Table of Contents
2) Email From Ron Law, former Executive Director of NNFA New Zealand explaining the significance of the following documentation that he sent to IAHF.
3) Ron Law's Documentation:
from NNFA New Zealand to IADSA dated April 2002 reminding IADSA that
they had agreed to let NNFA NZ represent the S.Pacific region on the
IADSA Executive in 2002.
In this letter NNFA New Zealand questioned the perceived willingness of IADSA to side with Australia's Pharma-Centric regulatory model."
letter from Dennin to NNFA New Zealand dated April 22, 2002
Note that this letter fails to address any of the points raised by NNFA NZ in their letter to IADSA.Note that at no time was NNFA NZ given any chance to defend themselves before being expelled from IADSA."
Note from documentation presented below in additional letters, that IADSA reneged on their agreement to allow NNFA New Zealand to sit on the IADSA Executive in 2002 due to CHC (from Australia) threatening to quit IADSA if NNFA NZ was allowed to represent the region. Note that IADSA's unwillingness to stand firmly on their original decision to allow NNFA NZ to represent the S.Pacific Region in 2002 (since Australia had represented it in 2001) shows favoritism to Australia, and to Australia's Pharma-Centric regulatory model, (as stated by NNFA New Zealand.)
from Simon Pettman to NNFA NZ and to CHC dated March 1, 2002.
Note that there wasn't a hint that NNFA NZ was in any way threatened with expulsion from IADSA. Note that in it Pettman stated that "It had been agreed that NNFA NZ would fill this post in 2002" (referring to NNFA representing the S.Pacific Region on IADSA's Executive in 2002, since Australia had represented the region in 2001.) Note that Pettman was kowtowing to CHC (Australia's) threat to quit IADSA if NNFA NZ was allowed to hold this position. Note that Pettman was reneging on an agreement already made: that NNFA NZ would represent the region in 2002. Note that IADSA was now interfering (for a second time) in regional representation, while claiming not to be interfering.
5. Emails Back and Forth Between NNFA New Zealand & Randy Dennin/Simon Pettman of IADSA Raise Serious Questions About IADSA's legitimacy as a "health freedom" organization.
New Zealand has support of all opposition parties in New Zealand.
There will be an inquiry into whether or not changes should be made to New Zealand vitamin laws. With this inquiry, NNFA New Zealand hopes to preserve New Zealand's existing dietary supplement laws to thwart Australia's and IASDA's efforts to force New Zealand to harmonize to Australian law.
5) Documentation that American supplement laws ARE being set up for harmonization to international standards (contrary to what NNFA has said re this.)
C) FDA clearly demonstrates their efforts to use CODEX to turn dietary supplements into drugs: this can be seen in FDA's Comments to the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use on agenda item #6, Vitamins and Minerals, in section 5.9, the FDA made the revision that "All labels should bear a statement that the supplement be taken on advice of a nutritionist, dietician or a medical doctor" See IAHF's comments to FDA on this at http://www.iahf.com/codex/20020807.html
D) Congressional Research Service, Congressmen Paul and De Fazio are aware of our Obligations Under GATT/SPS as members in WTO FDA/NNFA have attempted to mislead the supplement industry regarding this, but here are the facts:
F) CODEX OVERSIGHT HEARING WHITEWASHED March 20, 2001 http://www.iahf.com/codex/20020206.html The Fix is in--- USA Set Up for Harmonization
OVERSIGHT HEARING WHITEWASHED DESPITE THIS WARNING TO CONGRESSMAN BURTON
THAT HE WAS GOING TO WHITEWASH THE HEARING:
WARNING TO BURTON THAT IADSA IS OPENLY CALLING FOR A GLOBAL REGULATORY MODEL FOR DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
H) WHAT WE MUST DO NOW TO DEFEND HEALTH FREEDOM IN THE USA AND WORLD WIDE (October 2, 2002) - Opinion of John Hammell, IAHF:
I) Other Documentation in PDF Format: