ANH Whats really going on

[Guest guest]

There are two reasons for this mailshot.

 

Firstly, the ANH team would like to thank you for your support and

donations, without which one of the most vigorous battles for health

freedom to be fought in recent times would not have been brought to

bear. We are a small but highly dedicated team of people, many of

whom volunteer their time and energy for nothing, and we would not

be where we are now without the strong support of our Partners – so

thank you, we are deeply grateful.

 

Secondly, many of you will by now be aware that there are divided

opinions on whether the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling

provides a `silver lining' or not and we wish to clarify the

situation for the benefit of our Members and Supporters.

 

What really happened

 

The ANH has always been about using good science and good law to

protect natural health and our view of the ECJ judgment handed down

on 12th July 2005 is, and continues to be, based on the opinion of

our legal team, led by one of the top European and Competition Law

barristers, Paul Lasok QC. Had the Food Supplements Directive been

invalidated we would now be facing a complicated system of re-

negotiation where many competing interests would have attempted to

leave their mark. This could have resulted in a long and drawn out

affair which may well have left us in a worse position. This now

does not need to happen. The Court has made clear some key

provisions of the Directive which massively reduce the difficulty of

getting on to the once-feared `positive list'.

 

The legal challenge was only directed at one aspect of the Food

Supplements Directive regarding the proposed ban on up to 75% of

forms of vitamins and minerals (mainly food forms). The bottom line

now, is that this wide-scale ban will not be able to occur, on the

basis that companies are prepared to make the minimal effort

required to submit ingredients to the `positive list'.

 

Many of the arguments that the ANH was most concerned about have

been clarified by the ECJ ruling and the scope of the Directive has

been narrowed (please refer to our press release on the website for

specifics).

 

It seems that the ruling may have been a compromise gesture on the

part of the Court. It has ensured that the European Institutions

(notably the European commission, the Council of Ministers and the

European Parliament) were able to avoid the embarrassment of an

overturned Directive and that the clarification of the law avoided

conflicts with EU law, which had been the key basis of contention in

the case brought by the ANH.

 

Opinions still divided

 

As you may know, this view is not shared by all and opinions seem to

be particularly polarised in the UK, where the two trade

associations, the Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA), the

National Association of Health Stores (NAHS) and a consumer

organisation, Consumers for Health Choice (CHC) appear to be of the

opinion that the legal challenge has failed dismally and confers no

benefits to consumers, practitioners, retailers or manufacturers.

 

In the latest issue of Health Food Business, a trade magazine that

is widely distributed to the UK health industry, which hit the

health food shops this week, it is clear that these UK trade and

consumer organisations' present campaign strategy is to create a

strong political lobby to push the Government towards national

derogation (known legally as `subsidiarity') for the UK, by using

the influence of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair while the UK

holds the 6-month rotating EU Presidency. It is the opinion of our

legal team that there is no currently available mechanism for

achieving this and it was actually the ANH that ran

this `subsidiarity' argument particularly strongly in its legal

challenge but the argument unfortunately was lost for a number of

reasons.

 

Derogation dossiers: just delaying the inevitable ban?

 

Mainstream industry spokespersons continue to propound the `doom and

gloom' scenario about the ECJ ruling. They say that all the work on

derogation dossiers has just bought some more time and the

inevitable bans will come into place anyway, even if it's after

2009. The ANH argues that this need not be the case.

 

The HFMA and NAHS, as well as companies and other trade

associations, worked hard to file dossiers for the derogation

provision within the Directive which allows ingredients that have

been used prior to 2003 to continue to be used at least until 31

December 2009, on the basis that dossiers are not given an

unfavourable opinion by the European Food Safety Authority. Assuming

that Member States support the principle of mutual recognition,

dossiers filed in one country will provide derogation in another.

These derogations, assuming they have met the required criteria for

safety and bioavailability, will provide sufficient time for

applications to be made to the positive list under the now much

clearer and simplified procedures. Furthermore, the ECJ ruling makes

it much more difficult for derogation or positive list submissions

to be rejected as the burden of proof for lack of safety of a given

nutrient has been firmly placed back in the regulator's court.

 

The ANH therefore urges companies to make full use of the simplified

dossier procedures pointed to by the ECJ – and so avoid the ban!

 

Two bites of the cherry

 

The ANH finds itself at yet another cross-roads with the UK

mainstream industry. To summarise, the UK industry has an agenda

that is primarily about protecting UK interests and it wishes to

deploy a strategy that, in the view of the ANH, appears to lack any

existing legal mechanism. The ANH, on the other hand, has a remit to

bring about changes that will have benefits across all EU Member

States, and the strategy to achieve this involves trying to secure

the best possible interpretation of the Directive and ECJ ruling

using available mechanisms.

 

Rather than wasting resources trying to resolve which strategy is

ultimately right, the ANH has chosen to keep its head down and

pursue its EU-wide strategy. Surely two bites of the cherry is

better than one?

 

It's just the beginning…

 

We have not been afraid to take a unique stand before and we will do

it again. We have always been committed towards working for change

in all 25 Member States – not just the UK – and this continues to be

our mission. The ANH will continue our remit of good science and

good law. Particularly with regard to the former, by focussing on

developing new and appropriate scientific methods of safety/benefit

analysis for vitamins, minerals and other micro-nutrients so that

the question of maximum dosages can be addressed rationally.

 

The on-going battle for health freedom is far from over. In fact, it

has really only just begun. With the Codex Guidelines having been

accepted at the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome on 4th July

2005 and the EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive due

to come in to force later this year, we are really only just at the

start of what will inevitably be a long battle for our natural right

to freedom of choice in health care.

 

Please continue your support, without which we are unable to

continue to fight for your health freedom.

 

Thank you and we hope this provides some clarification to a complex

area.

 

The ANH Team

info