Codex meeting on GM food labeling rules

I met with Dr. Rima and Gen. Bert earlier today while they were on layover at JFK airport on their way to the Codex meeting in Ghana. We had a chance to lunch with a group of health and freedom activists to discuss finally ending compulsory vaccination. More about that will be posted in a few days. Hopefully a YouTube piece will be posted too.

But right now, with General Stubblebine and Dr Laibow "in the air" its time to think about the next challenge...

They are really excited by the possibilities for an alliance of developing nations that will stand against the irrational US position on Genetically Modified (GM) foods at the Codex meeting. That position is: since FDA research shows that Americans prefer non GM food, when they have that information and since the FDA has decided that is a "bad" decision, there should be no GM labeling -- no requirement that GM foods be so labeled and a prohibition against any "GM Free" labeling.

[That position is in direct contravention to US law, but that doesn't bother FDA: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort. *** We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information." - Supreme Court, Thompson v Western States Medical]

So watch for the fireworks at Codex when the fate of GM foods is debated this coming week. Dr. Rima will be blogging about this at www.healthfreedomusa.org

Meaningful health freedom needs "truthful and not misleading" information about foods, nutrients and remedies. Forbidding speech thus forbids health. What happens half a world away, at a meeting of a UN agency committee next week may determine whether the FDA gets away with defying the US Constitution... again.

-----------------------

01/31/08 Update: See Dr. Laibow's blog from the meeting:

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=512

Ron Paul Speaks Out Against Forced Vaccination

Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008
InfoWars.net - by Steve Watson

"Presidential candidate Ron Paul has spoken out against forced vaccination and the federal government's eagerness to dictate what Americans may and may not put into their bodies.

The Congressman, a fully qualified obstetrics and gynecology doctor, made his position plain in an interview with the Huffington Post's election reporter James Freedman:

"I don't think anything should be forced on us by the government, [and] immunization is one thing that we're pressured and forced into," he said.

"A responsible parent is going to say, 'Yeah, I want my child to have that,' [but] when the government makes a mistake, they make it for everybody. You know, that's what worries me. They don't always come up with the perfect answer sometimes... and people have had some very, very serious reactions from these immunizations."

Besides certain laws that apply only to government medical specialists - there is no law that enforces the mandatory use of any vaccine in the United States. Enforced medical treatment is an assault and a violation of the 14th amendment, the reason Ron Paul, a strict Constitutionalist, is so directly against it.

However, some in Washington seem determined to ignore the Constitution and to make some vaccinations (usually the most profitable ones) mandatory.

There has recently been a spate of cases where officials, with the assistance of directed media propaganda, have attempted to cajole parents into believing that laws require vaccination.

Last February one such media hoax fooled parents in Texas and other areas of the country into believing that the HPV vaccine, which experts have slammed as untested and has continued to be linked to dangerous side-effects, is now required by law and that young girls must take it. Merck Pharmaceuticals hit the headlines after it was revealed that the company was set to capitalize on this fraud by making obscene profits from a crony deal with Governor Rick Perry, while children were put at risk.

Last November we reported on a case in Prince George's County, Maryland, where parents of more than 1600 children were told they could be put in jail for failing to get their kids vaccinated. At the time a local Fox News affiliate reported, "A new law was passed last year requiring children from 5th through to 10th grade to have the vaccine," which was a total lie. A state prosecutor involved in the case then admitted that there is no law that mandates any vaccine."

Read the rest at InfoWars.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2008/230108Vaccines.htm

NYC says ignorance is bliss... just trust the City with your health.

The New York City Soviet wants to license private ownership of "the possession or use of any instruments which monitor chemical, biological or radiological contamination" -- to "reduce excessive false alarms and unwarranted anxiety..."

I kid you not. Private sources of information about contamination of the environment could be banned under a bill pending before the NYC council; since the power to license is the power to ban. Says NYCOSH,

"Had such legislation been in place on and after 9/11, the independent testing done by unions and community-based organizations could not have been legally conducted and what we now know about the contamination of Lower Manhattan would be limited."

See: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=53912

Let's see, since measuring the environment and communicating about it is communication - speech about information in the public domain, the Supreme Court's "two prong test" for government restrictions on speech should apply.

The first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If "no" to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is "substantial", (2) the regulation must "directly advance" the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be "more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest" (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).

Is "reducing anxiety" a "substantial" governmental interest? Hardly. We have a right to the truth, no matter how that may make us feel.

Is reducing false alarms? How does licensing "directly advance" that interest? How does it do so without being "more extensive than is necessary...?"

What this bill #650 does is protect the authorities from embarrassment. That's it. And our health be damned.

As we have been saying: No health without freedom.

Health Freedom Victory on rBGH Labeling in Pennsylvania!

Late breaking news from the Center for Food Safety, www.centerforfoodsafety.org

"Victory on rBGH Labeling in Pennsylvania!

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) has backed down from a controversial ban on the use of labels on milk products. The agency had issued new rules in October, set to go into effect February 1st that would have barred dairy companies or milk producers from labeling their products as from cows not treated with rBGH. PDA argued that a misleading impression might be conveyed by identifying milk as coming from cows not treated with synthetic hormones. Pennsylvania would have been the first state to implement such a labeling ban."

A victory for health, freedom and truthful labeling! Health Freedom advocates strongly support the right of all producers to include truthful information on their labels, even when those in authority think the information is not relevant.

This is in keeping with the leading Supreme Court Commercial Speech Case of Thompson v Western States Medical Centers, where then Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority:

"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last - not first - resort."

"We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information."

"Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring... a warning..."

ACLU warns against threat to health and freedom: the US Government!!!

ACLU held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC yesterday, releasing a report, Government Must Abandon Misguided Approach to Pandemic Preparedness and warning us all of this threat to health and freedom (link to report below).

NSF's own Charlie Frohman was there and reports in his Common Interest blog -

"An avian influenza call “H5N1″ has killed birds around the world, and if it spreads to humans, President Bush has proposed military quarantines of whole sections of the population. ACLU claims coercion never protects the public health, and trading “liberty for security” is a dangerous slippery slope that justifies perpetual Rights violations.

"And despite ACLU assurances, can they really protect”our liberties” from Big Brother’s “security”? Precedent suggests not. After the September, 2001 terrorism, we suffered the Patriot Act and the Military Tribunals Act, Total Information Awareness, No-Fly lists, as well as “signing statements”. The 2006 Defense Authorization Act expanded the 1807 Insurrection Act to allow the President to declare Martial Law and send in the Military not only for insurrections, but also any “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition,” with both “incident” or “condition” not defined nor limited. Further, Haliburton has built a constellation of concentration camps (like our very own Gulag Archipelago) across the U.S. - are these camps for infected patients, or civil libertarians and nonviolent dissidents (once Congress passes the “Homegrown Terrorism” bill)?"

Read more -

http://www.commoninterest.info/2008/01/16/aclu-to-protect-against-government-in-pandemic/

ACLU Report - http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/33649prs20080114.html

DHEA under threat again!

Oppose S.2470 Classifying DHEA as an Anabolic Steroid

Back in 1995 I handled cases in New Jersey regarding the nutrient DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone, a hormone) generally considered the basis for the current legal status of DHEA. As the Judge in one of those case ordered:

"...that the Prosecutor... is hereby directed to forthwith return to the Defendant all of... her DHEA, a dietary substance, which is neither a prescription drug nor a controlled substance." Link

In 1995 the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) was a new and untried law. Many elements in the federal and state governments were still operating under the old assumption that "alternative" health modalities, including nutrient supplementation, were tantamount to fraud and needed to be suppressed in the public interest. This was never true in the first place, but rather the result of several generations of propaganda by certain groups in the illness industry. Today, with the changes that have been made in the AMA's Code of Ethics (Opinion 3.04, permitting cooperation between licensed physicians and alternative practitioners) in response to successful anti-trust lawsuits, such views have been fully discredited.

But, just a decade or so ago, such ideas were all too prevalent in some government circles. Thus, sometime in early '95 a rumor started, that the DEA was about to schedule DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone, a hormone) as a controlled substance. No matter that DHEA, as a dietary substance, was protected by the new law; no matter that it did not meet the criteria for scheduling; no matter that no required hearings were held and that no notice had been published in the Federal Register -- just the rumor was enough for someone in the US Postal Service to send out a circular to local post offices that DHEA had been scheduled by the DEA.

Two Post Masters in New Jersey (the towns, counties and victims will remain unnamed to protect the defendants' privacy) realized that a 72 year old man in County B and a 30 year old woman in County M had ordered DHEA from Germany. The federal employees decided to act against the perceived public menace of lawful private importation for personal use; they independently contacted their local Narcotics Strike Forces. The narcs in each county set up a sting operation, waiting at the post offices until the offenders came to claim the "contraband."

While it now sounds funny in a Keystone Cops sort of way, to the victims it was not so funny. The elderly gentleman was handcuffed and forced to sit on the post office steps, where all his town neighbors could see him. The young woman was held while her home was searched and her library of health and exercise books seized.

Both victims, though, were members of the Life Extension Foundation, http://www.lef.org/ and asked for help. LEF retained me and provided the research that showed that DHEA was not a controlled substance and had never been so named in the Federal Register. Since the substance was not contraband, one would think that the charges would be quickly dropped. Well, the prosecutors were willing to "reduce" the charges, but admit they were prosecuting innocent people... Look, it's Drug War out there and there's going to be some collateral damage...

At that moment Dr. Julian Whitaker stepped in and publicized the cases in his newsletter. Ten thousand letters to Governor Whitman later and both county prosecutors wanted to drop the cases. They did so, and returned the defendants' DHEA and books!

The judge in County M signed an Order which stated that DHEA was neither a controlled substance nor a prescription drug, but rather a dietary substance. That Order was not appealed. It was copied and faxed around the country, becoming the precedent for DHEA's availability as a dietary substance.

Now they are at it again!

My thanks to National Health Federal for the information below:

Oppose S.2470 Classifying DHEA as an Anabolic Steroid

S.2470 Dehydroepiandrosterone Abuse Reduction Act of 2007
(Introduced in Senate, 110th Congress 1st Session)

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to prevent the abuse of dehydroepiandrosterone, and for other purposes.

Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Schumer) introduced S.2470; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Senate Bill S.2470 - link

Nutritional Supplements Under Congressional Assault Again

By Lee Bechtel, NHF National Lobbyist

"Legislation to treat supplements containing Dehydroepiandrosterone, or DHEA, as anabolic steroids, and be classified as an illegal drug to be included with other controlled substances, and to regulate these supplement products as prescription drugs needing a physician's authorization for older adults has been reintroduced by Senator Grassley (R-IA). Senate bill 2470 is similar to a previous Grassley bill, S. 762. The previous bill was an assault on dietary-supplement consumer freedom of choice. S. 2470 continues this assault and is even worse. Your proactive assistance in lobbying Congress against this legislation is once again needed to preserve your right to have free access to nutritional supplements.

The legislation would ban the sale of dietary supplements containing DHEA as an ingredient to young adults. It would also require older adults to get a prescription and show identification to purchase these same supplement products. Supplements containing DHEA ingredients would be regulated like pharmaceutical drugs, despite their existing safe regulation under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

Supplements containing DHEA as an ingredient have been sold freely for over twenty years. Natural DHEA is derived from a plant in the wild yam family, and has a naturally occurring hormone that has a proven scientific record of having a wide range of health benefits for older Americans and people with chronic conditions. DHEA may be helpful for such conditions as obesity, low libido, cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Some in Congress now believe that an extract from a raw food, when processed into an ingredient used in a supplement, should be classified as an anabolic steroid, and regulated like a drug.

This legislation is a misdirected attempt to address the steroid-abuse problems of professional athletes and young adults. It would in no way address the problem of illegal anabolic steroid use. It does pose a serious and ongoing threat to consumers of dietary and nutritional supplements, if or when passed by Congress.

In the last Congress, health-freedom advocates were able to prevent this legislation from passing. Your proactive participation in a grass-roots advocacy letter-writing campaign is once again needed to prevent this legislation from being acted on this year in this Congress. If this legislation passes Congress, it will act as a precedent and who then knows what raw food vitamin, mineral, or protein by-product when used as an ingredient in a dietary supplement will be next on the regulate-supplements-like-drugs chopping block?"

FDA and HPV - when did they know the truth?

One of the repeated excuses given by the vaccine lobby to "justify" forced vaccination is that such vaccinations are "necessary" to protect public health.

Those of us who consider health freedom a primary human right are not so sure. "Mouse Warriors" on the Internet continually find more examples about how the mass media and official organs obscure the truth about vaccinations being promoted by the vaccine lobby.

This is one example: Since at least 2003 FDA has know that HPV - Human Papillomavirus does NOT cause cancer in women. The attempt to force young girls to take this vaccination is based on false science and the FDA has know this for at least the past several years.

So, why the push now to make this vaccination mandatory?

Check these links:

http://indigoproject.blogspot.com/2008/01/fda-and-hpv-when-did-they-know-truth.html

FDA and HPV -- when did they know the truth?

"What I have done is read all 68 pages of this document. What I am going to show you is that the FDA knew back in 2003 that a HPV is not the actual cause of cervical cancer. The actual cause is a "persistent HPV infection that may act as a tumor promoter in cancer induction. Read more...." Cynthia A. Janak

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/janak/071212

Say "No!" to forced vaccinations, join:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join

Ending involuntary fluoridation

Over 1,200 medical and environmental health professionals have recently called for an end to water fluoridation worldwide. Please join me in supporting this effort by taking a few moments to sign the online petition to Congress at the following address:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/t/2782/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21960

Vitamin Lawyer endorses Ron Paul

I've joined many other freedom advocates to endorse Dr. Paul's efforts to restore the Constitution.

See it at:
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements/2007/12/29/ralph-fucetola/