Guess Who is Going to Water Down Your Vitamins?

CODEX -  The Drug Pushers Are Trying to Take Your Vitamins Away Because They Are Afraid You Will Find How Effective Vitamins Are to Treat Many Disease Conditions.  This Amounts to Genocide That Will Probably Result in the Death of You or Some of Your Children

Copyright Bolen Report

I don't know how to stop this. I don't know if it CAN be stopped. Its happening with such DELIBERATE slowness that no one sees whats happening unless they're immersed in it like I am, and I don't know how to get people to wake up. They're busy running their businesses, and unless a threat is so highly visible that its EASY to see, they just don't pay any attention. So they will one day find themselves on the edge of a cliff, being pushed off, and they won't even know how they got there, and I don't know at this point what to say to them. - John Hammell

Update Thu Aug 1 08:25:50 CDT 2002

CODEX Harmonization creeping closer than we think...


The labels on your vitamin and mineral bottles may soon change.

Labels may soon list "Tolerable Upper Limits," which would likely scare uninformed consumers away from taking so-called mega-dose food supplements. These restrictions come at a time when researchers are finding that high-dose folic acid, vitamin D, vitamin C, vitamin B12, selenium and other nutritional factors may convey significant preventive or therapeutic health benefits.

These restrictions are part of international trade agreements now being deliberated in Europe, called CODEX. To read Bill Sardi's recent letter to the U.S. CODEX delegation, go to


Know ledge of Health, Inc.
457 West Allen Avenue, Unit 117
San Dimas, California 91773 USA

July 30, 2002

Elizabeth Yetley
And the US Delegation to CCNFSDU

To be entered into the public record

To the CODEX delegates:

The very fact that there are deliberations to establish upper limits on the intake of essential vitamins and minerals is likely to mean some number must be agreed upon by CODEX. There is a false assumption that there is a signif icant enough health riskto consumers who overdose on food supplements, enoug h so that limits must be established with some haste. 

It can be argued that the over-dosage of any substance canproduce side effec ts.  While food supplements are not free of side effects, they are rela tively safe.  They are safer than chlorinated tap water(long-term carci nogen; causes bladder, kidney and rectal cancer), table salt (results in mil lions of cases of hypertension), aspirin and ibuprofen (causes stomach ulcer s which may hemorrhage and result in death), cow=E2=80=99s milk (countries w ith the highest consumption have the highest mortality rates), bacon preserv ed with nitrates (increases risk of brain cancer more than 10-fold), and ace taminophen (Tylenol, which causes thousands of cases of liver toxicity annua lly, hundreds of liver transplants and some deaths), all which are non-presc ription items.

Efforts to restrict the dosage of food supplements appear tobe a misdirected priority. 
CODEX convenes at a time when it has become apparent there are more than 150 ,000 needless deaths from properly prescribed drugs annuallyin the USA (over 400 preventable deaths per day, equivalent to a fully loaded commercial air liner crashing and killing all on board every day!).  Furthermore, it h as become apparent that the biological action of most prescription medicatio ns can be duplicated with vitamins, minerals, amino acids and herbal product s at far less cost and side effects to consumers.  The public needs to be educated about the health benefits of food supplements, not scared away a s is currently the case.

Some of the current restrictions on the dosage of food supplements are alrea dy harming the public. For example, the FDA does not permit more than 99 mil ligrams of potassium in a food supplement due to a small number of people wh o may develop potassium overload.  Yet consumers caneat a couple of ban anas a day, which provides about 700 milligrams of potassium per piece of fr uit.  This reveals a bias against food supplements that is in urgent ne ed of correction.

In a sense, it could be said that table salt is a food supplement (concentra ted, refined sodium). The over-consumption of salt, approximately 4000 milli grams per day in the USA, results in millions of cases of hypertension and h astens the onset of osteoporosis since sodium competes with calcium for abso rption.  Prepared foods are laced with salt as companies compete for th e consumer's palate. So there is little hope that Americans will reduce sodi um consumption to recommended levels (<1500 mgs per day) without the coop eration of foodpurveyors.  Yet not a word is uttered to restrict the do sage of sodium in an unlabeled salt shaker nor in labeled canned food.  The antidote to the over-dosage of sodium is potassium, which guards agains t salt sensitivity.  But the dosage restriction on potassium in food su pplements prevents most consumers from obtaining a simple and cost-effective answer to the problem. Instead, millions of dollars of ineffective anti-hyp ertenive drugs are sold in the place of potassium.

The U.S. FDA has taken an untenable position by often scaring the public awa y from so-called high-dose food supplements.  CODEX may make the same m istake.  For example, the FDA has repeatedly issued warnings for the pu blic to be wary of high-dose vitamin A supplements.  The potential risk is liver toxicity, which only occurs in about 30 people annually in the USA , most whom have pre-existing liver disease.  Yet health authorities es timate millions of Americans have low vitamin A levels and exhibit health pr oblems such as diminished night vision and a compromised immune system.  ; Yet to prevent a few from developing liver toxicity the FDA warns millions of adults away from supplemental vitaminA. 

For various reasons explained in a memo I addressed to U.S.CODEX delegates t wo years ago, I believe that limits on the dosage of food supplements will r esult in significant health problems.  The science on vitamins is chang ing rapidlyand the dosage of vitamin D, folic acid, vitamin C needed for opt imal health is likely to exceed any proposed upper limits presented to the d elegates of CODEX.  For example, an upper limit on the dosage of supple mental vitamin D is likely to be harmful to blacks living in northern latitu des who are immune compromised due to their limited ability to produce vitam in D from sunlight exposure.

Sadly, while recent studies reveal nutritional deficienciesat epidemic level s, which result in significant morbidity and mortality, CODEX ponders upper limits for food supplements. Recent studies indicate as much as 80 percent o f Americans are deficient in magnesium, 80 percent deficient in essential fa tty acids, 40 percent do not consume sufficient amounts of vitamin B12 or vi tamin D, and more than 90 percent do not consume the amount of vitamin C tha t has been conclusively shown to prevent cataracts (300 mgs) and reduce bloo d pressure (500 mgs).  Food supplements could safely and economically r emedy these deficiencies, but the public is not alerted.  Just the shor tage of magnesium in the American diet results in an estimated 340,000 cases of sudden-death heart attack annually.

If an outbreak of beri beri due to a vitamin B1 (thiamin) shortage affecting just a few thousand people were to be reported in the news media, health of ficials would be compelled to correct the problem.  Yet millions of Ame ricans today exhibit overt signs of nutritional deficiency while public heal th authorities point their finger of accusation at the few side effects caus ed by food supplements which are largely reversible and non-mortal.

CODEX convenes at an historic moment in time when man-made medicines are beg inning to fail. Bacteria are now resistant to the =E2=80=9Cmagic bullet=E2 =80=9D antibiotics.  Over 14,000 Americans now die needlessly in hospit als due to mutated microbes that cannot be killed by the most potent antibio tics.  Again, modern medicine=E2=80=99s over-reliance upon prescription drugs is the problem.  While it has been conclusively shown that carva crol and allicin, the active ingredients in oregano and garlic, can kill vir tually every known bacterium without inducing germ resistance, these natural remedies are ignored and are often considered nothing more than snake oil.& nbsp; Even needless death does not prompt public health authorities tolook a t natural alternatives.  At a time when there is anxiety over biologica l terrorism, there is even some evidence that carvacrol and allicin are pote nt against the anthrax bacterium and the smallpox virus, yet pharmaceutical companies continue to gain the attention of the news media and funding from governmental sources for problematic vaccines that are known to result in si gnificant mortality. 

For these and other reasons, I re-submit the letter I wrote to the U.S. CODE X delegation two years ago, with hopes it will be read in detail and that th e CODEX convention will back away from proposed limits on the dosage of food supplements, at least until further research is conducted.


Bill Sardi



From Mon Jun 3 10:15:47 2002
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 13:15:47 EDT

[Federal Register: May 30, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 104)][Notices]
[Page 37772-37773]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
Food Safety and Inspection Service[Docket No. 02-022N]
Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Nutrition
and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are sponsoring
a public meeting on July 30, 2002. The objective of the public meeting is
to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and
draft United States' positions that will be discussed at the 24th Session
of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
(CCNFSDU) to be held in Berlin, Germany, November 4-8, 2002. 

The Under Secretary for Food Safety and FDA recognize the importance of
providing interested parties the[[Page 37773]]opportunity to obtain
background information on the 24th Session of CCNFSDU and to address items
on the agenda.DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 30,
2002 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the Auditorium (1A003), Food
and Drug Administration, Harvey Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch
Parkway, College Park, MD. To receive copies of the Codex documents
pertaining to the agenda items for the 24th CCNFSDU session, contact the
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) Docket Room, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 102, Cotton Annex,
300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. 

The documents will also become accessible via the World Wide Web at the
following address:

If you would like to submit comments on one or more agenda items, please
send them, in triplicate, to the FSIS Docket Room and reference Docket
02-022N. The U.S. Delegate to the CCNFSDU, Dr. Elizabeth Yetley of the
Food and Drug Administration, also invites U.S. interested parties to
submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address ( ). 

All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available for
public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.To gain admittance to this meeting, individuals must
present a photo ID for identification and are required to pre-register. 

In addition, no cameras or videotaping equipment will be permitted in the
meeting room. To pre-register, please send the following information to
this e-mail address ( )
by July 15, 2002:--Your Name--Organization--Mailing Address--Phone
number--E-mail address

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Matten, Staff Officer, U.S. Codex
Office, FSIS, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Telephone (202) 205-7760; Fax: (202)
720-3157. Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special
accommodations should notify Ms. Matten at the above number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:BackgroundCodex was established in 1962 by two
United Nations' organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international
organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and
protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through
adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines
developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and
implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food
supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly
labeled.The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary
Uses was established to study specific nutritional problems assigned to it
by the Commission and advise the Commission on general nutritional issues;
to draft general provisions, as appropriate, concerning the nutritional
aspects of all foods; to develop standards, guidelines, or related texts
for foods for special dietary uses, in cooperation with other committees
when necessary; and to consider, amend if necessary, and endorse
provisions on nutritional aspects proposed for inclusion in Codex
standards, guidelines and related texts. 

The committee is hosted by the Federal Republic of Germany.

Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting

The following items will be on the Agenda for the 24th Session of the

Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Processed Cereal-Based Foods for
Infants and Young Children[sbull] 

Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Infant Formula[sbull] Proposed Draft
Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements[sbull] 

Proposed Draft Revision of the Advisory List(s) of Mineral Salts and
Vitamin Compounds for the Use in Foods for Infants and Young Children
(CAC/GL 10-1979)In addition, one or more of the following items may be on
the Agenda, depending on whether the Committee has received additional
scientific information:[sbull] Guidelines for Use of Nutrition Claims:
Draft Table of Conditions for Nutrient Contents (Part B, containing
provisions on Dietary Fibre)[sbull] 

Discussion Paper on Energy Conversion Factors[sbull] Draft Revised
Standard for Gluten-Free FoodsNote: The provisional agenda for the 24th
CCNFSDU session will be posted on the World Wide Web in advance of the
meeting at the following address:
.Public MeetingAt the July
30th public meeting, the issues and draft United States positions on the
issues will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the
opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Comments may be sent to
the FSIS Docket Room (see ADDRESSES). 

In addition, they may be sent electronically to the U.S. Delegate (see
ADDRESSES). Please state that your comments relate to CCNFSDU activities
and specify which issues your comments address.Additional Public
NotificationPublic awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy
development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that
minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice,
FSIS will announce it and make copies of this Federal Register publication
available through the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly
Constituent Update, which is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail
subscription service. In addition, the update is available on-line through
the FSIS web page located at
. The update is used to provide
information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal
Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of
information that could affect or would be of interest to our
constituents/stakeholders. The constituent Listserv consists of industry,
trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health
professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have
requested to be included. Through the Listserv and web page, FSIS is able
to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.For more
information contact the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202)
720-9113. To be added to the free e-mail subscription service (Listserv)
go to the ``Constituent Update'' page on the FSIS Web site at
. Click on the
``Subscribe to the Constituent Update Listserv'' link, then fill out and
submit the form.Done at Washington, DC on: May 24, 2002.F. Edward
Scarbrough,U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius.[FR Doc. 02-13526 Filed
5-29-02; 8:45 am]

From Neil E. Levin (


I've taken it upon myself to comment on parts of an article that appeared at In my view the article is an apologist's account of benefits of the EU directive. My remarks are starred (***). Ed J. Fry - 03-21-02

Vitamin supplement directive approved by MEPs

14/03/02 - Despite fierce lobbying which at one stage caused the European Parliament’s email system to crash, MEPs yesterday voted to approve plans for a tightening of the safety controls for vitamin supplements.

Such was the level of vitriol unleashed against Emilia Mueller, the MEP who proposed the legislation, that Parliament also took the unprecedented step of opening an investigation into the lobbying – not to say bullying – tactics of some of the bill’s opponents.

*** Who is bullying whom is open to dispute. A muted, passionless drafting of laws and regulations that does not engage the public in a meaningful conversation about its future access to supplements serves only those in public office and industry who cynically claim that pending (de facto) restrictions in some markets are in the public's best interests.

The new legislation means that manufacturers of food supplements containing vitamins and minerals have three years to provide the European legislators with full details of the ingredients used in the supplements.

Once they have been submitted, they will then be assessed for safety in accordance with existing scientific guidelines and maximum levels will then be set.

Manufacturers will also be obliged to provide detailed labelling on bottles and packaging to give consumers clear daily dosage instructions. They will also have to carry a warning about the dangers of excessive use.

The rules are logical in that they bring dietary supplements under the same kind of safety controls as food and medicines, but they have faced stern opposition from an extremely vocal minority who have claimed that many products currently available for use will now be banned.

The European Commission has strongly refuted these claims, saying that only those products which are not found to be safe will be removed from sale. This, the Commission argued, was clearly in the interest of consumers throughout the Union, and that any product which was natural and safe had nothing to fear.

*** The above passage completely ignores the active steps that must be taken by industry or others to prove (according to criteria yet to be determined) that given products are safe. Many products will be considered only temporarily "innocent". Within an allotted period these products would be removed from the market in the absence of as yet to be defined "adequate proof of safety".

Not everyone agreed, however, and one Dutch vitamin supplement supplier is said to have bombarded the European Parliament with emails claiming that the increased cost of submitting the ingredients for assessment would push many producers and retailers out of business.

Other opponents said that they feared the maximum levels set by the European authorities would err on the low side, forcing manufacturers to reformulate their products and obliging consumers to buy more in order to obtain the same dose.

Reports claim that some 300 nutrients currently used in supplements are not included on the initial list of permitted substances, but these reports have been dismissed by some people in the industry.

As far as we are aware, there are nowhere near 300 substances on the list” said Simon Pettman of IADSA, an organization which represents national dietary supplement associations across Europe. “There are perhaps 30 or so substances currently on the list for approval by the Commission's Scientific Committee on Food, and there will almost certainly be more, but by no means as many as 300.”

*** Is Mr. Pettman referring to 30 classes of products, rather than the many more discrete substances and/ or products that fall within such categories? He appears to be correct rhetorically, but not arithmetically.

The problem is that the most vociferous individuals have been those who are opposed to the regulations, Pettman said, giving the impression that there is widespread discontent with the ruling. “I think it is safe to say that of the 21 or so national associations which we represent in Europe, 17 are delighted with the rules, a couple are neutral and the rest have some slight concerns.

*** Yes, it's generally those who have freedoms snatched away, as will be the case especially in the Netherlands and UK, who are most vociferous in protesting. As for those in other nations who will be "granted" relative freedom by the EU Directive, of course, there would be little complaint. It is the disposition of some to be content with and grateful for "freedoms" bestowed by a patriarchal state, while still others will complain the EU is being too generous in granting even this modest access to nutrients, by which the ignorant masses may still "harm" themselves.

“Even those who are not 100 per cent happy with the rules – for example, we know of some concerns about the way in which the dossiers have to be submitted to the SCF and the costs that might entail – nonetheless realize that they are necessary and inevitable – it is perhaps more in the detail of how they are to be implemented that the concerns arise.”

*** These are the undefined dossiers without which given products will not be allowed for continued sale.

Pettman said that the lawmakers could perhaps have decided to set the maximum limits for nutrients from the outset, rather than going through the lengthy procedure of obliging companies to submit details and then assess them. “But if they had done this, I suppose we would simply have been arguing about the limits instead,” he added. “The way they have chosen is not perhaps the ideal way, but all things considered it is perhaps the most practical.”

*** Leaving the limits open assures that powerful and moneyed interests will influence the limit setting process. As to whether any public input will be regarded remains in question, as to date the EU Parliament's response appears to have be hostile to "non-official" (public) input.

Some of the organizations lobbying against the directive have accused IADSA of not doing enough to stand up for its members, but Pettman explained that they had misunderstood what the organization’s role was.

“About 98 per cent of our European members are in favour of the rules. Of course, this means that 2 per cent are opposed, but we cannot take sides with either party. In the UK, for example, there has been a lot of press coverage condemning the regulations, but most of our members there are in favour of the rules. The coverage in Britain is simply another example of Euro-bashing that the UK press enjoys so much.”

***Mr. Pettman claims to have taken sides with neither party, yet his other words belie him. He appears, most assuredly, to have taken sides with the nominal majority. By stating that most of IADSA's members are in favour of the Directive, in the interests of full disclosure and transparency, he might acknowledge that the most powerful and influential constituents among IADSA's member organizations are pharmaceutical conglomerates. Taking the politically safe tack of attributing outcries over the Directive in the UK to the press, while nowhere acknowledging that flesh and blood citizens have a legitimate concern or stake in this matter, he only implies his allegiances .

He added that it was hard to understand why opponents were so active now, right at the end of the decision-making procedure, when the proposal had first been put forward in May 2000. “That was the time to scream and shout, not now! In any case, it is hard to understand why there is so much opposition to regulations which will bring greater safety and clarity to the industry.

*** Perhaps a few salient questions would assist Mr. Pettman in understanding the delayed public protest to the Directive. Since when did the EU Parliament invite public participation into this "decision-making procedure"? When was public comment solicited? How could the public respond to pending regulations, when so much is still undecided? Where and where were disclosures published by the EU?

“It is true that some of the concerns raised by lobbyists are genuine and need to be addressed. But the way they have gone about putting their case makes them look like extremists and does little or nothing to promote their cause.”

*** Only citizens in a minority of EU countries who presently enjoy open access to supplements are likely to be negatively impacted by the Directive's outcome. However, in light of the looming restrictions of regulations about to be imposed, isn't their level of agitation understandable? It is too convenient and facile, and not at all instructive or inclusive, to attribute the public's outrage at its disenfranchisement to an unnamed public figure (Dr. Rath), who has been made a scapegoat by official scorn and derision.

He concluded: “One argument I have seen is that the whole directive is a plot by the major pharmaceutical companies to price the smaller players out of the market. That is tosh – the vast majority of the vitamins produced are made by these same major players who will themselves be subject to the same regulations. They may well be able to shoulder the additional costs more easily than smaller players, but to accuse them of conspiring is frankly ludicrous.”

*** Given the EU and U.S. criminal sanctions and significant fines (now pending in Australia, as well) against major pharmaceutical manufacturers of vitamin products for conspiring to "fix" and inflate prices, why is it ludicrous to deduce the pharmaceutical industry (cartel) would seek to extend its monopolistic hold on medicinals to include natural substances? The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in history precisely because it knows how to exploit laws and regulations in its own favour, particularly those involving proprietary control and pricing of products.

The European Commission also welcomed the decision to approve the legislation. “The aim of this legislation is to put consumer safety and informed consumer choice first, and to solve the problems manufacturers currently face in marketing their products due to diverging national rules,” said David Byrne, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection.

“Consumers across Europe will have a wide range of safe products available from which to choose, which is not the case in quite a few member states today. The aim of the directive is not to ban food supplements as some lobbies have misled consumers to believe. Some people find they need food supplements to compensate for their inadequate intake of essential vitamins and minerals. Labels must give them clear information about how to use and how not to use them. We also must make sure that the chemical substances used to produce vitamins and mineral supplements are safe and subject to independent scientific assessment.”

“These principles of food safety and transparent information as outlined in the White Paper on Food Safety apply here as they do to all other food products. It must however be clear that a varied diet remains the best approach to achieving good health.

*** Commissioner Byrne makes statements about the necessity for proven "safe" supplements for consumers who find the "need ... to compensate for ... inadequate intake of essential vitamins and minerals". Given that parameters of safety and intake levels are yet be defined, and that by scientific analysis there is little "scientific assessment" that is independent of economic influence, why should those in countries facing future restrictions be buoyed by bureaucratic assurances that say, in effect, "We're the government, and we're here to help you". Really.

The scientific truth is that nutritional science has a better understanding of what constitutes optimal nutrient intake for laboratory animals than for humans. For an array of reasons, mostly ones involving maximization of profits and minimization of liability, most human nutritional indices are stated in terms of "adequacy," not promotion of vigorous health.

Specification of levels of an optimal range for human nutrient intake is not a part of the everyday medical or scientific lexicon, nor does it enter into the EU's "discussion" of what or how nutrients will be allowed to be sold. Is it any wonder that those who aspire to a better or more complete dietary regimen, for themselves and their families, would be angered by largely arbitrary dictates of rule and order -- cloaked as science?

As one "cowboy" American who appreciates the liberty of being able to take what in MY judgement constitutes health enhancing supplements, perhaps I might be forgiven for siding with a scientist and clinician who worked closely with a peace loving, biochemical genius and two time Nobel laureate, rather than a brace of attorneys and bureaucrats. ejf


Biggest Vitamin Ingredient Manufacturer Roche sells off it's Vitamin Division

By Brian Agar

Big News for Vitamin manufacturers & sellers, read below! Roche is the
biggest vitamin ingredient supplier in the world. Now read between the lines
& look for what's not being said. Why would Roche, who maintains the largest Market share in the world on Vitamin Nutrients for manufacturers, sell off their vitamin division to concentrate more fully on their Pharmaceutical business? Now consider the attempts by our FDA, the NAS, & the Codex agendas of setting upper limit levels on ALL nutrients, even when none has been scientifically proven, like Vitamin C. The agenda is this: Once upper limit levels are established, any therapuetic levels of nutrients above upper limit levels in daily doses, will become prescription only. Again Big Pharma is setting an agenda of taking away people's choice of treating themselves with nutrients at therapeutic doses, to make them available as either prescription only, or USP Pharmaceutical Grade, at much higher prices. Tryptophan went from $5-$10.00 for consumers, to about $70.00 for a months supply of Pharmaceutical grade USP l-tryptophan, after that little red herring about the contaminated batch from Japan took it out of stores for a while. If Roche retains pharmaceutical rights to their nutrients, & they do here, they will do well to spin off dwindling vitamin nutrient sales that sell through conventional retail outlets, to concentrate more fully on booming &
continuously rising pharmaceutical sales. This sale alone should really wake
up retailers to the threat of Codex & artificially imposed upper limit levels
on key nutrients. Why would they sell when they have market share lead? It's a lot later than anyone thinks.

More Articles

Bolen Report
Hammell's International Advocates for Health Freedom

Dr Rath's Health Alliance Stops Pharma-Ban on Natural Therapies