30th March 2012
Red tape and bureaucracy exists, we’re often told, to protect us. Sometimes this is the case. But isn’t it odd that when we feel we need protection, for example from unlabelled genetically modified foods (subject of a major campaign with which we’re involved in California) you’ve got to move mountains to try to get the law passed.
Conversely, we see a rash of regulation affecting natural health in the EU that’s meant to protect us from dangerous products or misleading claims. But most of the potentially risky or deliberately and dangerously adulterated products, or spurious claims, are linked to products on grey or black markets, or fringe internet retailers. These kinds of operators don’t tend to take a lot of notice of laws; they are experts at dodging the law or re-inventing themselves if they get caught.
The chances are that all the regulations coming into effect in the EU will do nothing to improve our safety. They will, however, impact those companies selling perfectly good, and often highly efficacious products that so many of us use to help us stay in fine fettle. Some are also used by those whose health has deteriorated, and who can no longer be described as being in a normal state of health. Frankly, it’s about time that governments realised it is no longer tenable to keep saying that foods, herbs and other natural products can’t help treat or prevent disease. This assertion stands scrutiny even less well today than in the era of Hippocrates, when it is claimed the notional ‘father of medicine’ said, around two and a half thousand years ago: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”.
The incredibly broad scope of medicine laws, supposedly offered to us to keep us safe, allows the legitimate poisoning of millions, for the sake of profit. It also hands the pharmaceutical industry and medical establishment sole rights to the arena of medicines, making anyone issuing a medicinal claim who hasn’t got a drugs license, a criminal. Check out one of our stories on heavy handed government tactics below.
This week, we offer you two special features. One exposes the misguided nature of the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, that—for the time being—continues unimpeded into the EU statute books following last week’s nod from the European Parliament. This Regulation was, as you’ll discover, meant to contribute to the EU’s fight against obesity, as well as protecting us from misleading claims. Fat chance, we say, if you’ll excuse the pun. Our second feature identifies some of the medical mavericks who have contested mainstream views on heart disease. We are forced to think of them as mavericks, only because their views differ from the establishment. They should more properly be regarded as pioneers—and in time, with the right wind behind us, this might be how they will be seen by future generations. But for now, we’ve still a long way to go.
Here are this week’s features and stories — and remember, please assimilate, then share this information as widely as you can.
In health, naturally (despite the best efforts of the EU!)
Founder, and executive and scientific director, ANH-Intl
ANH participation at Brussels conference reveals possible reasons for failure
How government recommendations often ignore cutting-edge science
We review a crop of 10 cases of violated rights from around the world
Will authorities spin it as a success story?
For our FREE Newsletter.