| |
Europe Bans Food Supplements
Andrew Paterson—0/2002 |
| |
On Wednesday 13th March 2002, new bureaucratic
legislation was undemocratically passed by the
European Parliament that will outlaw* most food
supplements currently available in health shops. |
| |
 ESPITE
OVERWHELMING protest
from the people of Europe who demanded their right
to natural healthcare, these regulations were passed
in secret behind closed doors, in the usual Eurocratic
dictatorial fashion. In a nutshell, they will make
it illegal, in a few years, to sell about two thirds
of the current food supplements in our health shops
today — supplements which are not only completely
non-toxic, but are central to many alternative and
complementary therapies. Why have these safe health
supplements been banned? Because even though the health
food industry has an almost perfect safety record,
and even though laws exist that prevent unsafe supplements
reaching the market, the health industry directly competes
with the multinational pharmaceutical companies ensconced
in the very heart and soul of the Brussels oligarchy — companies
that, back in 1962, set up a master plan (final solution)
called the the Codex to achieve a worldwide ban of
all non-prescription health supplements. |
| |
| So, first of all, I would first like to take this
opportunity to thank our unelected Members of the European
Parliament for their short-sighted, bone-headed sycophancy
to the pharmaceutical lobby. And you can rest assured
that, apart from the kickback (money or otherwise)
that many of you receive directly or indirectly from
this industry, your collusion with it will only serve
to stain your own hands with the blood of the millions
it poisons every year, and the suffering of those of
us denied the basic human right to natural heathcare
choices — choices which are not only effective,
but have an almost perfect safety record. (Remember
that I.G.Farben was the parent company of three of
Europe's leading pharmaceutical giants. I.G.Farben
manufactured the gas that killed millions in the Nazi
concentration camps, whereas its offspring help make
the chemicals, including those used in chemotherapy,
that kill millions of people today.) |
 |
| But then maximising profits is a very delicate balance
for the pharmaceutical industry: if people die quickly,
they only use your drugs for a relatively short time;
if, on the other hand, they are too healthy, they may
not need your drugs at all. That definitely would not
do! No.to optimise your profits, you need to encourage
the population into a chronic state of ill health and
degeneration, and you need to keep them away from natural
therapies and supplements that would only make them
healthier, more self-reliant and less profitable. That
way you can slowly and systematically squeeze them
for their life-savings (either directly with private
health or indirectly through taxes with national healthcare). |
| |
| Of course, government "healthcare" choices,
strongly motivated by the powerful pharmaceutical lobby,
have been so subtly incremental over the last century
that most of us never noticed that we have arrived
at a disease-centred medical system that serves only
the coffers of our governments and the pharmaceuticals.
Doctors, many of whom are on the payroll of the pharmaceutical
companies, use their ill-earned status to bully patients
into accepting expensive and often lethal chemical
patch-ups. And a large percentage of medical researchers
have admitted altering research findings in accordance
with instructions from their masters. The fact is that
the pharmaceutical companies are directly and indirectly
responsible for the deaths of millions of people worldwide,
either through the suppression of effective alternatives
or directly from the side-effects of their drugs (pharmaceutical
drugs, taken correctly, have become one of the leading
causes of death in hospitals). |
|
| If we are naïve, we might think that pharmaceutical
companies would never act immorally. We might even
personally know some of the individuals that work in
these institutions, and found them to be moral and
caring. But corporations are not just collections of
human beings, but legal entities in with a very specific
mandat — to make money. They are the software
in society that organises collective human activity
along the lines of profit maximisation. Anyone working
in these organisations will, consciously or unconsciously,
be making decisions that support that mandate first
and foremost. And if those decisions result in activity
that is immoral, then that is just business. "What
else could we do?" the directors of multinationals
might say, and to assuage any guilt they are likely
to spew forth transparently absurd justifications. "We
want to alleviate suffering and starvation on the planet" — the double-speak of denial. |
| |
| The founding fathers of democracy were well aware
of the dangers of uncontrolled corporate activity to
the integrity and harmony of society, and so they set
up strict limits to the power and influence of the
commercial sector — limits that have since been
consistently eroded by the new cancer of laissez-faire
politics. Today, the large multinational corporations
are more powerful and have more financial clout than
governments; the beast has grown too large to handle
and is now ravaging everything in sight. |
| |
| What do our politicians do about this? The average
politician spends most of his or her career making
Faustian alliances with those who already have power.
In this way, he or she can build political influence.
As the boards of multinational corporations hold the
most power in Western societies today, instead of denouncing
run-away corporate activity, politicians embrace it.
In fact, at the end of their political careers, many
of our politicians will find themselves on the boards
of multinationals if they want to retire in style. |
|
| This symbiotic relationship between politicians and
multinationals has ensured that governments have turned
a blind eye to even the worst of corporate behaviour,
whilst paying lip service to the value of the human
being. Our governments preach peace, and yet they encourage
arms exports; they talk about social justice, and yet
they consistently block the redistribution of wealth
and power. (Here in the United Kingdom, Blair's smile
is synonymous with deceit — the scheming self-satisfied
grin of today's consummate politician who confuses
rhetoric with principle and believes that truth is
derived from a PR campaign.) |
| |
| What is more, the control that governments are unwilling
and now unable to impose upon the big business has
instead been transferred to the individual. After all,
politicians need somebody to have power over, and if
it is not going to be the more powerful corporate sector,
it will be the ordinary man and woman in the street.
At the same time, this colludes with the aims of corporations
which rely upon a steady supply of ideologically-shackled
individuals to work them, a public that has been brainwashed
into "needing" their products, and a market
place that has no room for no-profit alternatives.
George Orwell said in his book 1984, "If you want
a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on
a human face forever." And it is not just a human
face, but the face of every creature on this planet,
and every life-affirming opportunity that humanity
has. |
|
But we cannot maintain this lie forever; we cannot
fetter the human spirit nor treat the earth like a
gigantic resource indefinitely. The signs of breakdown
are now everywhere apparent, from the violence and
suffering in our society to the breakdown of our planet's
life-support system. Our politicians' empty rhetoric
is being drowned out by a cacophony of human suffering
and the cries of an ecosystem that has endured enough.
As conditions deteriorate, more and more of us are
waking from our hypnotic conformity to a system that
is blatantly self-serving. The fact is that the direction
of capitalism is on a direct collision course with
that of human society and Earth's ecology. And capitalism
will be thrust aside. The question is whether we will
have developed enough alternative "lifeboats" to
save society as we know it from being destroyed in
the process. The European Parliament's vote to eliminate
natural healthcare in favour of the most immoral and
destructive industry on the planet is certainly a huge
step in the wrong direction. |
| |
| * * * |
| |
Addendum: if you believe that
the banning of health supplements could never happen
in countries outside Europe such as the United States,
you could be in for a shock. The codex is actually
a worldwide grand plan that will try to visit your
country soon. You must fight now to stop it. Also,
I would like to add that not all pharmaceutical companies
are immoral and destructive. There are some smaller
ones that are focused on finding natural solutions
to health problems. But they tend to be on the perifery
of the industry and are far from being representative
of it.
*Thank you to Sue F. for your
very pertinent feedback pointing out that the European
Parliament was not actually banning health supplements
but imposing "controls". Whilst you are right,
if those controls are so restrictive that they will
inevitably result in a large proportion of safe food
supplements being taken off the shelves purely for
political reasons (Brussels have themselves admitted
that the safety issue is a red-herring). Lets call
a spade a spade and not use euphemisms that serve
only to obscure political agendas.20th June 2002 update: Natural
Products reports in its latest issue that the health
minister, Lord Hunt, is refusing to meet with representatives
of the natural health retail sector to discuss the
impact of the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products
Directive (THMPD)! Yes, you did read that right… REFUSED
to meet. That is British democracy in action! All
the major health food chains are now backing campaigns
for a liberal interpretation of the directive and
there are some good things going on in the European
courts trying to block the implimentation of this
legistlation. |
| |
| |
|
