BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:35:21 +1200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines)
Just a short note to let you know that I have obtained a 9-page document
eminating from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration that
proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that officials have officially
authenticated the fraudulent research on royal jelly and officially
rejected authentic, though somewhat flawed research. In the process they
have rejected the New Zealand Minister of Health's 5-person scientific
review of bee products.

I was at a Trans-Taman Harmonisation meeting in Sydney on Friday with
officials from both sides of the Tasman as well as industry. I managed
to successfully drop the hand grenade into the meeting -- was told that
it wasn't the appropriate forum!!!!

I mentioned that we had raised the issue of the integrity of the royal
jelly research with the prime ministers of both countries, with the
health ministers, at least 8 senior officials on Australia, at Chatham
House rules meetings, in letters, emails, faxes, in person. Mentioned
that I had personally given copies of before and after alterations of
official records to senior managers so that they could put things right
quietly. Told them that we'd convinced a select committee headed by none
other than the (now) NZ speaker of the house and had forced a
ministerial scientific review that found against officialdom on all five
terms of reference. I asked them what was the proper forum to challenge
officials incorporating fraud into official records was.

I also asked them how they could expect us to get into bed with
Australia when their regulatory environment stunk so much.

It is apparent that the Australian regulatory system was so bent on
resisting change and on trying to justify wrong decision-making that it
was prepared to resort to authenticating fraud in an attempt to
legitimise its position.

I'm still trying to work out why they were so upset? I suggested that
they lookup the meaning of the term outrage in risk analysis documents.

I've forwarded the document to a member of the Parliamentary Select
Committee that recommended the revoking of the labelling regulations.

Will keep you posted.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2