portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article coverage global

corporate dominance | health | human & civil rights

EU Advocate-General on consumer side of CODEX issue: opposes EU vitamin/mineral ban

The Alliance for Natural Health today presented its oral submission to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in its landmark case challenging the ban in the EU Food Supplements Directive on 75% of vitamin and mineral forms currently sold in the EU market. [Other] opposing oral submissions were made by the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and only one EU Member State, Greece. --- Meanwhile, Tony Blair's Government, and Portugal, previously very vociferous in their push to ban consumers from vitamins and minerals in the EU, suddenly disappear from the proceeding, likely in an attempt to make themselves inconspicuous in their ongoing opposition to consumer rights. --- "Paul Lasok QC, a world leading expert on EU law representing the ANH, opened the proceedings...undermined the [presumed] legal and scientific basis of the [ban] Directive,..." --- [This] Advocate General Geelhoed, the senior judge at today's hearing, appeared to be baffled by the [proposed] procedure for adding nutrients [to the proposed banned list]." --- "The Commission, the Council and the Parliament were not able to give any adequate scientific explanations for why so many forms of vitamins and minerals that naturally occur in foods should be banned across the EU."

In short, it seemed to have gone down well, with the Brits and pharaceutical companies in retreat...though for how long?

Final judgment expected in June 2005

"The Advocate General announced that he would deliver his opinion on 5 April 2005, while the Court is expected to give its judgment in June, shortly before the ban would otherwise be set to come into effect on 1 August 2005."

CURRENTLY IN HOUSE/SENATE! US Congressional bills to connect the USA to the proposted EU vitamin/mineral ban should be opposed! Information on that below!
EU's Geelhoed: EU idea of banning vitamins would be
EU's Geelhoed: EU idea of banning vitamins would be "transparent as a black box"
Leendert A. Geelhoed

Born 1942; Research Assistant, University of Utrecht (1970-1971); Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1971-1974); Senior Adviser, Ministry of Justice (1975-1982); Member of the Advisory Council on Government Policy (1983-1990); Various teaching assignments; Secretary general, Ministry of Economic Affairs (1990-1997); Secretary-General, Ministry of General Affairs (1997-2000); Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 7 October 2000.

related, thought you might like to see the full EU complement:
The Court of Justice of the European Communities > The Members
 http://www.curia.eu.int/en/instit/presentationfr/composition/membrescour.htm


European Court Of Justice Advocate-General:
EU Vitamin and Mineral Ban "As Transparent as Black Box"

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release 25 January 2005

UK GOVERNMENT DECIDES NOT TO ATTEND COURT HEARING
TO MAKE ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE [PRO-CONSUMER] CHALLENGE

The Alliance for Natural Health today presented its oral submission to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in its landmark case challenging the ban in the EU Food Supplements Directive on 75% of vitamin and mineral forms currently sold in the EU market.

Opposing oral submissions were made by the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and only one EU Member State, Greece.

No objections by UK Government to the challenge

Interestingly, neither the UK government nor Portugal attended to present oral arguments despite having filed Written Observations in the case. This means that none of the major EU countries felt the need to oppose the ANH's application for a declaration that the ban in the Directive was unlawful.

David Hinde Solicitor and ANH Legal Director said: "Given the vigour with which the UK Government resisted this application at the Judicial Review stage, it was extraordinary it did not now think the issue sufficiently important to warrant being represented at the ECJ to make oral submissions. The question inevitably arises whether this signifies a change of attitude on their part and a retreat from their previously bullish position about the legality of the Directive."

Paul Lasok QC, a world leading expert on EU law representing the ANH, opened the proceedings and systematically undermined the legal and scientific basis of the Directive, highlighting contradictions between various arguments put forward by the key bodies involved in developing the Directive, namely the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

When asked by Judge Lenaerts as to the origin of the positive list which appeared to have been derived from an old list produced by the European Commission, and so omitted a vast array of nutrients that can normally be found in food, Mr Lasok responded: "The list was put together without adding, without subtracting and without thinking."

Advocate General Geelhoed, the senior judge at today's hearing, appeared to be baffled by the procedure for adding nutrients to the positive list, which he described: "As transparent as a black box."

Dr Robert Verkerk, executive director of the ANH said after the hearing: "It was remarkable that the vast majority of points that we had gone to great length to show the Court were not countered in any effective way by the opposing parties. The Commission, the Council and the Parliament were not able to give any adequate scientific explanations for why so many forms of vitamins and minerals that naturally occur in foods should be banned across the EU."

Final judgment expected in June 2005

The Advocate General announced that he would deliver his opinion on 5 April 2005, while the Court is expected to give its judgment in June, shortly before the ban would otherwise be set to come into effect on 1 August 2005.

ENDS
For enquiries and further information contact:
Alliance for Natural Health
 http://www.alliance-natural-health.org

 http://campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/040205/CTE%20-%20EU%20court%20ruling.htm

other post:

CODEX - Health freedom choices in jeopardy!
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/309645.shtml

he U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was signed. Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions. CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized "Step 8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June, 2005.

CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now allowed by prescription only). They are now ?drugs?. Vitamin C above 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg?all are banned over-the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine, lysine, carnitine, etc. = essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed.

The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a few people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all supplements under restriction and prescription. But over 4 million Americans told Congress and the President to protect their freedom of choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which does so. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World Trade Organization.

Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. What can be done at this late hour?

(1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at
www.ahha.org, www.iahf.com, and www.alliance-natural-health.org.

(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the CODEX restrictions
with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.


ONCE MORE:

(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support EU's CODEX restrictions
with U.S. laws, changing the US's DSHEA law.


The EU Advocate General announced that he would deliver his opinion on 5 April 2005, while the Court is expected to give its judgment in June, shortly before the ban would otherwise be set to come into effect on 1 August 2005.


 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/309645.shtml

add a comment on this article