kodeks żywnościowy

Próba zamknięcia Uniwersytetu Medycyny Chińskiej

Posted on 25 grudnia 2010. Filed under: ANH, ANH fight for true, ANH walka o prawdę, dr Enji, e-book, kodeks żywnościowy, leczenie ziołami | Tagi: , |

The views of Dick Taverne, member of the UK’s House of Lords, are well known to many of us who have natural leaning to things natural. He has, for example, rallied long and hard to promote genetically modified (GM) foods, while campaigning vociferously against natural medicine. He has been a member of both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, was Financial Secretary to the Treasury under Harold Wilson’s Labour government, and has served on the House of Lords’ Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Crucially, he founded the arch-skeptic organisation Sense About Science in 2002 and remains its Chairman.

In our experience, Sense About Science is neither sensible nor particularly interested iin objective science. It is one of the loudest voices among the skeptic movement, which is well-known for misusing science to serve a corporate agenda.

Now, Lord Taverne has raised a question in the House of Lords that runs like this: “To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to discourage United Kingdom universities from offering Bachelor of Science degrees for courses in alternative medicines such as aromatherapy, reflexology and Chinese medicine.

Have you picked your jaw up from the floor yet? Yes, a peer of the realm thinks it appropriate that the state should intervene to prevent universities from teaching the courses they choose. Soviet Commissars could not have put it better! This is all from someone who has no training in science. His conflation of Chinese medicine, a tradition which stretches back centuries and which is one of the fastest-growing healthcare modalities in the world, with aromatherapy and reflexology, which have been somewhat less studied, can only be deliberate. It is a tactic as old as the hills, and fortunately, it seems, the other peers in the debate did not fall for it, in the main.

Read the full debate.

Do you think someone who heads up an organization as un-objective, biased, and anti-natural medicine as Sense About Science, should be trying to put pressure on universities to close down course in natural medicine?

Do you think it’s just possible that the timing of this attack might be carefully planned to coincide with the increased regulatory pressure against Chinese and Indian medicine that’s apparent as we approach the date of full implementation of the EU’s Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive in May 2011?


ANH-Europe homepage
Nurture Traditional Medicinal Cultures campaign page

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

European Commission reneges on assistance to European herbal practitioners

Posted on 25 grudnia 2010. Filed under: ANH, ANH fight for true, Izrael, kodeks żywnościowy | Tagi: , , |

Pressure from European Union (EU) citizens forced a recent meeting between Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and the European Commission (EC) to discuss the impact of the EC’s directive on herbal medicines which will be fully implemented EU-wide as of 1 May 2011. Unfortunately, the meeting, held at the European Parliament on the 29th November 2010, showed how unwilling the EC is to follow through on a pledge it made back in 2008. The pledge was made in the Commission’s report (COM(2008) 584 final) on its first four years of experience with the herbal directive, known as the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. In the report, the Commission specifically recognised that the directive was not suitable for holistic traditions, such as Ayurveda and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Crucially, it also indicated it would consider the feasibility of an entirely new regulatory framework for such traditions.

Members of the European Parliament got the opportunity to seek answers on the THMPD from Andrzej Jan Rys, Director of Public Health and Risk Assessment at the Directorate General for Health & Consumer Policy. The meeting was called as a result of concerns voiced through many hundreds of communications sent to MEPs, whose constituents are worried that thousands of herbal products will become illegal from 1 May 2011.

You could well have been one of those people who contacted their MEP about this flawed Directive – and if you were, congratulations on your efforts that are now forcing the European Commission to answer some difficult questions! If we keep up the pressure, we are hoping to force the Commission to reconsider its view. If the Commission refuses to budge, it will have to be answerable to its actions in court.

While it’s great to see there’s life left in the European democratic process, we can’t pretend that we’re not somewhat disheartened to hear the Commission’s response. Green Party MEP, Bas Eickhout, when questioning the Commission over the possibility of an extension of the transition phase and hence a delay to the full implementtion of the Directive, was told simply, and unequivocally, by Mr Rys of the European Commission: “We do not plan any postponement of the deadline”.

In a bid to help the Commission maintain a previously made commitment, Mr Eickhout also asked the European Commission if it was going to consider the feasibility of a new regulatory framework, as alluded to in its experience report of 2008. In response, Mr Rys simply declared that no separate regulatory framework was planned for TCM or Ayurveda, and he did not mention any other traditions.

Mr Eickhout went on to question the Commission over the controversial 30-year rule, which requires that 15 years’ safe usage within the EU is demonstrated out of a total of 30 years, as a means of establishing the safety of traditional medicines under the THMPD. Mr Rys indicated that he understood that the EC was not assessing the 15-year requirement in any way; in fact, the Commission’s priorities were to revise the clinical trials directive and veterinary medicinal product legislation!

It’s worth remembering that the THMPD was never intended as a regulatory framework for practitioners of herbal medicine. The directive clearly states its intent to be a framework for manufactured products sold directly to the end consumer, for minor ailments, without the supervision of a medical practitioner. So what about practitioners? Since August 2008, when the Commission’s experience report was published, practitioners of herbal medicine all over Europe have seen the concluding statement in that report as a ray of light among the regulatory bleakness being foisted upon them. However, without this framework, which has been one of the three main prongs of the joint ANH/Benefyt strategy, that hope has been dashed for the time being.

This recent meeting of MEPs and the European Commission could be likened to a curate’s egg. While it is undoubtedly great news that EU citizens’ voices are being heard on the THMPD, and that serious questions are being asked by MEPs on their behalf, the outcome of the encounter with Mr Rys can be summed up in two words: no change. But change never comes overnight, so keep up the pressure – you are being heard! Persistence is the name of the game.

The Commission’s response also vindicates our decision to go to the courts to achieve a more proportionate, transparent and non-discriminatory legal framework for herbal products within the EU.

If you haven’t already considered donating, please do so now! Thank you, and season’s greetings.


ANH-Europe homepage
ANH Nurture Traditional Medicinal Cultures campaign page
ANH THMPD legal challenge page

Updated: 21 Dec 2010

Submitted by Sepp Hasslberger (not verified) on Wed, 22/12/2010 – 11:46.

„It’s worth remembering that the THMPD was never intended as a regulatory framework for practitioners of herbal medicine. The directive clearly states its intent to be a framework for manufactured products sold directly to the end consumer, for minor ailments, without the supervision of a medical practitioner.”

You have the solution to the problem right here. Since the THMPD was not intended as a regulatory framework for herbal practitioners, it will not touch herbal practitioners. It establishes a registration process for over-the-counter herbal medicines. Full stop.

What happens in the world of practitioners is outside the scope of the directive and any national implementation of it.

The Italians have understood this. We have, in Italy, a thriving economy of herbal practitioners and herb shops, called „erboristerie” (that’s plural of erboristeria). Herbalists have a three-year university training, and many of the shopkeepers are trained herbalists. No one expects them to pack up and go home just because the EU made a law to register herbal medicines.

I believe that we are confusing two things here. Herbal traditions including practitioners are very much alive. Herbal medicines as registered products are in trouble. The bar has been set too high, and very few have been registered. But that does not mean we should think that herbal traditions can or will be wiped out by an initiative of the EU bureaucracy to permit registration of herbal medicines under certain conditions.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ayurweda zagrożona wytycznymi kodeksu żywnościowego

Posted on 25 grudnia 2010. Filed under: ANH, ANH fight for true, ANH walka o prawdę, kodeks żywnościowy, leczenie ziołami, medycyna alternatywna, medycyna chińska, medycyna mongolska, medycyna naturalna | Tagi: , , , , , |

India recognises risks to Ayurveda from Europe


4th World Ayurveda Congress
Venue: Gayathri Vihar, Palace Grounds, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
9-13 December 2010

Around 5,000 practitioners, manufacturers, distributors and interested consumers converged on the Palace Grounds in Bengaluru, India last week.  Progressing the mission of “Ayurveda for All”, the biannual 4th World Ayurveda Congress (4th WAC) hosted an impressive and comprehensive range of keynote and plenary sessions relating to the philosophy of Ayurveda.

While much of the meeting focused on recent progress on the scientific validation and development of Ayurveda, an additional and important strand running through the meeting was the ‘globalisation’ of Ayurveda. This included detailed exploration of both the opportunities and the challenges facing Ayurveda outside its native heartland in the Indian subcontinent. It was in this latter context that ANH-Intl executive and scientific director, Dr Robert Verkerk, was invited to give one of the keynote lectures.

Main Hall, 4th World Ayurveda Congress, Palace Grounds, Bengaluru

Background to Ayurveda

The word Ayurveda is made up from two Sanskrit words—‘ayus’ meaning life and ‘veda’ meaning knowledge or science.  Simply put, Ayurveda can be described as the ‘science or knowledge of life’, which the early scholars understood to comprise the mind, body, senses and soul.  A view which is little changed today.  Professor Savrikar from Podar Medical College in Mumbai agreed that “unless a person is very happy mentally we can’t say he’s healthy”.  Hence it is not simply a traditional system of medicine, but more a complete philosophy for life.  Ayurveda encompasses a wide range of modalities including yoga, meditation, nutrition, detoxification, massage and the use of herb and mineral preparations.  The fundamentals of Ayurveda were laid down in Vedic scripts, the earliest of which, the Rig Veda, dates back 6,000 years and contains a number of ‘prescriptions’ to help overcome various ailments.  The aim of Ayurveda is to promote health and prolong life and in so doing eliminate disease and dysfunction.  The key to success involves focusing more on prevention, rather than cure, and by restoring and maintaining balance of body, mind and spirit.

Sadly in the West this body/mind/spirit balance is poorly understood by government regulators and allopathy in general.  So too are traditional medicinal cultures that are not purely concerned with the treatment and cure of disease.  The result being a situation such as the one in Europe, where this valuable tradition is being ripped apart into its component parts, legislated by different laws and inappropriately judged against the same pharmaceutical standards used for new-to-nature drugs.  Western medicine and pharmaceuticals have been around for a relative split-second in time compared to ancient traditions such as Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine.

The arrogance and ignorance that appears to be shown by the European Commission and EU Member State regulators is one of the greatest travesties of our time, earning Europe the label “the dark continent for Ayurveda” by Dr Prasad from Himalaya Herbal Healthcare.  To decimate these traditions, to uphold wrongly that there is no scientific basis to their effectiveness and then to deny innovation (i.e. their continued development) is to deprive European citizens of a fundamental and basic right to health and freedom of choice.  Let alone maintain the vast tradition for future generations in Europe, one that is so well established to counter to massive burden of chronic disease which allopathic medicine is barely denting.

In India, where there is exponential growth in the generic pharmaceutical industry, there is still great confidence in the national tradition of Ayurveda.  Faced with 30 million diabetics, 100 million with cardiovascular disease and 30% of children being born of low birth weight, figures set to increase alarmingly by 2030, Ayurveda offers a low-cost, health-for-all solution.  This rapid growth in chronic diseases can be attributed largely to the substitution of traditional diets and lifestyles with western ones. Academics and Ayurvedic physicians are working together to re-instate a sustainable healthcare system that empowers the individual and is affordable for all.  Despite the number of pharma companies lured to India by the promise of cheap labour and reduced overheads, western medicine will never be in a position to offer both a healthcare system and a viable economy for the people.  In contrast, Ayurveda is not just a disease management system, but a way of life that promotes health, empowers the mind and spirit and, through herbal cultivation, offers financial sustainability too.

Despite gilding the bitter European regulatory lily in the colours of consumer protection, it’s clear that we’re again dealing with profits over people.  We hope you’ll take action to safeguard our traditional systems of medicine and join the campaign.

4th WAC

Dr Robert Verkerk, chaired and gave the keynote address in the first of two sessions entitled ‘Globalisation of Ayurveda and IPR’.  His presentation outlined the current challenges facing on Ayurveda through impending legislation in Europe.  The Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD) poses a significant hurdle for many manufactured products from traditional herbal medicinal disciplines.

Dr Robert Verkerk ANH-Intl, keynote presentation, 4th World Ayurveda Congress, Bengaluru

Similar sentiments were echoed amongst the visiting dignitaries, doctors and academics to the Congress.  A selection of which follow:

“Prevention is better than cure”
“There will be no need for treatment if you use and live the principles of Ayurveda”
“Let us take Ayurveda to the top and have it not just our national pride, but our national health too”
“We have a habit of running with short-term solutions.  We need to look for long-term solutions. Ayurveda is here to stay.  We have a bright future for Indian medicine in India and the rest of the World”

Dr Verkerk appealed to the large audience to become proactive. In communicating his concern over the slowness of response by practitioners and companies involved in the Europe, he made an analogy: He said that it seemed many were sitting on deck chairs admiring the wonders of the ocean, and even after hearing that a tidal wave was due, they still sat enjoying their comfort.

Key connections were made and it seems that most leading players were still not ready to face the reality that is being presented to Ayurvedic suppliers and non-medical practitioners in Europe. Conversely, it was also clear that a few high ranked officials were very aware of the problems and were keen to see all avenues followed to help allow Ayurveda to flourish in Europe, as well as elsewhere in the world.

International Meeting

The 4th WAC was preceded by a 2-day International Delegates Assembly (IDA), held at His Holiness Sri Sri Ravishankar Ji’s ashram—the Art of Living Foundation—on the Kanakpura road outside Bengaluru.

Art of Living Foundation, Bengaluru, India

The IDA was hosted by the Indian government Department of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy), and was opened by Dr SK Sharma, advisor to AYUSH.  There are now 260 Ayurvedic medical colleges offering degrees and post-graduate courses in India to 15,000 students.  Traditionally trained doctors number 7.5 million, their practices being served by 10,000 manufacturing units.  After 4 years of debate with the European Commission over the THMPD, the Indian Government has made little headway.  With full implementation due in May 2011, Dr Sharma argued that this legislation “is not of a scientific nature, but of a trade and political nature”.

Along with around 200 invited international delegates, Dr Rob Verkerk along with Meleni Aldridge, executive coordinator, attended on behalf of ANH-Intl.  Under the theme of ‘global recognition of Ayurveda’ dignatories and delegates outlined the advances in the practice, teaching and awareness of Ayurveda from different parts of the world.  Unfortunately, there still seem to be many in the global Ayurvedic community still unaware of the travesty taking place in Europe.  Rob Verkerk’s presentation entitled “Why urgent regulatory change is needed in Europe to safeguard the future of Ayurveda” sought to change that.

Opening ceremony at the International Delegate Assembly, Art of Living Foundation, Bengaluru, India

Further discussions focussed on the dissemination of Ayurveda globally.  Passion for this ancient holistic, lifestyle approach, that is so much more than a system of medicine, was palpable throughout.  It was refreshing to be amongst such positivity and enthusiasm and in such a tranquil setting as the Art of Living Foundation.  His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar welcomed the delegates and described how Ayurveda was again becoming central to their work in the poorest communities in India.  Volunteers from the Foundation have initiated a programme of teaching the necessary skills needed to help villagers to once again grow traditional herbal plants.  He urged us all to follow this lead internationally to safeguard the vulnerable traditional botanical species, which are most at risk of extinction through over collection.  This simple, cost-effective and sustainable strategy is proving very successful in reducing drug and alcohol addiction and improving health in the villages.

His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Founder, Art of Living Foundation, Bengaluru, India

International delegates and government officials alike shared their personal journeys and experiences of Ayurveda.  Common to all was the immeasurable respect and inherent responsibility synonymous with accepting guardianship of such a precious and ancient philosophy.  That European legislation, in its arrogance and ignorance, may signal an end to traditional medicinal cultures is something we all need to take responsibility for preventing.  Even as western healthcare systems buckle under the spiralling costs of drug-based allopathy, governments, strongly lobbied by pharma cartels, are set to severely handicap our access to preventative healthcare—unless we stand up for our rights.  As Dr Gerry Bodekar, from the department of Medical Sciences, Oxford University reminded us, “there’s nothing alternative about so-called alternative medicine.  Modern medicine could be considered alternative in some parts of the world”.

Dr Gerry Bodekar, Department of Medical Sciences, Oxford University

Without widespread civil action, even disobedience, we are in danger, particularly in Europe, of losing the last vestiges of control over our own health.  A diseased society equals increased profits for the drug industry.  Disease prevention through complementary and alternative medicine is bad for business.  An oft-repeated phrase during the 4th WAC was that there will be no need for treatment if you use and live the principles of Ayurveda.  Health prevention is sustainable—treatment based on western drug-based medicine is not.  The stranglehold that has developed by large corporations over our healthcare, food and energy industries must be broken.  Our health is a basic birthright and traditional medicinal cultures like Ayurveda, Unani, Traditional Chinese Medicine, etc have a huge amount to offer.  At the very least, the choice should be ours.

To avoid becoming another sacrificial lamb on the altar of Big Pharma profits, and to become an active participant in safeguarding the future of traditional herbal medicine in Europe, visit our THMPD campaign.


ANH-Europe homepage
Nurture Traditional Medicinal Cultures campaign page

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Zabójcza medycyna naturalna, a poglądy zakłamanych racjonalistów.pl

Posted on 21 października 2010. Filed under: chińska medycyna, Chęć zysku w TVN, codex alimentarius, kodeks żywnościowy, leczenie ziołami, lekarz Enji, lekarz Enkhjargal Dovchin, racjonalista.pl, tradycyjna medycyna chińska, zioła chińskie, zioła mongolskie | Tagi: , , , , , , |

ANH Press Release: Appeal to European herbal sector

Press Release
For immediate release


20th October 2010


Funding urgently required for ANH/Benefyt joint initiative

Download as pdf

Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl) and the European Benefyt Foundation (EBF) today launch their fundraising appeal for their joint strategy in dealing with the immense challenges facing the European herbal sector from April 2011 onwards.

The two organisations are appealing to stakeholders in the sector, particularly manufacturers, suppliers and practitioners, to help contribute to the appeal which will fund specifically legal rather than administrative costs.

The strategy itself was launched via a Position Paper issued on 1st September 2010.

Robert Verkerk PhD of ANH-Intl said, “The diverse elements within Europe’s vibrant herbal sector need now to step up to the plate, and make a contribution if they want to safeguard their ability to sell the kinds of herbal products they’ve been selling up until now. A lot of the preparatory work for our 3-pronged initiative with EBF has already been done. The main requirement for funding now is payment of our external lawyers, which are among the best available. We are not asking for a single cent to cover either EBF’s or ANH’s running costs despite so much of the work being done in-house”.

ANH-Intl and EBF have announced their appeal in advance of this coming weekend’s CAM Expo in London, launching a 5 minute ‘call to action’ video (see below) to draw attention to the need for support for its proposed judicial review of the EU directive on traditional herbal medicinal products. The video was made by a division of the UK’s largest independent television network, ITN Productions, and will be shown at CAM Expo this weekend.



ANH-Intl and EBF’s joint initiative aims to help facilitate the development of three distinct regulatory regimes for herbal products in Europe. These are: 1) a food supplement regime for common herbs and herbal products that have been associated with foods, the diet and food supplements for many years; 2) a modified, simplified product registration scheme for traditional medicinal products born out of a substantially amended European Directive (24/2004/EC) that fulfils its originally proposed purpose of allowing ready registration of over-the-counter products intended for use without the supervision of a practitioner, and; 3) a new regulatory framework specifically for statutorily regulated practitioners, in which products are dispensed following specific recommendation by the practitioner.

In this call to action, Chris Dhaenens of EBF added, “Those of us who are stakeholders have to take responsibility for doing what we can to create a fair and equitable regime for herbal products in Europe. The consumer has the right to demand safe products but at the same time we cannot allow over-regulation to deprive consumers and practitioners of choice. We have everything to play for still, but we need unity as well as funding for the vital next stages of our joint work with ANH”.

Stakeholders in the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia are asked to contact ANH-Intl, while those in all other parts of Europe, should contact EBF. Funds received by both organisations will be allocated in a fully transparent manner by a joint coordinating committee comprising key representatives of both organisations.




For further information, please contact:

ANH-Intl: Sophie Middleton (campaign administrator), tel +44(0)1306 646 600 or email info@anhinternational.org

European Benefyt Foundation: Chris Dhaenens or Harrie Sandhövel, tel +31 320 251 313 or email info@benefyt.eu


ANH call to action video [5 min]

QR code for video


ANH-Benefyt position paper

Position paper title: Working collaboratively to maintain the supply of products associated with traditional systems of medicine in Europe from 2011 onwards

Download PDF

About ANH International


Alliance for Natural Health International is an internationally active non-governmental organisation working towards protecting and promoting natural approaches to healthcare. ANH-Intl campaigns across a wide range of fields, including for freedom of choice and the use of micronutrients and herbal products in healthcare. It also operates campaigns that aim to restrict mass fluoridation of water supplies and the use of genetically modified foods. Through its work particularly in Europe and the USA, the ANH works to accomplish its mission through its unique application of ‘good science’ and ‘good law’. The organisation was founded in 2002 by Dr Robert Verkerk, an internationally acclaimed expert in sustainability, who has headed the organisation since this time. The ANH brought a case against the European directive on food supplements in 2003, which was successfully referred to the European Court of Justice in early 2004. The ruling in 2005 provided significant clarification to areas of EU law affecting food supplements that were previously non-transparent.

About the European Benefyt Foundation

EBF is the result of the merging interests and concerns of two parties: The Belgian professional association O.P.P.As (Oriental Plant Promotion Association) and two Dutch operators in the field of Ayurveda. Together we have monitored the evolution and the interpretation of EU and national legislation in the past few years. We have come to the conclusion that under this legislation traditional disciplines will either be exterminated or else will survive as a ludicrous caricature of the original. As far as we are concerned, under the actual directives, the EU regulatory authorities are throwing the baby away with the bathwater. We will try, in an open dialogue with our partners, to develop viable alternatives to preserve those systems in the CAM healthcare landscape in the EU.

About the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD)

For further information about the EU directive on traditional herbal medicines (THMPD) and concerns over its implementation, please download the ANH briefing paper.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Medycyna Naturalna – co jest naturalne? – Zespół Medycyna Tybetańsko-Mongolska

Posted on 9 września 2010. Filed under: ANH, ANH fight for true, ANH walka o prawdę, dr Enji, enji, herbal medicine, homeopatia, kodeks żywnościowy, lekarz Enkhjargal Dovchin, medycyna mongolska | Tagi: , , , , |

Working constantly in the natural health field, it is important that we have a strong understanding of what ‚natural’ is. This feature represents a multidisciplinary journey, one that perhaps raises more questions than it answers.

Feature Summary:

  • A description of ‚natural’ is reliant on individual perception. Any examination of it comes with numerous limitations due to knowledge base, perception of reality, limitation of the English language, and lack of public acceptance of ideas that don’t hold a robust scientific base
  • 1 proposal = Natural means that which exists without intervention of the human species
  • Considering the concept using physics (gamma rays in relation to our interaction with outerspace V’s human-engineered nuclear devices), chemistry (Primordial Elements that have existed in one form or another prior to the creation of planet Earth V’s new-to-nature molecules) and biology (exchange of genetic material among species V’s genetic manipulation by humans)
  • Continuum: that which occurs naturally in the absence of any interaction with the human species, to where things are generated through the activity of humans.
  • To create or not create. Our suspicion over processes, chemicals or forms of radiation that are not viewed as being natural is perhaps little more than a reflection of our need to impart a sense of responsibility over that which we are accountable. By definition, we have no control over that which exists independently of humans.

Multiple, parallel realities. Multiple universes. Multiple histories. Multiple opportunities. Over 10 dimensions. These are among the concepts we need to take on board if we are to accept some of the most current explanations for ‘what is’, as presently mapped by M-theory. M-theory, like string theory that preceded it, helps us to better understand reality. But these theories remind us of the limitation of human perception. And let’s remind ourselves that our reality is limited by our individual perception—and that our perception is, in turn, linked to the picture given to our conscious and subconscious mind from information gathered by our senses. These pictures are of course not only conditioned by the environment from which these data have been issued, they are also affected by our individual genetic and epigenetic landscape.

Planet Earth

With this ‘super-scape’ in our mind’s eye, this essay seeks to explore the meaning of the word ‘natural’. There are numerous limitations to any examination of this subject, not least of all the limitation of our knowledge base and our perception of reality, the limitation of the English language (and the author’s use of it) and the lack of public acceptance—in contemporary western society—of ideas that do not hold a robust scientific base. While it might be just as appropriate to use a metaphysical or even spiritual or religious approach to investigate the subject matter, a more broadly scientific approach will be used, if for no other reason that this approach befits the multidisciplinary scientific background of the author.

Natural: an anthropocentric concept

In the barest of terms, I would like to propose that natural means that which exists without intervention of the human species. But categorisation between natural and unnatural will often be blurred, given that the extent and type of human intervention will need to be considered. As such, we must accept that the concept of ‘natural’ is completely anthropocentric.

Humans represent just one of the multiple millions of species—both discovered and yet undiscovered—that exist, or have existed, on planet Earth. Strangely, while we regard the honey made by bees or the cyanide within apple seeds as natural, we might think differently about a toxic green slime made by an extra-terrestrial being. For the time being, let’s not only be anthropocentric, let’s also be focused primarily on those elements of our reality that most have come to accept as the human perception of reality, as experienced on planet Earth through our limited senses, awareness and intelligence. We will make this journey by considering the concept of ‘natural’ through lens of the three major disciplines of science: physics, chemistry and biology, as well as through the borders between them.

In some respects, the separation of these, and indeed of all other, scientific disciplines is a form of artificial reductionism used by humans to aid our understanding of complex processes. It is our limited intelligence that requires such reductionism, and it is reductionism that complicates our perceptions of the extent to which something is natural. So, while studies of distinct types of atoms and specific combinations of particular atoms in the form of molecules constitutes the foundation of chemistry, the physics of sub-atomic particles can be equally important. For instance, the nature of an atom’s electron configuration, or the behaviour of sub-atomic particles in relation to each other and, in turn, their relationships with other factors, can be explained, even if only partially, both in terms of physics and chemistry. The way in which these atoms, and various configurations of bonded atoms as molecules, then interact with the biotic environment can be explained, not only in terms of physics and chemistry, but also in biological terms. And, as practitioners of the metaphysical would be likely to be among the first to ask, who is to say that these three scientific disciplines, at their current level of development, are sufficient to allow us to understand reality? That’s probably why the Theory of Everything, which aims to unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature, is still such a topic of hot debate and is unlikely to emerge from the realms of theory any time soon.

With these limitations recognised and appreciated, how might we categorise substances or processes in relation to their naturalness? Should we, for example, regard a chemical molecule that exists naturally in the environment as unnatural if the very same chemical structure is assembled by human beings within a laboratory? Or should we give such chemicals a special classification, such as ‘nature-identical synthetic’? It probably makes sense to do so, as any form of sub-categorisation tells us additional information about the origins of a substance that would otherwise be lacking. And what if a naturally occurring microorganism is forced to metabolise nature-identical substances in a laboratory, producing metabolites or by-products not normally found in the natural environment? Shall we call these ‘bio-synthetics’? For the reason given above—it probably makes sense.

Perfectly white cut apple

The same rationale can be applied to an F1 hybrid of dahlia that you may have cultivated in your garden. Or it could be applied to a variety of apple that doesn’t readily go brown after being bitten or cut? In the latter case, such apples, commonplace in today’s supermarkets, have been ‘selected’ by plant breeders because of their low content of the peroxidase, the enzyme which causes the familiar browning reaction following the exposure of the fruit tissue to oxygen. Retailers and consumers are said to prefer apples that don’t brown readily, but most don’t realise that the enzyme exists to protect the apple from attack by opportunistic pathogens. But if growers are ready with their arsenal of agro-chemicals, why should they be concerned with the peroxidase content?


In relation to our interaction with outer space, gamma rays exist naturally, being part of the cosmic radiation background to which we are exposed. We many not be able to explain every nuance and mechanism responsible for their generation, type or direction, but we think of background gamma radiation as a form of natural radiation precisely because it is not the result of our intervention.

By contrast, the high-energy gamma radiation experienced by the unfortunate inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 cannot be seen as ‘natural’. Humans had worked hard to find ways of harnessing the radiant energy of specific types of atom. They did this within the confines of human-engineered nuclear devices. Since demonstrating the remarkable power that can be released from an atom of hydrogen, humans have continued to wield this power over their enemies as a deterrent. But this very same power, propagated through an expanding population of nuclear fission reactors, has also been harnessed to generate electricity. We think of these two contrasting applications as unnatural because they occur as a result of our meddling with the laws of nature. The gamma radiation that kills, maims or generates electricity occurs naturally, but neither its application nor its level of exposure to human beings—to our knowledge—occurs in the natural world.  Yet we feel comfortable describing the similar nuclear fission reactions as natural when they occur without any input from our species, whether this is within our own or adjacent galaxies, or perhaps, as some scientists believe, within the molten core of our planet.

Such a framework which characterises the quality and quantity of our exposure to specific elements within our environment serves a useful purpose when examining the human health consequences of particular technologies. The extremely low frequency electromagnetic radiation (ELF) that emanates from mobile telephones, telecommunications masts, DECT phones, wireless communication devices, powerlines and other sources of radiofrequency/microwave radiation (RF/MW) is a case in point. Humans have produced a plethora of sources of these forms of radiation and the resulting exposures dramatically exceed natural background levels. It is consequently the type and exposure level of ELF produced by human-made devices that concerns  the scientists investigating the human health and environmental consequences of wireless communication technologies.

In further examining the concept of ‘natural’, let us now shift away from the field of physics and look instead at another scientific discipline; chemistry.


The ‘periodic table’ gives us a useful toolbox for understanding the world around us in chemical terms. The essential configuration of the table, albeit with many gaps compared with today’s version, was first proposed in 1869 by a Russian chemist by the name of Mendeleev. Even today, chemists will admit there are more elements to be discovered, especially beyond our own planet, or as a result of nuclear experimentation. To-date, some 112 elements have been identified, and of these 94 are thought to be naturally-occurring, even though they might only exist in miniscule amounts or be short-lived. Around 80 elements are considered stable in their solid, liquid, or gaseous forms. Accordingly, they are regarded as ‘primordial elements’, in that they have existed in one form (isotope) or another prior to the creation of planet Earth. The last of these to be discovered was francium—in 1939. A small, more recently discovered group, typically itemised at the bottom of current versions of the periodic table, can be referred to as the ‘trace radioisotopes’ group. These are naturally-occurring products of radioactive decay. In relative terms, they are very short-lived and are found in the Earth’s crust or atmosphere in minute (trace) amounts. Plutonium-239 or uranium-236, produced following neutron capture within naturally-occurring uranium, are examples of such trace radioisotopes.

Periodic table

There is however one more category of elements in our current version of the periodic table. It is the ‘synthetic elements’. These are thought to be so unstable that, even if they were formed during the creation of our solar system, they have long since decayed. We consider these elements to be synthetic because they have only been found as products of experiments using nuclear reactors or particle accelerators. Elements like uranium, thorium, polonium and radon may be unstable, but since they are found naturally within the Earth’s crust or atmosphere, they cannot be regarded as synthetic. Rutherfordium, hassium and copernicium are examples of synthetic elements. Other elements have yet to be discovered or produced.

Following WWII, a massive explosion of organic chemistry occurred. This chemistry, characterised by the reaction of different elements, in different states, together with the single element carbon, provided much of the impetus for the chemical, agro-chemical and pharmaceutical industry. It allowed corporations to expand at an unprecedented rate, this capitalisation being based on the production of unique carbon-based chemical structures which could then be patented. Naturally-occurring molecules cannot be patented as their pre-existence in our natural environment precludes novelty which is required to successfully obtain a patent.

At the heart of the debate over what is a natural molecule, is of course, not just the origin of the elements that comprise the molecule, but the existence of the chemical in the absence of any manipulation by human beings. For some, understanding the divide between the naturally-occurring chemicals and those that are usefully described as ‘new-to-nature’ is a valuable way of understanding human responses to our chemical environment.


In evaluating what is constitutes a natural chemical, we should now move to the interface that divides chemistry and biology. It is both incorrect and overly simplistic to argue that natural chemicals are safer to humans than artificially created ones. However, it has been amply demonstrated that human beings, along with all other animals, have developed complex detoxification systems for chemicals that occur naturally within our bodies or those ‘environmental chemicals’ to which we are exposed naturally. Many of these are ingested in our food, especially in plant-based foods. For most of us, our ingestion of food represents our most intimate exposure to the chemical world around us. Among the natural plant-based chemicals that are most protective against cancer, are actually those that are also toxic to insects, fungi or bacteria that seek to use those plants as a food source.  The glucosinolates within brassica vegetables are good examples of this. But as Paracelsus argued around 450 years ago, it is “the dose that makes a poison”. So while such phytochemicals may indeed be toxic at high doses, their absence from our diet may be associated with an increased risk of disease.

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Some of the most valuable herbal medicines have similar characteristics. Ancient herbal medicine traditions, such as Ayurveda from the Indian subcontinent and traditional Chinese medicine, were first documented over 4,000 years. But this documentation does not represent the first usage of plants for medical purposes. Plant medicine was likely well established in hominids many thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of years prior to this. This is supported by the fact that closely related primates such as chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans are all accomplished users of plant medicines. It follows therefore that herbal medicine may have preceded the evolution of our species.  Ingested in the right amounts, the products of particular plant parts, as well as their specific combination, can help support the proper functioning of metabolic processes within our bodies. In other words, such products can ‘heal’ us if we are diseased, or they can prevent the occurrence of disease. Most simply, they can promote homeostasis. Used incorrectly however, as with any toxic material, they can cause harm.

Importantly, if we are to accept the essential tenets of ‘natural selection’, as first proposed by Darwin, it may be that the duration of time to which we have been exposed to certain chemicals is of pivotal importance to the way by which we react to them. More exposure time means more adaptation time. Time is not only required to evolve ways of making particular chemicals less dangerous, time also offers the opportunity of enabling our bodies to utilise the beneficial properties of plants and other chemical constituents of our food.

Since life on our planet first emerged, probably a billion or more years ago, up until recently, an intricate dance between living things and non-living things has played out. In essence, this dance has existed between the biotic and abiotic natural world. The unnatural, human-created world only emerged in earnest following the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s. But the extent and nature of human interference in natural processes has catapulted forward dramatically in the last half century. In human evolutionary terms, 50 years is but the blink of an eye. It represents less than 9 seconds of a 24-hour clock depicting the possible 500,000 year evolution of our species.

Such a train of logic leads us of course to the subset of biology that we refer to as genetics. Life is coded by a series of chemicals arranged in highly specific ways. Our uniqueness can be explained genetically by understanding the precise arrangement of these chemicals to create a particular type of information. The information is in turn held within our DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) within the sequence of pieces of DNA that we call genes. The Human Genome Project, as of 2003, informed us that all of the variation within our species is coded for by around 20,000 genes. These genes in turn express some 300,000 or so different polypeptides, enzymes and proteins, produced through the transcription of messenger RNA (mRNA). RNA differs from DNA only that it is comprised of a ribose sugar, rather than a deoxy ribose one. This revelation denigrated the ‘one gene-one polypeptide/enzyme/protein’ hypothesis that had been relied upon in molecular biology since it was first proposed by Beadle and Tatum in 1958, a proposal that led to the joint award of a Nobel Prize.

Genetic material can be exchanged among species, or, sometimes, other closely related organisms. In fact it is this fact that has been central to the taxonomic categorisation of our planet’s organisms. We therefore believe that there are preset, natural rules which govern the exchange of genetic material from the germline cells (gametes) of one organism to another. We think of this kind of genetic exchange as natural.

It is the disruption of these natural genetic rules that makes so many people question the wisdom of genetic engineering. Many are suspicious of the technology even without any awareness of scientific evidence of its harm to humans, other animals or other elements of the environment. Genetic manipulation—the domain of biotechnology—can therefore be seen to be responsible for products which can no longer be regarded as natural. While a genetically-modified (GM) maize variety, viewed by governmental regulators as ‚substantially equivalent’ to its non-GM cousin, may look outwardly identical to its non-GM cousin, it should not be regarded as natural. It may have been modified through the incorporation of an alien genetic cassette to allow it to be resistant to one company’s herbicide, as is the case with Monsanto’s Roundup resistant crops. Alternatively, genetic material encoding for a toxic protein from a species of soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), may have been introduced to the maize plants’ DNA. Neither the method of gene insertion, nor the occurrence of the foreign genes expressing the specific trait, are able to occur without manipulation by humans. It is the breach of the natural laws governing genetic exchange that provides such grounds for concern among those apprehensive about the human health and environmental risks associated with outdoor release of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).


While plant or animal breeding programmes also lead to genetic combinations that would not normally occur in nature, the processes that actually govern genetic exchange in such programmes still work within the parameters of the laws of nature.

Like with chemicals, the precise way by which humans manipulate genetic material raises further questions over how natural a given organism might be. Simple binary logic, in which something is natural or not, just make way for a continuum which tells us something about the extent of its naturalness.

Concluding remarks

Within the scientific disciplines of physics, chemistry and biology, we’ve been able to consider a rationale—from our unashamedly anthropocentric perspective—for what makes something natural.

We’ve been able to differentiate between the substance or entity, and the process.  A chemical or radiation source might be natural, but is its existence, form, type or level of exposure within the ranges we might expect if humans had not intervened in any way? Alternatively, the process by which a substance, entity or organism is produced might be natural or unnatural. If the process is unnatural, we think of it as artificial even if the output from the process is identical to that which is yielded through processes that are independent of humans. Animal cloning or even in vitro fertilisation are thus regarded as unnatural processes, despite the fact that their progeny cannot be readily distinguished using current scientific means from those produced naturally.

We therefore must accept, as with so many forms of categorisation, that the simple distinction between natural and unnatural, or natural and synthetic or artificial, is necessarily crude. It may even be less than accurate. This greying of the boundaries between that which exists both with and without the intervention of our species yields a continuum. The continuum stretches, at one extreme, from that which occurs naturally in the absence of any interaction with the human species, to the other extreme, where things are generated through the activity of humans, the outputs being at odds with anything that might have existed previously. Most substances to which we are exposed, whether they are present in our food, our water or in the air we breathe, exist somewhere between these two extremes.

Whether a substance is identical to, a lot like, or only slightly like, one that exists naturally, might be of great consequence to our health, or even our survival. Equally, it might be of little or no significance. But whether it is of great, or little, significance, is not actually relevant to the positioning of the substance on the continuum.

We should keep reminding ourselves of the limits of our knowledge, perception and understanding. To an extra-terrestrial surveying our planet, the effects of activities of any of the organisms inhabiting the planet might be regarded as natural. Why should the effects wrought by one organism be segregated from those of millions of other organisms sharing the same planet?

As the organism responsible for such profound environmental change within our recent history, many are unsurprisingly concerned about what we are doing to our planet. These concerns are framed within our own awareness and particular systems of perception. They are also framed by our particular forms of intra-species (verbal and non-verbal) communication. Many of us will not yet be able to interpret the relevance of M-theory, or even understand how parallel universes or realities might exist. But most are guided by an innate and intuitive ‘feel’ which dictates that the more natural something is, the more acceptable it is.

Many also recognise that ‘natural’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘safe’. In terms of today’s scientific understanding, especially within the discipline of toxicology, at least as important as the innate characteristics of the substance (or form of radiation) itself, is the nature and degree of our exposure to it. For toxicologists, dosage is seminal, although we might consider not blindly accepting over-simplistic notions about typical dose-response relationships. Toxicologists are however greatly limited by methodologies that consider the context of our exposures. Currently, very little attention is paid to the effects of mixtures of chemicals, both natural and unnatural, to which we are exposed daily. Scientific reductionism could be regarded as having hindered as well as helped our understanding of our natural environment, of which we are but one biotic component. On a daily basis we are learning more about the extraordinarily complex interactions that occur within our environment, using our much-loved, but somewhat limited, tools of physics, chemistry and biology.

We have, literally, only just began scraping the surface of what is likely to really be going on. We should therefore be modest enough to avoid making claims as to the ultimate truth (if there is such a thing) concerning both our reality and the operation of the world around us. It is always helpful to keep thinking as big as we can. After building understanding within our artificial scientific compartments, we then need to remove the compartments to achieve higher awareness. To push forward our awareness of our situation, we need to keep returning to the widest, most ‘macro’, unreduced and non-compartmentalised perspective we can find. M-theory provides us with one such perspective.

Our suspicion over processes, chemicals or forms of radiation that are not viewed as being natural is perhaps little more than a reflection of our need to impart a sense of responsibility over that which we are accountable. By definition, we have no control over that which exists independently of humans. However, we can choose either to create or not create those things we view as synthetic, semi-synthetic, bio-synthetic or even nature-identical. In this way, we are therefore able to act as arbiters over those human-created elements of our perceived existence.

Long may such responsibility continue, on the grounds that it is coupled with the highest level of awareness and understanding that we can muster.

ANH-Europe Homepage

Health Choice campaign page

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Naciski na ustawodawców Unii Europejskie w sprawie ziołowych preparatów medycyny chińskiej i medycyny indyjskiej

Posted on 4 września 2010. Filed under: chińska medycyna, codex alimentarius, dr Enji, enji, gabinet medycyny naturalnej, kodeks żywnościowy, lekarka mongolska, lekarz Enji, lekarz Enkhjargal Dovchin, medycyna chińska, medycyna mongolska, tradycyjan medycyna chińska, zioła chińskie | Tagi: , , , , , , , , |

Press Release
For immediate release

1st September 2010

Two leading European groups unite to help re-shape legal frameworks around Chinese and Indian herbal products

Download as a pdf

BRUSSELS, 1 Sep 10. The European Benefyt Foundation and the Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl) presented yesterday their united strategy to a range of stakeholders representing Chinese and Ayurvedic traditions of herbal medicines. The meeting was held in the Renaissance Hotel, Brussels.

The proposed strategy aims in particular to address the grave regulatory situation facing thousands of products representing non-European herb-based healthcare traditions. It will also help to keep on the market products associated with minor European herbal traditions that are struggling to cope with the raft of EU laws affecting them.

In April 2011, when the EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD) is fully implemented after a seven year transition phase, thousands of products distributed by specialist herbal suppliers will become increasingly difficult to sell. Medicines regulators in many Member States appear to be using the full implementation of the THMPD as a means of narrowing the scope of the food supplements regime, under which most of these products have to-date been sold. The long transition phase of the THMPD is meant to have provided stakeholders with the time required to ensure their products have been successfully registered under the simplified medicinal licensing scheme offered by the Directive.

However, a range of eligibility and technical problems, along with prohibitive costs, have, so far, prevented any products from either the Chinese or Indian traditions from successfully being registered under the scheme.

The core strategy of the two organisations has been detailed in a 10-page position paper authored by the heads of the respective organisations, namely Dr Robert Verkerk (ANH-Intl) and Chris Dhaenens (Benefyt). The paper was tabled at the stakeholders meeting and received broad support from the diverse range of attendees, some of which had travelled from as far away as India.

The joint strategy was presented at the conference by lead author, Dr Verkerk. Commenting on it, he said, “While the herbal directive provides an additional framework that is amenable to some, predominantly European herbal products, it simply doesn’t work for the majority of complex, multi-herb products associated with these ancient non-European traditions.”

The strategy involves three primary initiatives; improvement of the food supplements regime under which most Chinese and Indian herbal products have been sold up until now, the initiation of judicial review proceedings with the aim of gaining a reference to the European Court of Justice, and the development of an altogether new framework for such products. The former two approaches are regarded as essential to the short-term resolution of challenges facing many stakeholders as of mid-2011, while the latter focuses on facilitation of a new framework that is both accessible to the majority of stakeholders in the sector, whilst ensuring the safety of products through proportionate and scientifically-validated quality control measures.

Verkerk added, “We have seen a big increase in classifications by national medicine regulators of herbs as novel foods or unlicensed medicines, and it is clear that regulators intend to narrow the scope of the food supplement regime for herbal products after April next year. On top of this, most claims for botanical food supplements will soon have to be removed given the anticipated negative opinions being issued by the European Food Safety Authority under Article 13 of the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation. The herbal directive, which should provide a carve out for these products, acts disproportionately against non-European traditions, while also discriminating against those who want to use such products—that have after all stood the test of time—to manage their own health. It is therefore essential that judicial review proceedings are started in advance of the end of the transition period.”

Speaking after the conference, Chris Dhaenens said, “The herbal directive as it currently stands is poorly thought through and is simply inaccessible to most players distributing high quality Chinese or Indian herbal products in Europe. Ironically, while the quality control measures are one of the biggest stumbling blocks for most stakeholders in the sector, they don’t guarantee that products are safe. Amongst our proposals, are revised quality control measures that are both cheaper and more effective than those offered by the existing directive. We are very happy to be collaborating closely with the ANH and are hopeful that a strong, more united effort will bring positive change.”

Download the joint ANH/Benefyt position paper.

ANH-Intl and Benefyt are calling on interested parties to contact either of the organisations for further information. They have stressed that adequate financial support will be crucial to the effective implementation of the joint strategy and have warned that inaction will result in the loss of thousands of products with consequent impacts both on public health and the small businesses in the sector.



For further information, please contact:

ANH-Intl: Sophie Middleton (campaign administrator), tel +44(0)1306 646 600 or email info@anhinternational.org

European Benefyt Foundation: Chris Dhaenens or Harrie Sandhövel, Tel +31 320 251 313 or email: info@benefyt.eu


ANH-Benefyt position paper

Position paper title: Working collaboratively to maintain the supply of products associated with traditional systems of medicine in Europe from 2011 onwards

About ANH International

Alliance for Natural Health International is an internationally active non-governmental organisation working towards protecting and promoting natural approaches to healthcare. ANH-Intl campaigns across a wide range of fields, including for freedom of choice and the use of micronutrients and herbal products in healthcare. It also operates campaigns that aim to restrict mass fluoridation of water supplies and the use of genetically modified foods. Through its work particularly in Europe (www.anh-europe.org) and the USA (www.anh-usa.org), the ANH works to accomplish its mission through its unique application of ‘good science’ and ‘good law’. The organisation was founded in 2002 by Dr Robert Verkerk, an internationally acclaimed expert in sustainability, who has headed the organisation since this time. The ANH brought a case against the European directive on food supplements in 2003, which was successfully referred to the European Court of Justice in early 2004. The ruling in 2005 provided significant clarification to areas of EU law affecting food supplements that were previously non-transparent.

About the European Benefyt Foundation

EBF is the result of the merging interests and concerns of two parties: The Belgian professional association O.P.P.As (Oriental Plant Promotion Association) and two Dutch operators in the field of Ayurveda. Together we have monitored the evolution and the interpretation of EU and national legislation in the past few years. We have come to the conclusion that under this legislation traditional disciplines will either be exterminated or else will survive as a ludricrous caricature of the original. As far as we are concerned, under the actual directives, the EU regulatory authorities are throwing the baby away with the bathwater. We will try, in an open dialogue with our partners, to develop viable alternatives to preserve those systems in the CAM healthcare landscape in the EU.

About the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD)

For further information about the EU directive on traditional herbal medicines (THMPD) and concerns over its implementation, please download the following ANH briefing paper:


Więcej informacji:

Medycyna Tybetańsko-Mongolska

prof. Enkhjargal Dovchin


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Największa na świecie kara finansowa dla farmacjii

Posted on 8 kwietnia 2010. Filed under: kodeks żywnościowy, koncerny, Korupcja | Tagi: , , , , |

Pfizer – największy na świecie koncern farmaceutyczny – zapłaci rekordową sumę 2,3 miliarda USD, żeby zakończyć spór z władzami amerykańskimi, dotyczący niedozwolonych metod marketingowych – informują w czwartek agencje prasowe.


Chodzi m.in. o środek przeciwbólowy Bextra, lansowany przez Pfizera do zastosowań innych niż te, na które wydał zgodę Urząd Kontroli żywności i Leków. Bextra została już wycofana z rynku. W sumie zarzuty przeciw Pfizerowi dotyczyły nieprawidłowości przy sprzedaży 13 leków.

Ugoda przewiduje, że śledztwo przeciwko Pfizerowi zostanie umorzone, gdy koncern zapłaci wspomnianą gigantyczną sumę.

Reuters informuje, że sześć osób, które ujawniły władzom sprzeczne z prawem praktyki Pfizera, otrzyma nagrody – w sumie ponad 102 miliony USD, z czego ponad 51 milionów przypadnie prawdopodobnie Johnowi Kopchinskiemu, byłemu przedstawicielowi handlowemu Pfizera.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Niebezpieczna żywność – komentarz lek. Enji

Posted on 3 kwietnia 2010. Filed under: dr Enji, enji, kodeks żywnościowy, koncerny, Korupcja, lekarz Enji, lekarz Enkhjargal Dovchin, monsanto, niebezpieczna żywność, oszukańcze koncerny, szajs gmo, żywność gmo | Tagi: , , |

Sprawa jest śmiertelnie poważna. Według danych rządu Stanów Zjednoczonych raczkujące dziś pokolenie Amerykanów będzie pierwszym od stulecia, które pożyje krócej od swoich rodziców. Powód: otyłość. Co trzecie amerykańskie dziecko ma chroniczną nadwagę, a co za tym idzie – jest skazane na nadciśnienie, cukrzycę, astmę albo raka. Na odsiecz rusza Michelle Obama. W połowie lutego Pierwsza Dama wystartowała z przygotowywaną przez rok kampanią Let’s Move (Ruszmy się!), debiutując tym samym w – tradycyjnie wypełnianej przez żonę prezydenta – roli społecznej aktywistki. Przy wsparciu organizacji pozarządowych, biznesu i mediów będzie zachęcać dzieciaki, żeby odstawiły colę na rzecz soku, frytki na rzecz marchwi i siedzenie przed komputerem na rzecz ganiania za piłką.

Inicjatywa szlachetna, tyle że jej szanse powodzenia są znikome. Żeby przestać tyć, Amerykanie na nowo muszą zbudować sobie system produkowania jedzenia. Ale na taką zmianę się nie zanosi, bo nie pozwolą na nią ci, którzy dziś na karmieniu narodu zarabiają miliardy.

„Jesteś tym, co jesz” – mawiają za oceanem. Jeśli popularne powiedzenie potraktować dosłownie, naród amerykański jest zaprojektowanym w laboratorium, genetycznie zmodyfikowanym i wielokrotnie przetworzonym produktem wielkiej korporacji.


Największym żywicielem Ameryki jest dziś Monsanto – firma, która przez dziesięciolecia produkowała trucizny, jak środek owadobójczy DDT czy zawierający dioksyny preparat niszczący roślinność, używany przez amerykańską armię w Wietnamie. W połowie lat 80. korporacja Monsanto z giganta chemicznego przepoczwarzyła się w giganta spożywczego. Oprócz środków do trucia naukowcy w jej laboratoriach zaczęli po prostu wymyślać środki do jedzenia. W 1982 roku jako pierwsi zmodyfikowali genetycznie komórkę roślinną. I to właśnie na nasionach Monsanto wyrósł wielomiliardowy przemysł żywności genetycznie modyfikowanej (GMO).

Rozkwit interesu umożliwiła decyzja Sądu Najwyższego USA, który w 1980 roku pięcioma głosami przeciw czterem zezwolił na patentowanie żywych organizmów. Sprawa nie dotyczyła wprawdzie nasion GMO, tylko bakterii stworzonej przez General Electric do pożerania wycieków ropy, ale ustanowiła precedens dający początek przejęciu produkcji rolnej przez korporacje. Prawo do zbóż daje przecież władzę nad tym, co ludzie jedzą i czy w ogóle jedzą.

Ludzie Monsanto (firma istnieje od 1901 roku, a kokosy zarabiała już w latach 30. na sprzedaży sacharyny dla Coca-Coli) wpadli na pomysł tak prosty, że aż genialny: produkujemy jednocześnie silny środek chwastobójczy i roślinę, która będzie na niego odporna. Tak powstał Roundup i zmodyfikowana kukurydza. Farmer kupuje oba produkty, obsiewa pole kukurydzą i pryska Roundupem. Roundup kosi wszystko, co żywe, poza kukurydzą. Ta zaś – pozbawiona konkurencji – rośnie wysoka i żółta jak nigdy.

Wszyscy są zadowoleni. Monsanto – bo uzależnił farmera od swoich produktów. Z kolei zadowolenie farmera z wysokiej i żółtej kukurydzy jest tak duże, że podpisuje umowę licencyjną, która zakazuje mu zbierania nasion z zeszłorocznej uprawy, skazując go na coroczną dostawę nasion z Monsanto. Dzięki temu farmer jest jeszcze bardziej uzależniony, a koncern – jeszcze bardziej zadowolony.

Monsanto ma własną policję i siatkę donosicieli. Prawie setka inspektorów wspierana przez informatorów sprawdza, czy producenci kukurydzy nie dopuszczają się – jak ujmuje to koncern – „nasiennego piractwa”.

Firma ma również sposoby na tych, którzy chcą zostać przy zwykłych uprawach. Metoda pierwsza: Monsanto systematycznie likwiduje rynek tradycyjnych nasion przez przejmowanie ich producentów. Dwa najważniejsze zakupy ostatnich lat – największy światowy producent nasion warzywnych Seminis (2005 rok; za 1,4 miliarda dolarów) i Delta and Pine Land Company, olbrzym specjalizujący się w nasionach bawełny (2007 rok; za 1,5 miliarda dolarów). Na rynku zaczyna więc brakować nasion niepozostających pod kontrolą monopolisty. Druga metoda: presja prawna. Niesione wiatrem nasiona Monsanto rozsiewają się na pola przypadkowych farmerów, a firma oskarża ich o kradzież. U Bogu ducha winnego delikwenta zjawia się inspektor Monsanto i informuje o dwóch możliwościach: albo zawieramy ugodę i podpisujesz z nami umowę licencyjną, albo mobilizujemy naszych prawników i rozpoczynamy długą batalię sądową. Zanim się skończy – będziesz zrujnowany. Według danych organizacji Center for Food Safety, która od lat monitoruje działalność Monsanto, większości farmerów nie stać na prawniczą wojnę i idą na układ z firmą. Ci niepokorni – jak 85-letni Vernon Gansebom z Nebraski – nazywają Monsanto rolniczym gestapo. Gansebom jest jednym z około 500 rolników, którym korporacja każdego roku wytacza proces.

Monsanto jest dziś największym w USA właścicielem biotechnologicznych patentów. Ma ich prawie 700. Nie ma sobie równych na amerykańskim rynku genetycznie modyfikowanej kukurydzy, bawełny, buraków cukrowych, rzepaku, lucerny i soi. W przypadku tej ostatniej – odpowiada za 90 procent sprzedaży. Biorąc pod uwagę fakt, że prawie trzy czwarte żywności przetworzonej – a taką głównie jedzą Amerykanie – jest genetycznie zmodyfikowane, można sobie wyobrazić, jak ogromny jest wpływ Monsanto na ich dietę.


Amerykanie jedzą głównie kukurydzę i soję. Powtórzmy: głównie z nasion Monsanto. W przeciętnym amerykańskim supermarkecie na półkach leży ponad 40 tysięcy różnych produktów spożywczych. Ale to bogactwo wyboru jest pozorne. Większość asortymentu jest zrobiona z tych samych składników. Według Larry’ego Johnsona, dyrektora ośrodka badań nad zbożami Uniwersytetu Stanowego w Iowa, 90 procent przetworzonej żywności w supermarketach ma w składzie albo kukurydzę, albo soję. Do tego sól, cukier i cała gama środków chemicznych decydujących o tym, jak jedzenie smakuje, wygląda i jak długo zachowuje „świeżość”. Tak żywi się większość Amerykanów.

Za taki stan rzeczy odpowiada polityka rolna USA, która od połowy lat 70. zwiększa subsydiowanie uprawy czterech zbóż: kukurydzy, soi, ryżu i pszenicy. Ich zaletą, z punktu widzenia rządu, jest to, że można je składować latami. Dla farmerów najwygodniejsza jest kukurydza, bo najlepiej się sprzedaje. 30 procent ziemi uprawianej dzisiaj w Stanach Zjednoczonych jest obsiane kukurydzą. Cmoka na to ze smakiem kilka korporacji kontrolujących rynek jej obróbki – Bunge, Cargill czy Archer Daniels – bo dzięki dopłatom kukurydza ląduje na rynku po cenach znacznie poniżej kosztów uprawy. Produkują z niej mączkę i – przede wszystkim – bogaty we fruktozę syrop i sprzedają dalej kilku gigantom kontrolującym rynek przetwarzania żywności – znanym również u nas – Unileverowi, Nestlé, Coca-Coli, Kellogg’s. Żeby było pysznie, czyli słodko, syropem kukurydzianym (jest tańszy od cukru) słodzi się wszystko – ciasteczka i lody, ale też płatki śniadaniowe, pieczywo, a nawet wędliny, sosy w proszku, zupy w proszku, ziemniaki w proszku i hamburgery. Zadowoleni są rolnicy, korporacje i konsumenci. To, że ci ostatni tyją i umierają od tego tycia, mało kogo interesuje.

Przetworzona, wysokokaloryczna żywność jest na półce w supermarkecie dużo tańsza niż świeże warzywa i owoce. I to wcale nie ekologiczne (te są jeszcze droższe), tylko pochodzące z wielkich, nawożonych na potęgę farm, ale niecieszące się aż tak hojnym wsparciem rządu jak cztery „zboża przetrwania”. Doktor Adam Drewnowski z Uniwersytetu w Waszyngtonie wyliczył, że najtańsze kalorie mają w sobie chipsy (w ich przypadku wyprodukowanie jednego megadżula, czyli 239 kilokalorii, kosztuje 20 centów). Cola jest tylko ciut droższa (30 centów/MJ). Megadżul z marchewki to wydatek 95 centów, a z soku pomarańczowego – 1,43 dolara. Profesor Uniwersytetu Kalifornii Michael Pollon, najpopularniejszy dziś rzecznik rewolucji w amerykańskim systemie rolno-spożywczym, podsumowuje to tak: – Status społeczny i sytuacja finansowa rodziny są dziś w USA decydującym czynnikiem otyłości. Biedni jedzą tanią korporacyjną mamałygę i tyją.


Sam cukier to za mało, żeby było smacznie. Musi jeszcze być tłusto. Dlatego teraz przerobimy mięso. Amerykańskie mięso jest bardzo tłuste, bo robi się je z kukurydzy. Z kukurydzy z nasion Monsanto. Trudno w to uwierzyć? Sami popatrzcie.

W przemyśle mięsnym wszystko zostało podzielone. 85 procent rynku wołowiny jest w rękach czterech firm: Tyson, Cargill, Swift i National Beef Packing. Wieprzowina w 65 procentach należy do wymienionych wyżej trzech pierwszych i giganta Smithfield, a 60 procent kurczaków to znów Tyson i drobiowy specjalista Pilgrim’s Pride. W latach 70. istniało kilkanaście tysięcy małych ubojni. Dziś zostało 13 gigantycznych. W największej rzeźni świata – należącej do Smithfield – w Karolinie Północnej ubija się 32 tysiące świń dziennie, czyli 1333 na godzinę, czyli 22 na minutę. Non stop, całą dobę.

Większość hodowanych w USA krów karmi się kukurydzą lub soją. Krowy są ewolucyjnie przystosowane do jedzenia trawy, ale trawa nie rośnie w hodowlanych konglomeratach, poza tym jest droga, a kukurydza i soja cieszą się znanym nam już korporacyjno-rządowym wsparciem. Na kukurydzy krowa szybciej rośnie, mięso jest bardziej tłuste i tańsze. Przeciętny Amerykanin zjada dziś 90 kilogramów mięsa rocznie (Polak 65), czyli o 30 kilogramów więcej niż przed 50 laty.

Michael Pollon: – Kukurydza i soja to fundamenty naszego „fastfoodowego narodu”. Zorganizowaliśmy sobie system, w którym miliony zwierząt podłączone są do nieprzerwanego strumienia taniej paszy.

Oczywiście świeże mięso w kawałku, mimo że wyhodowane na taniej kukurydzy, jest dużo droższe od mięsa przetworzonego. Dlatego niezamożny Amerykanin spożywa przede wszystkim mięso po wielokrotnych fabrycznych przejściach – w postaci hamburgera. Mięso w typowym amerykańskim hamburgerze – jak w październiku zeszłego roku w głośnym artykule na łamach „New York Timesa” opisał Michael Moss – pochodzi z kilkuset zwierząt. „Mięso” jest tu terminem umownym, bo miele się resztki tego, co nie „poszło” w postaci steków – tłuste ścinki, oczy, uszy i podroby. Kto jest największym odbiorcą mielonej wołowiny w USA? McDonald’s.

Za symbol uprzemysłowienia produkcji mięsa niech posłuży jedna ze scen z krytycznego wobec branży spożywczej filmu „Food, Inc.” w reżyserii Roberta Kennera. Opowiadając do kamery o swojej pracy, naukowiec grzebie w krowim żołądku. Z tym że żołądek jest jeszcze w krowie, krowa jest jeszcze żywa, stoi na czterech nogach z opuszczonym łbem. Nie zwraca uwagi na to, że ma dziurę wyciętą w boku, oklejoną plastikiem. Nazywa się to rumenotomią, a fachowa nazwa dziury to przetoka. Naukowcy od jedzenia wymyślili taką sztuczkę, żeby „na żywo” badać, co się dzieje w żołądku krowy, kiedy zje coś, na co nie przygotowała jej ewolucja.

W przypadku kukurydzy nie dzieje się za dobrze. Badania potwierdziły, że najbardziej prawdopodobną przyczyną dręczącej Amerykanów epidemii zakażeń bakterią E. coli jest karmienie krów kukurydzą. Bakterią, która pojawiła się w wołowinie na początku lat 80., gdy tempa nabierał rozwój przemysłu mięsnego, zaraża się 70 tysięcy Amerykanów rocznie. Choć zazwyczaj kończy się na kilkudniowych biegunkach, niektórzy jednak umierają – jak dwulatek Kevin Kovalcyk w 2001 roku, lub zostają sparaliżowani – jak opisana przez Mossa w „New York Timesie” Stephanie Smith. Zakażeń można by uniknąć, gdyby mięso było porządnie badane. Ale nie jest. W latach 70. rząd przeprowadzał 50 tysięcy kontroli mięsa rocznie, dziś – mniej niż 10 tysięcy. Tak zwane prawo Kevina (na cześć małego Kovalcyka), które umożliwiłoby zamykanie zakładów sprzedających zatrute mięso, utknęło w kongresowych komisjach. Dlaczego? Odpowiedź w następnym rozdziale.

Nie gorzej od producentów wołowiny radzą sobie bossowie od kurczaków. Na wzór Monsanto wyspecjalizowali się w uzależnianiu od siebie hodowców. Korporacja stawia halę produkcyjną wartą 300 tysięcy dolarów i podpisuje z farmerem kontrakt. Hale i kury należą do firmy, rolnik dostaje wypłatę za samą hodowlę. Dziesiątki tysięcy ptaków stłoczonych w jednej hali, na dostarczonej przez firmę paszy, rośnie w 48 dni do rozmiaru, jaki jeszcze przed 30 laty osiągały w trzy miesiące. Taki kurczak nie umie nawet chodzić, bo kości nie nadążają za rosnącą jak szalona masą mięśniową. Raz na kilka lat bossowie zgłaszają się do rolnika i przedstawiają listę koniecznych unowocześnień. Możliwości odmowy nie ma, bo firma zerwie kontrakt i farmer zostanie z wielotysięcznym długiem. Więc unowocześnia – znów na kredyt, który dalej wiąże go z korporacją.


Żeby interes się kręcił, trzeba mieć swoich ludzi w rządzie. Lobby przemysłu spożywczego kontroluje wszystkie kluczowe dla siebie urzędy i stanowiska w Waszyngtonie. Zasiadają tam:
Tom Vilsack. Dziś sekretarz rolnictwa. Do niedawna – przewodniczący Porozumienia Gubernatorów na rzecz Biotechnologii (jako gubernator Iowa), organizacji lobbującej na rzecz GMO i klonowania zwierząt hodowlanych, regularny pasażer prywatnych odrzutowców zarządu Monsanto.

Islam Siddiqui. Dziś Główny Negocjator Rolniczy (urząd dbający o sprzedaż amerykańskich produktów rolnych za granicą). Do niedawna – wiceprezes koalicji CropLife zrzeszającej biotechnologiczne giganty (z Monsanto na czele).

Roger Beachy. Dziś szef Narodowego Instytutu Żywności i Rolnictwa (badania naukowe nad żywnością). Do niedawna – prezes opłacanego przez Monsanto centrum badań nad roślinami Danforth.

To tylko trzy przykłady z najwyższej półki. W Departamencie Rolnictwa i wszystkich urzędach okołospożywczych roi się od ludzi, którzy w niedalekiej przeszłości zajmowali kluczowe stanowiska w kontrolujących rynek korporacjach.

Pozycję branży rolno-spożywczej w Waszyngtonie cementuje też 1,2 miliarda dolarów wydanych przez ostatnie 10 lat na lobbowanie Kongresu i Białego Domu.

To dzięki tym pieniądzom rokrocznie spada liczba przypadków kontroli mięsa, a prawu Kevina ukręcono łeb. Również dzięki nim w USA nie trzeba na etykietach informować konsumentów, czy żywność jest genetycznie modyfikowana albo czy krowom, od których pochodzi mleko, wstrzykiwano sztuczne hormony. Co więcej, producenci hormonów (w tym największy – uwaga – Monsanto) walczą o to, żeby nie można było mówić ludziom, że mleko NIE pochodzi od krów faszerowanych hormonami. Dziś, jeśli producent chce poinformować o tym odbiorcę, musi na nalepce dorzucić informację, że wedle znanych badań mleko z hormonami jest tak samo dobre. Trwa batalia o to, aby w przyszłości Amerykanie nie mogli się dowiedzieć, czy świnia, z której kotlet jedzą, została poczęta naturalnie, czy w laboratorium genetycznym.

To dzięki pieniądzom wydanym na lobbing branża skutecznie rozmyła definicję żywności ekologicznej (organic). Zachowując na etykiecie przyznawany przez rząd stempel organic, można dziś do jedzenia dodawać środki wzmacniające smak i zapach, spulchniacze, sztuczne tłuszcze, można używać roślin nawożonych i transportowanych z drugiego końca świata. To, że branża organic jest warta 23 miliardy dolarów rocznie i rozwija się szybciej od innych sektorów spożywczych, nie znaczy, że Amerykanie zaczęli jeść zdrowo – choć wielu z nich tak myśli. Najbardziej popularne marki żywności organic należą do gigantów: Nestlé, Krafta, Coca-Coli. Zdrowa żywność została kupiona przez korporacje i przestała być zdrowa. Wreszcie – dzięki „legalnej korupcji”, jak często nazywa się lobbing – w USA nie ma publicznej dyskusji na temat żywności GMO. W korporacyjno-politycznych gabinetach już zdecydowano, że jest bezpieczna i uratuje ludzkość przed głodem.


Skoro się wyprodukowało, trzeba sprzedać. Tym zajmą się specjaliści od marketingu. Branża wydaje na reklamę 36 miliardów dolarów rocznie, w tym 13 miliardów na przekaz skierowany do dzieci. Mały Amerykanin ogląda codziennie 30 spotów telewizyjnych reklamujących słodki i tłusty junk food. Z taką nieprzerwaną marketingową nawałnicą mierzyć się będzie kampania Let’s Move Michelle Obamy. Szkoda tylko, że gdy ona ją przygotowywała, jej mąż w gabinecie obok podpisywał kolejne nominacje dla agrospożywczych bonzów, którzy – jak mówi jeden z niezależnych farmerów w filmie „Food, Inc.” – traktują konsumentów z taką samą troską jak bydło, które zarzynają.

Oczywiście USA nie są jedynym krajem, gdzie produkcja żywności została uprzemysłowiona. Jednak nigdzie indziej aż tak silnej kontroli nad tym, co jedzą ludzie, nie dzierży kilka potężnych podmiotów. Polska jest dziś na etapie, na którym Amerykanie byli w latach 70. Nasze rolnictwo się reformuje, przed władzą kluczowe decyzje, które ukształtują system na lata. Trwają prace nad ustawą o GMO. Biotechnologicznym gigantom zależy, aby nasze prawo było wprowadzaniu upraw modyfikowanych jak najbardziej przychylne. Potrzebna jest w tej sprawie otwarta, publiczna dyskusja, bo nie chodzi tylko o to, czy żywność GMO jest bezpieczna dla zdrowia. Chodzi o to, jak w przyszłości będziemy karmieni. Chodzi o to, czy oddamy całe nasze jedzenie w ręce monsantów, cargilli czy tysonów. Chodzi o to, czy chcemy być traktowani jak bydło.

Autor: Maciej Jarkowiec – Źródło: Przekrój

Komentarz Medycyny Tybetańskiej i lek. Enji

Żywność w życiu człowieka jest bardzo ważna. To co jemy tacy jesteśmy. Zachęcamy do podpisywania petycji AVAAZ w obronie naszego kraju przed importem żywności gmo. Jeszcze mamy czas aby wygrać tę walkę.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Masowe wyjazdy lekarzy za granicę – lek. Enkhjargal Dovchin „ENJI”

Posted on 3 kwietnia 2010. Filed under: codex alimentarius, dr Enji, enji, kodeks żywnościowy, koncerny, Korupcja | Tagi: , , , , |

Doświadczeni, władający językiem angielskim specjaliści z innych  krajów są podporą wielu systemów ochrony zdrowia na Zachodzie.

PPX/Rynek Zdrowia

Z badań Stowarzyszenia Medycznego HCSA wraz z Hays Poland wynika, iż specjaliści branży medycznej wciąż chętnie przyjmują zagraniczne oferty pracy.

Głównym powodem do podjęcia pracy za granicą są korzyści finansowe – tak odpowiedziało 66% ankietowanych. Jednakże dla ok. 32% respondentów najważniejszym argumentem przemawiającym za podjęciem pracy poza Polską są możliwości dalszego rozwoju zawodowego – informuje Kinga Sulik, ekspert Hays Poland zajmujący się rekrutacją specjalistów.

Zainteresowanie pracą zagranicą – gdyby taka oferta była prezentowana przez agencję rekrutacyjną, bądź bezpośrednio przez placówkę służby zdrowia – wykazało 90% respondentów. Jedynie 2% ankietowanych nie wyraziło chęci otrzymywania propozycji pracy.

Wyniki te pokazują, iż firmy doradztwa personalnego cieszą się dużym zaufaniem, szczególnie te międzynarodowe, zapewniające przyszłym pracownikom wsparcie na miejscu, jak i w kraju docelowym, w którym kandydat podejmie pracę. Wysoki odsetek zainteresowanych świadczy również o otwartości kadry medycznej na migracje w celu podjęcia pracy.

32 % badanych wyraziło duże zainteresowanie warsztatami informacyjnymi na temat możliwości pracy za granicą, a 61 % średnie. Żaden z badanych nie odmówił wzięcia udziału w takim przedsięwzięciu. Warto zwrócić również uwagę, iż cechą którą pracodawcy cenią wśród personelu medycznego jest elastyczność. Specjaliści w sektorze medycznym, którzy są skłonni zmieniać miejsce pobytu oraz wykonywania zawodu co np. 6 m-cy będą bardzo pożądaną grupą zawodową.

Forma zatrudnienia taka, jak „locum”, czyli na czas krótki i określony, a więc np. kilka tygodni/miesięcy w Polsce i kilka tygodni/miesięcy poza granicami naszego kraju, staje się pożądana wśród pracodawców.

Zobacz także:

Komentarz do artykułu MEDYCYNA TYBETAŃSKA lek. ENJI

Normalnym jest, że w każdym cywilizowanym państwie lekarze medycyny naturalnej są szanowani. Nie normalnym jest ściganie takich osób przez telewizje i policję. Na świecie lekarz medycyny naturalnej po studiach medycznych i ze specjalnością medycyna naturalna ( kierunek studiów na Harvardzie oraz na nielicznych uniwersytetach medycznych na świecie ) zarabia średnio 10 tyś dolarów miesięcznie. Zabieg akupunktury to wydatek średnio 80 do 200 USD. W Polsce podobny zabieg kosztuje od 15 do 60 zł. Podobnie ma się do innych usług z zakresu medycyny naturalnej. Czy żyjemy w normalnym państwie?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Kasa fiskalna w prywatnych gabinetach

Posted on 3 kwietnia 2010. Filed under: dr Enji, enji, kodeks żywnościowy, koncerny, Korupcja, lekarz Enji, lekarz Enkhjargal Dovchin | Tagi: |

  • Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, JJ/Rynek Zdrowia
  • 2010-04-01

Lekarze prywatnych gabinetów mają już listę pomysłów, jak uniknąć obowiązku korzystania z kas fiskalnych. Można je znaleźć na forach internetowych.

Listę „sposobów” na oszukanie fiskusa zamieszcza w czwartek (1 kwietnia) Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Jakie to są sposoby? Na przykład:
• włączanie kas tylko w oficjalnych godzinach otwarcia gabinetu (w rzeczywistości pacjenci przyjmowani są przez 10 godzin);
• uzgadnianie z pacjentem, że zapłaci mniej, jeśli nie zażąda rachunku;
• rozkładanie opłaty na dwie części: pierwsza, niższa (np. za wypisanie recepty) będzie rejestrowana w kasie fiskalnej, druga – wyższa, np. za badanie i poradę – ma być płacona poza oficjalnym rachunkiem (tym sposobem ten sposobem liczba pacjentów zgadza się z liczbą wystawionych rachunków)…

Nie wszyscy jednak są przeciwnikami wprowadzenia kas dla lekarzy. Na przykład Federacja Porozumienie Zielonogórskie w swoim oświadczeniu przesłanym do redakcji portalu rynekzdrowia.pl ocenia taki krok pozytywnie. Wyraża jednocześnie przekonanie, że wprowadzenie kas fiskalnych dla lekarzy, winno być poprzedzone wprowadzeniem odpowiedniej stawki VAT [np. 0%] za usługi medyczne oraz wprowadzeniem ulg podatkowych dla obywateli za ponoszone koszty leczenia.

Zdaniem FPZ „usługi medyczne” są ostatnim ogniwem w systemie podatkowym (zwolnienie z podatku Vat) z czym wiąże się brak możliwości zwrotu należnych kwot dla przedsiębiorców wynikających z różnicy podatku VAT. Federacja stoi także na stanowisku, że wprowadzenie pełnej ewidencji finansowej przyczyni się do rzetelnej oceny środków finansowych przeznaczonych na świadczenia zdrowotne w Polsce.

Federacja PZ popierając wprowadzenie kas fiskalnych w gabinetach jest zdania, że spowoduje to uregulowanie spraw finansowo – skarbowych w ochronie zdrowia, co pozytywnie wpłynie na przepływ pełnej informacji i poczucie przejrzystości systemu;
ujednolici zasady dla świadczeniodawców oraz stworzy możliwość uzyskania pełnej informacji o systemie i rzeczywistych środkach finansowych w nim funkcjonujących. Federacja PZ chce, aby było powszechnie wiadomo, ile kosztuje (zarówno z pieniędzy publicznych jak i prywatnych) polski system ochrony zdrowia i które miejsce w tej kwestii zajmujemy w Europie.

Zobacz także:

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Poprzednie wpisy
  • Google Translator

  • STOP kłamstwu tvn!

    STOP TVN, TVN24, POLSAT I WYBIÓRCZEJ - stop zakłamaniu w mediach masowych
  • Chroń medycynę naturalną/ Protect natural medicine all over the world
  • Podpisz petycję w obronie medycyny naturalnej i tradycyjnych systemów medycznych
  • Medycyna Tybetańsko-Mongolska, Akupunktura, Moksa, Ziołolecznictwo na PINTEREST.COM
  • Polub nas na FB

  • Artykuł o nagonce

  • Czwarty Wymiar o nagonce medialnej

    Artykuł w "CZWARTYM WYMIARZE" o nagonce medialnej na lekarkę Enkhjargal Dovchin "ENJI"
  • Artykuły w „ZC”

    Znaki Czasu - to obecnie jedyne czasopismo, które ma odwagę pisać jawnie o najważniejszych sprawach dotyczących zdrowia ludzkiego czyli Kodeksie Żywnościowym, Szczepieniach oraz alternatywnych metodach leczniczych.
  • MTM in Poland

    Mongolska Tradycyjna Medycyna w Polsce - MTM in Poland

  • Chmurka kategorii

  • Ankiety

  • Szybkie menu

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...