health Freedom – the right to determine what happens to one’s own body – stands out as one of the ‘Top Ten’ ideas at Change.org. Spearheaded by the efforts of Natural Solutions Foundation’s 190,000+ supporters, ‘Health Freedom’ was voted as one of the Top Ten issues to be considered by the incoming Obama Administration. Because of its strong showing, Health Freedom is now mounted on the ‘Citizens BriefingBook’ section of the official Obama transition web site, Change.gov. As with Change.org, voting at Change.gov takes place when people register and vote for an idea or concept. On both sites the concept is called ‘Health Freedom is Our First Freedom!’ to emphasize that without the right to control one’s own body, there is no other meaningful freedom. This definition of a First Freedom caught the attention of large numbers of people who created a viral internet sensation urging their friends and colleagues to express the same sentiment by voting on both sites.”

As we work for Health Freedom rights here in North Carolina, it is gratifying to know that the public has validated this as an issue that is on the minds of many citizens throughout the country!

The U.S. and several other nations recently attended a Codex meeting in Calgary, Canada to discuss food labeling. The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. The Codex Alimentarius (Latin, meaning Food Law or Code) is a collection of internationally adopted food standards presented in a uniform manner. One of the principle reasons for this forum was to discuss the necessity, or lack of necessity as the U.S. sees it, to set up mandatory labeling of GM (genetically modified) and GE (genetically engineered) foods for consumers. South Africa (SA) and many African countries are strong dissenting voices of the U.S. policy that all GM/GE foods are considered equal to non-GM/GE foods and are in fact deemed safe under a 1992 George H. W. Bush Executive Order.

Under this official policy, all GM/GE foods are not required to undergo any kind of safety testing before entering the market. Below you will find the exact policy of the FDA concerning GM food:
“FDA relies primarily on two sections of the Act to ensure the safety of foods and food ingredients. Generally, whole foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and grains, are not subject to premarket approval. The primary legal tool that FDA has successfully used to ensure the safety of foods is the adulteration provisions of section 402(a)(1). The Act places a legal duty on developers to ensure that the foods they present to consumers are safe and comply with all legal requirements. FDA has authority to remove a food from the market if it poses a risk to public health. Foods derived from new plant varieties developed through genetic engineering will be regulated under this authority as well” [1].

Hence, nearly every modified food in the U.S. is completely untested for safety. This is very noteworthy for two reasons: (a) the U.S. leads the world in GM/GE foods (with up to 80% of its prepared and prepackaged foods being modified); and (b) every other nation besides the U.S. tests all GM/GE food before they are put into the food chain. Several African nations have dubbed GM/GE foods as “lethal” and believes the U.S. is fulfilling a population reduction strategy in Africa.

During the CODEX meeting, SA, who has been demanding that Codex provide them with distinct and mandatory GM/GE labels, presented a 10-page document expressing this view. In this document the following critical points were made:

1. Unmet Religious and Ethical Concerns of Christians and Jews

a. Corruption of Divine Protection

South Africa pointed out that in nearly every country there are various religious groups with differing beliefs when it comes to ingesting certain foods. South Africa stated that these “religious and ethical concerns must be noted and respected through global mandatory labeling of foods derived from genetic engineering and biotechnology must take into account ethical and religious concerns” [2] (CCFL, 2008, p. 1). For example, kosher Jews and Halal Muslims would wish to know whether the corn they were eating had been modified with a gene from pigs. Similarly, vegetarians would certainly wish to avoid vegetables which contained animal genes inserted into them and have an ethical right to know if this was the case.

B. Moral and Ethical Protection

SA contends that Codex and the WTO (World Trade Organization) assure protection of the moral, ethical and religious rights of Christian and Jewish believers. Therefore, mandatory labeling is essential to ensure these rights are preserved. If, for example, a Christian believed that God created the heaven and earth as well as all living creatures (including food), then a serious ethical concern would arise if he or she wanted to avoid such modified foods but had no realistic way to do so.

2. Unintended Consumer Health Effects

a. Psychological and Emotional Health

SA rightfully argued that the introduction of GM/GE foods violate the principles and mandates of Codex which are in place to protect the health of the consumer. In Norway, a report on GM/GE foods stated that, “some customers may experience strong ethical, religious, emotional or other objections for purchasing certain foods. These perceived risks may influence their health. These aspects of health should also be considered when the needs for new standards are discussed”[2]. Hence, the labeling of GM/GE foods should be mandatory under such an assumption.

B. Unknown Effects of Consumption of GM/GE Biotech Foods

Due to the lack of testing on GM/GE foods, safety is a significant concern for many individuals. These individuals may wish to avoid such food out of legitimate concern for their well-being. Antibiotic-resistant super diseases may be created if the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM foods would transfer into the consumer. Furthermore, some concerning results have been evinced from animals consuming GM/GE foods. GM DNA has been found in every organ (including fetuses) of animals eating these types of food. Additionally, numerous studies have shown many deleterious short and long-term effects from the consumption of GM/GE foods. For example, spermicide-containing corn, which was developed with funds from the USDA, and results in complete sterility in males has been rampant in the food chain for some time. Without proper labeling of these types of foods, there is no way to protect the fertility of males. Several other recent studies are detailed below:

* In 2005 and 2006, researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that female rats who were fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soya produced an excessive number of stunted pups with over 50% of them dying within three weeks. The other half were all sterile. This experiment was repeated several times with the same result [3].

* Between 2005 and 2006 in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradech in India, thousands of sheep died while grazing on residues from Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, which is a type of bacteria which is toxic to some types of insects) cotton crops [4].

* In 2003, villagers in the Philippines’ south suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower. At least five have died and many villagers tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein while others still remain chronically ill [5].

* Between 2001 and 2002, 12 cows died in Hesse, Germany after consuming Syngenta GM maize (Bt176), while many others had to be slaughtered due to mysterious illnesses [6].

* From 2002 to 2005, researchers from four Italian universities published articles indicating that GM soya adversely affected pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice [5].

* In 2005, Australian researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra reported that a harmless protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor-1) caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and elicited increased dietary sensitivities to other proteins when transferred to peas [7].

* In 1998, researchers reported damage to every organ system of young rats who were fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin [8]. In the same year, researchers in Egypt found analogous effects on the guts of mice fed Bt potato [9].

* In 2002, Aventis, later named Cropscience, submitted research to regulators in the U.K. reporting that chicken fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group [10].

C. Nutrient Non-Equivalence

SA contend that plants genetically modified may not be nutritionally equivalent, bio-available and can possibly possess toxic anti-nutrients [11]. There is no nutritional information for such foods, which raises the possibility that the modified nutrient could be toxic. Different and modified forms of nutrients may be present, which may make these foods unsafe. South Africa concluded that the risks from GM/GE food fall outside the realm of non-modified food and therefore, require strict labels.

D. Post Market Surveillance Impossible Without Labeling

Safety concerns are never over once food reaches consumers. For example, The National Institutes of Science in the U.S. reported in June of 2004 that workers processing GM celery contracted severe rashes, especially when exposed to direct sunlight. Labeling would allow handlers and consumers to become cognizant of potential risks involved with eating and processing such types of foods. Based on the principles of Codex, SA stated that it would be inconsistent and dangerous to adopt anything other than mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods. Furthermore, the absence of adequate labeling of GM/GE foods essentially equates to human experimentation without informed consent. According to Nuremberg Code,

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved… All inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment” [12]. According to SA, mandatory labeling will allow implied informed consent, which will allow consumers to opt in and out of the experiment if they choose to do so.

After SA had submitted their highly researched rationale behind the mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods, the U.S. and its allies (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Indonesia) jumped all over them and stated that extensive research clearly supports that GM/GE foods are safe, therefore, no labeling is necessary. This is obviously not the case (as presented by SA) and delineates the inter-meshed interests and historical marriage between U.S. and large food corporations (i.e., Monsanto, who produces up to 90% of GM/GE seeds and foods). Following the overwhelming condemnation of SA’s paper from the U.S. and the extra procedural requirements the U.S. pushed for because of these comments, the SA government had it subsequently withdrawn.

As a result of this development and the constant battles with the corporations of the U.S. and their biased agendas, SA called another meeting and declared they would circumvent Codex and create their own labeling system with or without their agreement. Countries like Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria, South Africa and several other African countries with Japan, EU, Switzerland, Norway and many other countries stated their commitments to the mandatory labeling.

The meeting concluded with an agreement to eliminate all previous labeling documents and keep the door open for the future possibility of international labeling of GM/GE foods at a later date, which was strongly opposed by the U.S.

References:

1. Nutrition, U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. FDA’s Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology. 2008 [cited May 27, 2008]; Available from: (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biopolcy.html) .

2. CCFL 2008. Comments from South Africa Agenda Item 5. [cited May 27, 2008]; Available from: ((http://www.prweb.com/prfiles/2008/05/01…) .

3. Ho, M.W., GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society, 33: (in press).

4. Ho, M.W., Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society, 2006. 30: p. 12-13.

5. Ho, M.W., GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines. Science in Society, 2006 29: p. 26-27.

6. Ho, M.W. and S. Burcher, Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 4-6.

7. Ho, M.W., Transgenic peas that made mice ill. Science in Society, 2006. 29: p. 28-29.

8. Pusztai, A., S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen, Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects, in Scottish Agricultural College, J.P.F. D’Mello, Editor. 2003, CAB International: Edinburgh.

9. Fares, N.H. and A.K. El-Sayed, Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998. 6: p. 219-233.

10. Novotny, E., Avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 9-11.

11. Allinorm 08/31/34. Report of the Seventh Session of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Appendix III,. 24-28 September 2007: Chiba, Japan.

12. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, in Vol. 2. 1949, U. S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. p. 181-182.

(See the original article HERE.)

In the old TV show, “Get Smart!” there was a line that Maxwell Smart used a lot, “Would you believe…” usually followed by crazier and crazier examples of things to distract someone. Well, you WON’T believe this one!

Imagine a big pharma company that decides to study the numerous health benefits of Vitamin B6. B6 is important to [tag]expectant mothers[/tag], and to anyone that desires healthy blood cell function, and it’s also important in over 100 enzymatic reactions involving protein metabolism. So… they study the vitamin and chemically produce their own “super-B6″ pharmaceutical version of B6 and call it “MC-1.” Now, they are petitioning the FDA to stop the sale of regular B6, because it is “adulterated” since natural B6 contains their drug… MC-1. I kid you not!

So, I can see Max saying, “Would you believe that the natural B6 contains our drug? No? Then would you believe…” This is crazy! And would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that we may continue to lose our rights to buy a natural vitamin because of this crazy reasoning! Read the story via this link, and see what I mean…

Health Freedom Warning: Drug Company Seeks to Outlaw Vitamin B6 to Protect Pharma Profits

“(NaturalNews) Big Pharma is constantly finding new ways to destroy the natural supplements market, in much the same way that the American Medical Association once sought to destroy the chiropractic industry (for which it was later found guilty of conspiracy in U.S. courts, by the way). The latest attack against vitamins comes from an FDA petition filed by Medicure Pharma, Inc., which has astonishingly asked the FDA to ban the sale of Vitamin B6! Vitamin B6, of course, is a naturally-occurring nutrient found in numerous vegetables, nuts and whole grains. Its natural form is called pyridoxal 5′-phosphate or P5P for short. It’s an essential nutrient for expectant mothers, growing children and anyone who wishes to be healthy. It’s absolutely crucial for healthy blood cell function, and it’s used in over 100 enzymatic reactions involving protein metabolism. So why would a pharmaceutical company petition the FDA to outlaw the sale of this essential nutrient? It’s simple: Because Big Pharma wants to market its own form of Vitamin B6 and call it a ‘drug.’ Medicure Pharma, Inc., has been studying the clinical effects of Vitamin B6 (which they call ‘MC-1′) on humans. This is part of a process for receiving FDA approval on MC-1 as a ‘drug,’ and then marketing this drug through the conventional medical system (and selling it at markups that can reach 500,000% over the cost of the actual ingredients)…

So what’s the logic behind banning Vitamin B6? It’s simple: Medicare Pharma wants the FDA to declare Vitamin B6 to be “adulterated” because it contains a drug. Which drug does it contain? Well, MC-1, of course! Do you see the circular reasoning here? Vitamin B6 is a naturally-occurring vitamin, but if a drug company gets FDA approval on Vitamin B6 (with a different name), then that very same drug company can petition the FDA to ban Vitamin B6, claiming it contains their drug! I know this sounds incredibly stupid. And it is. But it isn’t unprecedented. In fact, the very same thing happened with red yeast rice. A few years ago, drug companies discovered that red yeast rice (a natural supplement) contained powerful, natural compounds that balance cholesterol levels. These compounds are called lovastatins (sound familiar?) Drug companies ripped off the lovastatin molecules from red yeast rice, then patented them. Once they achieved FDA approval for their ‘statin drugs,’ it was easy to file a petition requesting the outlawing of red yeast rice, claiming the supplement was ‘adulterated’ with drugs! Which drugs? Statin drugs, of course — the very same drugs that were isolated from red yeast rice in the first place! This is why the FDA has been on a terror campaign to outlaw red yeast rice supplements. They’ve sent warning letters to online retailers and threatened numerous companies with legal action. The point of all this is to eliminate red yeast rice from the marketplace because it competes with statin drugs. And it’s the exact same strategy now being following by Medicure Pharma in its attempt to get the FDA to ban Vitamin B6.”

The primary reason we have not been able to move this bill forward is because we haven’t had the financial resources or the “large numbers” of people involved at the grassroots level to make this issue a “priority issue” with our NC legislators. In order to achieve our goal of passing a North Carolina Health Freedom Act – or simply put, to ensure access to alternative healthcare practitioners, we need to get more people involved in CHF and raise the funds to carry out our legislative and association efforts over the coming months and years.

Without CHF working in support of alternative healthcare in NC, the opponents of alternative would no doubt put the entire scope of anything related to “natural health,” “alternative healthcare” or “complementary healthcare” totally under the jurisdiction of the NC Medical Society. Stated in dollar terms, it takes $25,000 to $30,000 per year to fund a minimal lobbying effort. A major lobbying effort can cost well in excess of $100,000 per year. Some groups, such as the Medical Society (MD’s) spend millions on lobbying efforts. We can’t even think about what is spent by some groups opposed to natural health access, but we can achieve great success if we can raise enough money to cover our legislative lobbying expenses. This has to be a priority for us!

Also, we need to get as many signatures on our petition for HB 1358 as we can as soon as we can to demonstrate a grassroots interest in allowing for healthcare freedoms for all our citizens.

FDA warns Hain of stevia use; calls herb unsafe

In order to understand the war against stevia, we need only look to the power of the artificial sweetener and sugar lobbyists in the industry. After all, who would “lose” in a head-to-head battle of a safe, natural herb that could sweeten our beverages, against artificial chemical “frankenstein-like” creations like aspartame or saccharin? The public would quickly vote with their pocketbooks, and the artificial sweetener industry would soon be no more! They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by stevia’s universal acceptance! Is it no wonder that “hands are being greased” so to speak, to prevent this?

Links of interest with regard to stevia:

The History of Stevia

FDA Bookburning of Stevia Literature!

The FDA and Stevia

Also, for additional reading, I would recommend this book:

The Stevia Story (A Tale of Incredible Sweetness & Intrigue) by: Linda Bonvie, Bill Bonvie, and Donna Gates