Skip to comments.CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
Posted on 07/23/2005 3:32:05 PM PDT by RoyalsFan
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement in the next two weeks, and one little-known provision of the agreement desperately needs to be exposed to public view. CAFTA, like the World Trade Organization, may serve as a forum for restricting or even banning dietary supplements in the U.S.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, organized by the United Nations in the 1960s, is charged with harmonizing food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals require a doctors prescription. The European Union already has adopted Codex-type regulations, regulations that will be in effect across Europe later this year. This raises concerns that the Europeans will challenge our relatively open market for health supplements in a WTO forum. This is hardly far-fetched, as Congress already has cravenly changed our tax laws to comply with a WTO order.
Like WTO, CAFTA increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public. Section 6 of CAFTA discusses Codex as a regulatory standard for nations that join the agreement. If CAFTA has nothing to do with dietary supplements, as CAFTA supporters claim, why in the world does it specifically mention Codex?
Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international trade body will have a say over whether American supplement regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctors prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.
Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act, because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the supplements they want. Americans like this freedom, however-- especially the health conscious Baby Boomers.
This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around American law and restrict supplements through international regulations.
The largely government-run health care establishment, including the nominally private pharmaceutical companies, want government to control the dietary supplement industry-- so that only they can manufacture and distribute supplements. If that happens, as it already is happening in Europe, the supplements you now take will be available only by prescription and at a much higher cost-- if they are available at all. This alone is sufficient reason for Congress to oppose the unconstitutional, sovereignty-destroying CAFTA bill.
So Europeans will have to get a doc's prescription for a bottle of vitamin C?
They support it because it gives them patent protection over drugs they've spent millions of dollars to develop.
Ron Paul is right about 90% of the time.
10% of the time, he's an utter goofball.
Dietary supplements are largely harmless especially when compared to most OTC medications, the reason for the increased scrutiny is that some of them really do work. I take ALA and Acetyl-L Carnitine. A wonderful combination that gives me markedly more energy and mental clarity as well as increases the rate of healing and has the side benefit of improving sexual performance. I also take a multivitamin to help me get a good selection of nutrients. Some supplements are bogus and that is where I believe the government could provide a public service in providing an evaluation of supplement companies much like a health department check where they validate things like percentage of active ingrediants et. to make sure that people aren't being cheated or being sold something that is know to be dangerous. The problem is that the government doesn't know when to stop and doesn't have a sane gauge of when there are decreasing returns for regulations. They instead push to expand regulations based upon non-scientific hysteria, look at ephedra and prohormones. Neither were anymore dangerous than most OTC medications but they were banned because of hysteria. Instead of attacking supplement companies on what is sometimes clearly false advertising they instead choose to ban otherwise harmless substances because of a few adverse reactions. If the same standard were applied to OTC medications they all would be banned. I personally like being able to choose whether I want to take a substance like GABA to help me sleep or a prohormone to help me build muscle or a diet pill to help lose a few pounds.
Here it comes folks -- we have been warning you about CAFTA and all other FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS (as they are cloaked) ---
** ONE BIG SOCIALIST WORLD -- NEW WORLD ORDER **
And it will be so deep in your drawers, you will forget how to say "FREEDOM and LIBERTY"....
Dog Gone is right 10% of the time. 90% of the time he's an utter goofball.
We all know that drug companies are nice and would never try to suppress their holistic competition. Not.
My guess it that they won't take your word for it.
I'm willing to let the people here decide who is more credible: Ron Paul or "Dog Gone"
I'm just guessing, but something tells me that Ron Paul may, just may, be a lot more knowledgeable and credible than lost dog.
I won't be baited, but I will remember your name.
You sir, chose to make it personal supporting name calling instead of presenting an argument.
I won't be baited, but I will remember your name.
You're easily baited, and I don't give a crap if you remember my name. I guess that's suppose to be an attempt to intimidation me.
Supposedly we're both conservatives. I've confronted a$$ holes on the street as I carried a large Sore Loserman sign when the election results hinged on hanging chads, and at times it was physically confrontational. But here I am dealing with an over-sized ego, Dog Gone, on the FreeRepublic. Dog Gone thinks he's in better stead with conservatives than Ron Paul, probably the most genuine conservative representative in office today. You fool. If Ron Paul is on the other side of your position, you ought to examine your thinking.
Remember my name.
not another stoooopid cafta thread!
You prove my point.
You prove my point.
You insulted me categorically, as a member of a small group of posters. What's the difference.
What did you expect in response to your posting on this thread - you presented nothing of substance just your own assessment of Ron Paul as a "goofball". You discredit him on the basis of your own reputation. What reputation and credibility do you have?
I hold Ron Paul in very high regard, I can't say the same for you at this time.
I can't express my opinions because I don't have a reputation.
Feel free to share more wisdom with me anytime. I am so humbled.
Making new friends, I see ;)
I'm pulling off the spitballs from my forehead, and am going to call them "friendship balls." ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.