Milano, 22 April 2002

Dear Commissioner Byrne,

I’m one of the citizien who wrote to the European Commision about the food supplement Direcive and eventhough I’m happy to see that we deserved an official response I do not feel assured by it. Following are my concerns:

You say “hence this global reply is also published in the internet”.

WHERE ELSE IS IT PUBLISHED? HOW DO, EU CITIZIEN, GET TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR REPLY AND ABOUT THE FOOD SUPPLEMENT MATTER IN GENERAL?

You say “the standardised contents......the argument used by those promoting the campain (against the directive) are false and misleading”

I WROTE MY LETTERS USING MY HEAD, MY KNOWLEDGE AND MY AWARNESS HENCE I CANNOT BE MISLEADED IF NOT BY MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS. WHAT I WROTE CANNOT BE FALSE SINCE IT IS BASED ON WHAT THE DIRECTIVE PROPOSES AND IT IS THERE TO BE READ.

You say “the aim is not to ban food supplements, as some have alleged” and “the Directive will not sustain the marketing of these products as pharmaceuticals”

THESE ARE GREAT DATUM, SAID BY YOU, I WILL BE WATCHING FOR THAT NOT TO HAPPEN!

You say “the most important aim of the Directive is to ensure a high level of protection for the consumer” and “there is no " doubt that most of the products marketed today are safe and of the expected quality”.

IF THE SECOND SENTENCE IS TRUE THAN I WON’T SEE THE REASON FOR THE FIRST SENTENCE. FURTHER, IF THE SECOND SENTENCE IS TRUE, AND I KNOW IT IS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY ANNEX ONE AND TWO OF THE DIRECTIVE LEAVE OUT OF THE LIST THE MAJORITY OF THE FORMS OF VITAMINS AND MINERAL WHICH ARE COMMONLY USED, SINCE DECADES, IN THE PREPARATION OF FOOD SUPPLEMENTS WITH NO PROBLEMS OF SAFETY?

You say “Note that other substances............will, for now, continue to be regulated under the law of each Member State”.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN “FOR NOW?” UNTILL WHEN? WHAT ABOUT ARTICLE TWO OF THE DIRECTIVE? WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER DIRETCIVES UNDER DISCUSSION AIMING TO “REGULATE” OTHER NATURAL SUBSTANCES LIKE HERBS WHICH ARE COMMONLY BEIN ÉG USED BY CITIZIEN?

You say “following the evaluation by the indipendent advisory scientific bodies of the European Union” and “on the basis of the advice that we will get from the scientists and calculation of intakes from other food sources”

WHO ARE THOSE INDIPENDENT ADVISORY SCIENTIFIC BODIES? HOW MUCH INDIPENDENT ARE THEY? ARE THOSE THE SAME SCIENTISTS THAT ARE ALLOWING GMOs AND ALL KIND OF ADDITIVIES IN OUR FOOD? FURTHER ARE THEY GOING TO EVALUATE THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OR ARE THEY GOING TO STICK TO OLD AND OUT OF DATE PARAMETERS IN SETTING RDAs AND ALLOWED SUBSTANCES? HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HARMONIZE AND CALCULATE THE INTAKE FROM OTHER FOOD SOURCES IF THE WAY WE EAT IN ITALY IS SO DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY THEY EAT IN ENGLAND, GERMANY ETC?

To end I think that politicians miss two important points:

1. WHAT IS NEEDED AND WANTED
2. WHAT IS A PROBLEM AND WHAT ISN’T

WHAT IS NEEDED AND WANTED IS:

- BAN CHEMICALS, NOW!
- BAN KNOWN DANGEROUS PHARMACEUTICALS, NOW!
- BAN GMOs, NOW!
- BAN THE USE OF ANIMALS FOR EXPERIMENTS AND CLONING, NOW!
- BAN THE USE OF HUMAN FOR EXPERIMENTS AND CLONING, NOW
- BAN THE USE OF ANTI-BIOTICS AND OTHER PHARMACEUTICS FED TO ANIMALS DESIGNED TO HUMAN CONSUMPTION, NOW!
- BAN ALL KIND OF ARTIFICIAL COLORS, FLAVOR, ADDITIVIES AND PRESERVATIVES IN THE FOODS, NOW!
- SET FIRM AND STRICT RULES TO STOP THE GROWING OF ANTENNAS FOR THE CELLULAR PHONES, NOW!

THESE ARE PROBLEMS FOR CITIZIEN, THE FOOD SUPPLEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES ARE NOT!

If you, and politician, think that citizien feel assured seeing you working on unexisting problems while the real ones, the ones that arms us most, are left there because they are too big for you to work on, then I think you don’t deserve to be our rapresentatives.

Regards,

Anna Falcone