Health freedom movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The term health freedom movement is used to describe the loose coalition of consumers, activists and alternative medicine providers around the world who are pushing for unhindered freedom of choice in healthcare. The movement is critical of the pharmaceutical industry and medical regulators, and uses the term "health freedom" as a catch phrase to convey its message.

Contents

[edit] Ideology and objectives

Although the concept of health freedom does not preclude the practice of conventional medicine as such, campaigners generally tend to have strong preferences for orthomolecular, naturopathic, or alternative medicine and an overall distrust of the pharmaceutical industry. [1] Some health freedom campaigners would like adults to be free to choose marijuana for personal or medical use without criminal penalty. The money currently spent on arresting people for possessing pot, they say, could be better used to go after more serious criminals or funding alternative health-care programs. [2] Other issues promoted by the movement include its opposition to the sharing of genetic information without patient consent[3] and its belief that citizens should have greater privacy and control over their health information.[4] The removal from consumers of access to healthcare products that they had formerly been able to obtain and which had helped their needs for health and survival is viewed by many people in the movement as being leveraged by multinational corporations.[5]

There is no formal structure to the health freedom movement, although cooperation and coordination among some of the various organizations and individuals involved in it does occur.[6][7] One of the movement's central claims is that there is a conspiracy by the medical establishment to undermine the advance of the nutritional route to better health.[8] Some of the movement's spokespeople, such as the Alliance for Natural Health, take a more moderate stance on this issue, however, saying that negative media publicity about nutrients such as vitamin E are a result of misinterpretations over the science. [9] These campaigners also criticise the latest research indicating that vitamin C supplements do not protect against the common cold as having a number of fundamental flaws. [10]

One of the health freedom movement's key objectives is for people to have unrestricted access to vitamins and other food supplements. Campaigners belive that many chronic diseases can be largely prevented or even cured using micronutrients and that the optimal level for ingestion of these is significantly above the RDA levels. The belief that high levels of antioxidants and vitamins confer increased longevity[11][12] is shared with the Life-extension movement, with which the health freedom movement has close links.

The belief that supplements and vitamins can demonstrably improve health or longevitiy is not backed by evidence-based medicine, nor is it widely accepted in the orthodox medical community, as there is felt to be insufficient evidence to support such claims.[13] Indeed, large doses of some vitamins can lead to vitamin poisoning (hypervitaminosis).

[edit] Political roots and support base

The loose coalition of health freedom activists come from a variety of backgrounds. For example, the demands for a radical deregulation of the medical profession and health care sector could arguably be construed as right-wing libertarian.[14] The criticism of big companies in the pharmaceutical industry, on the other hand, could be viewed as a left wing position. Outside the movement there are politicians, governments and opinion leaders who would probably not label themselves as "health freedom movement" but who sometimes support the same causes.

The British activist Martin J. Walker is politically left-wing, whilst the Republican congressman and 2008 U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has pledged to preserve health freedom[15], is a free market libertarian. A leading supporter of the movement [16], Paul introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act in the U.S. Congress in 2005.[17][18] Other examples of people with polar opposite political views whose healthcare ideology at times appears to bear some comparison to that of the health freedom movement are Prince Charles, who has defended alternative therapies in an address to the World Health Assembly, [19] and Cherie Blair (the anti-royalist wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair) who is believed to have influenced her husband's reported opposition to the EU Food Supplements Directive.[20] The British right wing Conservative Party (UK) has supported the Save Our Supplements campaign as part of its campaign against the EU Food Supplements Directive.[21] The Swedish conservative Moderate Party is also opposed to the EU imposed vitamin restrictions.[22]

Prominent celebrity supporters of the movement include the musician Sir Paul McCartney, who has gone on record as saying that people "have a right to buy legitimate health food supplements" and that "this right is now clearly under threat" [23], and the pop star/actress Billie Piper, who joined a march in London in 2003 to protest at planned EU legislation to ban high dosage vitamin supplements. [24]

The term Health freedom movement has probably been used in the United States since the early 1990s.[25][26] Around 2003 to 2005 a campaign organization founded by the British author Lynne McTaggart called the Health Freedom Movement existed in the United Kingdom.[27]

[edit] Legislation

United States

The enactment into law of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA)[28] in the United States (US) in 1994 is an example of a piece of pro-health-freedom legislation. DSHEA defines supplements as foods, and puts the onus on the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prove that a supplement poses significant or unreasonable risk of harm rather than on the manufacturer to prove the supplement’s safety. The act was passed by Congress after extensive lobbying by the manufacturers of dietary supplements,[29][30] and received strong support from non-medically-oriented politicians such as Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Orrin Hatch, whose state of Utah is a hub for herbal manufacturers. The act allows natural supplements to be marketed without any proof of their purity, safety or efficacy. Producers of these supplements are largely exempt from regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, which can take action against them only if they make medical claims about their products or if consumers of the products become seriously ill.[31]

Following concerns about numerous raids,[32] censorship issues,[33] pharmaceutical conflicts of interest,[34] product bans,[35] and more proposed FDA restrictions, what became the DSHEA in 1994 was the subject of the largest grassroots letter writing campaign to Congress. However, the current level of popular support for the deregulation of the supplement industry can at times seem unclear. A large survey by the AARP, for example, found that 77% of respondents (including both users and non-users of supplements) believed that the federal government should review the safety of dietary supplements and approve them before they can be marketed to consumers.[36]

Similar confusion about the implications of DSHEA was noted in an October 2002 nationwide Harris poll. Here, 59% of respondents believed that supplements had to be approved by a government agency before they could be marketed; 68% believed that supplements had to list potential side effects on their labels; and 55% believed that supplement labels could not make claims of safety without scientific evidence. All of these beliefs are incorrect as a result of provisions of the DSHEA.[37]

Nevertheless, in recognition of the support for DSHEA, President Bill Clinton, on signing it into law, stated that "After several years of intense efforts, manufacturers, experts in nutrition, and legislators, acting in a conscientious alliance with consumers at the grassroots level, have moved successfully to bring common sense to the treatment of dietary supplements under regulation and law." He also noted that the passage of DSHEA "speaks to the diligence with which an unofficial army of nutritionally conscious people worked democratically to change the laws in an area deeply important to them" and that "In an era of greater consciousness among people about the impact of what they eat on how they live, indeed, how long they live, it is appropriate that we have finally reformed the way Government treats consumers and these supplements in a way that encourages good health."[38]

Another example of the passing of pro-health freedom legislation occurred in March 2007, when Governor Timothy M. Kaine signed a bill into law in the U.S. State of Virginia allowing teenagers 14 or older and their parents the right to refuse medical treatments for ailments such as cancer, and to seek alternative treatments so long as they have considered all other medical options. Kaine described the bill as being "significant for health freedom in Virginia." [39]

In addition, some U.S. states have proven willing to allow nonlicensed practitioners to diagnose and treat patients, and forms of nonlicensed practice have been approved in California, Rhode Island, Idaho, Louisiana and Oklahoma. As a result, between 2000 and 2006, 15 percent of the U.S. population gained some access to nonlicensed practitioners. [40]

Europe

So far as supplements are concerned, the legislative trend in Europe in recent years has been towards increased regulation. [41][42] As such, health freedom movement writers and campaigners in Europe fear that European Union (EU) laws such as the Food Supplements Directive,[43] the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive,[44] and the Human Medicinal Products (Pharmaceuticals) Directive,[45] will ultimately reduce access to food supplements and herbal medicines without evidence of comprehensive safety testing or historical practice. [46] European health food producers, retailers and consumers have been vocal in protesting against this legislation, with the health freedom movement inviting supporters to "Stop Brussels from killing natural medicine". [47] On the day that Members of the European Parliament voted for a clampdown on vitamin sales, the parliament's computer system crashed under the strain of thousands of speed-dial emails, wildly claiming that the new directive would ban 300 popular supplements and drive British health stores out of business. In Strasbourg, meanwhile, Euro-MPs were accosted by activists handing out a propaganda video accusing five European commissioners of corruptly colluding with big pharmaceutical firms in an attempt to destroy the alternative network of homoeopathic and natural medicines. [48] No evidence to support this accusation has been produced.[citation needed]

In 2004, the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) and two British trade associations had a legal challenge to the Food Supplements Directive referred to the European Court of Justice by the High Court in London. [49] Although the European Court of Justice's Advocate General subsequently said that the EU's plan to tighten rules on the sale of vitamins and food supplements should be scrapped, [50] he was eventually overruled by the European Court, which decided that the measures in question were necessary and appropriate for the purpose of protecting public health. ANH, however, interpreted the ban as applying only to synthetically produced supplements - and not to vitamins and minerals normally found in or consumed as part of the diet. [51] Nevertheless, the European judges did acknowledge the Advocate General's concerns, stating that there must be clear procedures to allow substances to be added to the permitted list based on scientific evidence. They also said that any refusal to add a product to the list must be open to challenge in the courts.[52] However, some media observers believe that, as a result of this legislation, a black market will inevitably emerge, and that controls over ingredients and quality will vanish. [53]

Oceania

In New Zealand, health freedom campaigners have been concerned that many supplements would be removed from the shelves under the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill that was introduced to the NZ Parliament in 2006 by Food Safety Minister Annette King. If passed, the Bill would have created a joint agency with Australia to regulate therapeutic products. In July 2007, however, King announced that the Bill would be postponed until there was more support in the New Zealand parliament for the scheme. [54] She subsequently passed responsibility for the issue to New Zealand Health Minister Pete Hodgson, who said that "the status quo of an unregulated market for medical devices and complementary medicines cannot remain". It is understood that officials are now planning to look at using ministerial powers to create domestic regulations to apply to such products sold in New Zealand. [55]

More recently, in response to thousands of dollars worth of stock being confiscated by the regulatory body MedSafe, natural health practices in New Zealand have banded together under the Health Freedom banner to protest against what they claim is a Medsafe "witch hunt", arguing that the crackdown is a response to the stalling of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill.[56] Subsequently, a petition was presented to New Zealand MPs calling for Medsafe to stop harassing natural health manufacturers and practitioners. The health freedom campaigners who organised the petition say that 7000 signatures were gathered over a three-week period.[57]

[edit] Criticism of the pharmaceutical industry

Health freedom-orientated writers and campaigners tend to see restrictive legislation on supplements as being designed to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.[58][59] If herbal medicines and supplements are removed from sale, they argue, patients will have no alternative but to use conventional pharmaceutical medicines. [60] Matthias Rath goes even further than this, however, and believes that the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in the continuation and expansion of diseases, rather than their cure, in that without the current widespread existence of diseases the industry would cease to exist in its current form.[61]

In addition to criticising the pharmaceutical industry, the health freedom movement is also critical of the actions of individual pharmaceutical companies. As reported in the British Medical Journal, for example, health freedom organisations have condemned Merck & Co.’s marketing methods, claiming the company hopes to use profits from Gardasil to fund the litigation costs it has had to pay over rofecoxib (Vioxx). [62] Health freedom-orientated campaigners in the UK, meanwhile, have publicly criticised Boots, Britain's largest chemist, for "watering down" its vitamin and mineral supplements to ensure that its products complied with the European Union's Food Supplements Directive. [63]

[edit] Criticism of the Codex Alimentarius Commission

A key focus of the health-freedom movement in recent years has been the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission,[64] which it perceives to be acting in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry.

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements,[65] for example, were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a new global standard at its meeting in Rome in July 2005. The National Health Federation, by virtue of its official observer status at Codex, was the only delegation present at the meeting to oppose the guidelines' adoption.[66] Drafted using the EU Food Supplements Directive as a blueprint, health-freedom orientated researchers argue that the eventual effect of these Guidelines will be to remove large numbers of the most effective forms of nutrients from the global market, set restrictive upper limits on the dosages of all permitted nutrients, and prevent the sale of all supplements for curative, preventative or therapeutic purposes without a doctor’s prescription.[67] For its part, the Commission asserts that products listed on the Codex have been accepted by the signatories as proven to be safe and thus there is no case for any member state of the WTO to deny importation on safety grounds.[citation needed] However, member states may refuse entry to products that have not achieved a listing on the Codex.[citation needed]

[edit] Criticism of regional trade blocs

A number of health-freedom organizations and their political supporters believe that the increasing tendency for countries to form large, so-called free trade areas and trade blocs threatens their freedom of choice in healthcare, on the grounds that they believe these further increase the pressure upon countries to harmonize their food and supplement laws to the standards and guidelines set by Codex. Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, for example, has said that the Central American Free Trade Agreement "increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public." [68] This assertion is despite the fact that the Codex only applies to the right to refuse imports: nations are at liberty to make local decisions on products entirely within their own territories.

[edit] Campaigners, organizations, and newsfeeds

The core of the health freedom movement consists of a loose coalition of activists, campaigners, bloggers, and newsfeeds. Some of these are mentioned in the section below.

USA and the Americas

The American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) was founded in 1992 and is affiliated with the European organization, Alliance for Natural Health. AAHF describes themselves as the politically active voice at the federal and state level for the right of the consumer to choose and the practitioner to practice.

The American Holistic Health Association (AHHA) was founded in 1989. It describes its mission as being to promote holistic principles where mind, body, and spirit are working together and individuals actively participate in their own health and healthcare. AHHA sees its role as educational and, as a result, it does not run campaigns by itself.

The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) was founded in 1996 as a Washington based think-tank with a leaning towards free market liberalism. The focus of IHF is more directed towards conventional medicine than the other health freedom organizations. Some of the issues IHF are working with are: patient rights and increased choice in Medicare/Medicaid

The Life Extension Foundation was founded in 1980. The original goal of the LEF was to find methods to extend the human life-span. Over time, LEF has developed an extensive business selling discounted supplements to their paying members. During this process, it has been involved in a number of legal battles with the FDA. Today, LEF is vocal in the health freedom movement and has initiated a number of campaigns over the years.[69] It has an extensive campaign editorial in each issue of its monthly member magazine, Life Extension Magazine.[70]

The National Health Freedom Coalition was founded in 2002 and has organized an annual Health Freedom Conference since 2004.

The National Health Federation was established in 1955 and has observer status as a Non-governmental organization (NGO) at the official Codex Alimentarius meetings.

The Nutritional Health Alliance (NHA) was founded in 1992 as a campaign and lobby organization to persuade Congress to enact the DHSEA. The NHA was recently revived to lobby against what they perceive as new threats towards the DHSEA.

Europe

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) is a UK based pan-European campaign organization that was founded in 2003 to launch a legal challenge against the EU Food Supplements Directive.

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation is founded by the German doctor, Matthias Rath. The foundation is financed by the profits from a supplement manufacturer owned by Dr Rath.

The Campaign for Truth in Medicine is a consumer advocacy group based in the United Kingdom.

Rest of the World

The Alliance for Health Freedom Australia (AHFA) is an Australian non-profit campaign organization.

Individual campaigners

An integral part of the health freedom movement is comprised of a number of individual campaigners, newsfeeds, and opinion makers.

Some of the more notable ones are: the US based Gary Null, Dr Joseph Mercola, the British Martin J. Walker, Eve Hillary[71], and the newsfeeds News Target[72] based in the US, and the UK based Zeus Information Service[73]

Examples of US based talk radio stations are HealthRadioNetwork.com, The Deborah Ray Show, and Joyce Riley's talk radio show The Power Hour.

[edit] Health freedom films

The film medium has been used to convey the message of the health freedom movement to a broader audience. The most notable are mentioned below. The two documentaries We Become Silent and Prescription For Disaster are produced by core activists in the movement while the other films convey a message that is similar to the positions held by the movement but produced by people that don’t identify themselves with the health freedom movement.

[edit] Documentary

  • We Become Silent[74] A film by Kevin P. Miller
  • Prescription For Disaster A film by Gary Null, winner of: Best Documentary Feature, at the Red Bank International Film Festival 2006
  • Money Talks: Profits before Patient Safety[75] from 2006. A documentary made by the same team that made the feature fim Side Effects.

[edit] Feature films

  • Side Effects (film) from 2005, directed by Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau. A satire about a woman making a career in the US pharmaceutial industry.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ 'Why do meddling Eurocrats want to ban your vitamin pills? (Could it be anything to do with the drug giants hoping for huge profits?)', by Geoffrey Lean. Published in the Daily Mail (Good Health section) on Jan 25 2005. Accessed on the Alliance for Natural Health website April 22 2007.
  2. ^ 'About New York; A Champion Of Marijuana On the Stump', by DAVID GONZALEZ. New York Times. Published Oct 4 1997. Accessed 29 Sept 2007.
  3. ^ 'Congress Inadvertently Legalizes Sharing of Genetic Information Without Patient Consent' Fox Business. Published May 6, 2008. Accessed May 25, 2008.
  4. ^ 'State urges people to start gathering, storing medical records on the Web' Sacramento Bee. Published May 20, 2008. Accessed May 25, 2008.
  5. ^ 'Legal Matters: Impact of International Product Regulations on Consumer Access to, and the Manufacturing of, Dietary Supplements: The Need for Health Freedom Advocacy' Diane M. Miller. Alternative & Complementary Therapies. February 1, 2008, 14(1): 43-47. doi:10.1089/act.2008.14102. Published February 1, 2008. Accessed May 25, 2008.
  6. ^ 'Health Freedom Advocates gather for first Conference', by Jerri Johnson and Linda Peterson. The Edge newspaper. Published Dec 2003. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  7. ^ 'Press Release: Unlicensed drug used for babies condemned by health NGOs' Published 12 Dec 2006. Accessed 11 Feb 2007.
  8. ^ 'Do vitamin supplements do more harm than good?' Article on study published by the Cochrane Collaboration, quoting Patrick Holford. The Times. Published April 27, 2008. Accessed 10 September 2008.
  9. ^ High dose vitamin E death warning BBC News, quoted from statement of Dr Rob Verkerk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health. Published 11 Nov 2004. Accessed 30 Sept 2007.
  10. ^ Vitamin C campaigners support supplements Nursing in Practice. Published 19 July 2007. Accessed 30 Sept 2007.
  11. ^ Mecocci P, Polidori MC, Troiano L, Cherubini A, Cecchetti R, Pini G, Straatman M, Monti D, Stahl W, Sies H, Franceschi C, Senin U. Plasma antioxidants and longevity: a study on healthy centenarians. Free Radic Biol Med. 2000 Apr 15;28(8):1243-8. Accessed 28 September 2007
  12. ^ Vitamin D increases life expectancy, study finds. CTV, Canada Published 10 September 2007. Accessed 28 September 2007
  13. ^ Counseling for Vitamin Supplementation to Prevent Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Released June 2003; accessed September 28, 2007.
  14. ^ How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care - Henry Jones - Mises Institute
  15. ^ Ron Paul candidate platform, The Boston Herald Published 27 December 2007. Accessed 5 December 2008.
  16. ^ "Ron Paul 2008 Hope for America" Accessed 28 September 2007.
  17. ^ Health Freedom Protection Act Introduced in US Congress
  18. ^ Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
  19. ^ "Charles defends holistic medicine", The Daily Telegraph. Published 24 May 2006. Accessed 12 April 2005.
  20. ^ "Blair opposes EU's directive to outlaw up to 5,000 vitamins", The Independent. Published 30 June 2005. Accessed 12 April 2005.
  21. ^ Vitamins & Minerals Under Threat
  22. ^ European Parlament, voting record 2002, Food Supplement Directive
  23. ^ "Health food fans plan to copy alliance march", Daily Telegraph Published 13 Sept 2002. Accessed 28 September 2007.
  24. ^ "Billie makes a stand", This is Wiltshire Published June 2003. Accessed 28 September 2007.
  25. ^ ”Gallegly Is Key Foe of FDA's Vitamin Rules - Simi Valley: The GOP congressman has emerged as leader of effort to minimize new labeling requirements” Los Angeles Times, 2 Jan 1994
  26. ^ ”Doctor's supporters go to bat for him - Followers of alternative medicine organize to defend physicians they see as under attack” The Orange County Register, 7 Feb 1999
  27. ^ ”And then pop go the pills - Today a new law on supplements comes into force which has split the world of natural healthcare” The Herald, 1 Aug 2005
  28. ^ Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994
  29. ^ Nutritional Supplements: Your Questions Answered. From Consumer Reports magazine, published 14 June 2006. Accessed 2 Feb 2007.
  30. ^ "Beyond Ephedra", by Leon Jaroff. Published in Time magazine 10 Feb 2004. Accessed 2 Feb 2007.
  31. ^ Dan Hurley (2006). Natural causes: death, lies, and politics in America's vitamin and herbal supplement industry. New York: Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-2042-2. 
  32. ^ "FDA Raids", Life Extension Magazine. Published 15 November 1994. Accessed 12 April 2005.
  33. ^ Jeff Elliot. Taking vitamins: the FDA's raids on promoters of dietary supplements seem designed to keep consumers in the dark - Food and Drug Administration. National Review. Nov 21, 1994.
  34. ^ Janurary 1996 Report: The Threat To Melatonin. Life Extension Foundation. January 1996. reflects several years ongoing concerns with melatonin and l-tryptophan
  35. ^ Manders DW. The FDA Ban of L-Tryptophan: Politics, Profits and Prozac. "Social Policy", Vol. 26, No. 2 Winter 1995.
  36. ^ Dietary Supplements and Older Consumers. From the AARP website. Published December 2001. Accessed 2 Feb 2007.
  37. ^ "Dangerous Supplements: Still at Large, from Consumer Reports magazine. Published May 2004, accessed 7 Feb 2007.
  38. ^ The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994; October 25th, 1994. From the website of The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. Accessed 9 Feb 2007.
  39. ^ "Kaine Signs Tax Cut for Poor, Medical Rights for Sick Teens". Washington Post. Published 27 March 2007. Accessed 16 April 2007.
  40. ^ "Legal Matters: The Ins and Outs, Pros and Cons of Nonlicensed Practice: Report and Commentary on the Health Freedom Movement", Alan Dumoff, J.D., M.S.W.. Alternative & Complementary Therapies, Jun 2006, Vol. 12, No. 3 : 136 -142. Published June 2006. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  41. ^ "Euro MPs back herbal crackdown". BBC News. Published 22 Nov 2002. Accessed 29 Sept 2007.
  42. ^ "Vitamin crackdown gets go-ahead". BBC News. Published 13 March 2002. Accessed 29 Sept 2007.
  43. ^ http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en00510057.pdf
  44. ^ Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004
  45. ^ Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
  46. ^ 'Nil by mouth', by Rose Shepherd. The Observer. Published 29 Feb 2004. Accessed 16 April 2007.
  47. ^ 'Vitamin rules jar with the herbal industry.' Financial Times. Published 23 Feb 2004. Accessed 18 April 2007.
  48. ^ 'Euro-MPs vote for clampdown on vitamin sales' The Daily Telegraph. Published 14 March 2002. Accessed 18 October 2007.
  49. ^ 'Court victory for vitamin firms' BBC News Published 30 January 2004. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  50. ^ 'EU health foods crackdown 'wrong BBC News. Published 5 April 2005. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  51. ^ 'Vitamin controls backed by Europe' BBC News. Published 12 July 2005. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  52. ^ 'EU court backs health supplements ban' The Guardian Published 12 July 2005. Accessed 30 September 2007.
  53. ^ 'Should we swallow it?' The Independent. Published 26 June 2002. Accessed 22 April 2007.
  54. ^ "Joint therapeutic agency plans shelved." The Age. Published 16 July 2007. Accessed 29 July 2007.
  55. ^ "Government defeat on medicines spurs 'lame-duck' jibes." New Zealand Herald. Published 17 July 2007. Accessed 29 July 2007.
  56. ^ "Natural health products confiscated." North Shore Times.. Published April 12, 2007. Accessed April 28, 2007.
  57. ^ "Witch hunt" by Medsafe claimed by petitioners. Radio New Zealand News. Published May 29, 2008. Accessed May 30, 2008.
  58. ^ 'Why do meddling Eurocrats want to ban your vitamin pills? (Could it be anything to do with the drug giants hoping for huge profits?)', by Geoffrey Lean. Published in the Daily Mail (Good Health section) on Jan 25 2005. Accessed on the Alliance for Natural Health website April 22 2007.
  59. ^ 'Euro-MPs vote for clampdown on vitamin sales' The Daily Telegraph. Published 14 March 2002. Accessed 18 October 2007.
  60. ^ "Euro MPs back herbal crackdown". BBC News, quoted from statement of Dr Rob Verkerk, Executive Director of the Alliance for Natural Health. Published 22 Nov 2002. Accessed 29 Sept 2007.
  61. ^ The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world
  62. ^ 'Life saving treatment or giant experiment?' by Rebecca Coombes British Medical Journal. Published April 7 2007. Accessed 2 May 2007.
  63. ^ 'Consumers attack Boots over lower doses in its supplements' Daily Telegraph. Published February 10 2007. Accessed 18 October 2007.
  64. ^ Codex Alimentarius
  65. ^ http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10206/cxg_055e.pdf
  66. ^ Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the Twenty-Eighth Session. FAO Headquarters, Italy, 4 - 9 July, 2005 Accessed April 26, 2008.
  67. ^ The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world
  68. ^ 'The vitamin police', by ALAN BOCK, Sr. editorial writer, The Orange County Register. Published 14 August 2005. Accessed 29 April 2007.
  69. ^ Life Extension Foundation, Consumer Alerts
  70. ^ Life Extension Magazine
  71. ^ Eve Hillary - Health Freedom Now!
  72. ^ Independent news on natural health, nutrition and more
  73. ^ Zeus Information Service - Alternative Views on Health
  74. ^ http://www.welltv.com/ "We Become Silent" A film by Kevin P. Miller
  75. ^ http://www.moneytalksthemovie.com/ Money Talks: Profits before Patient Safety

[edit] External links

 The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.
Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.