Daniel Chapter One attorney James S. Turner.

The consumer rights to information, choice, safety and redress (the right to be heard)
are all under attack by the Federal Trade Commission complaint against DC1. Presented
to Congress as the Consumer Bill of Rights by President Kennedy in March of 1962, these
rights form the backbone of wellbeing for individual consumers and for success of the
American market economy. To the extent that the FTC approach to DC1 succeeds, individual
consumers seeking to improve their health and the health of American society as a whole
will suffer important losses.

Information

The FTC says consumers may only receive health information from producers and sellers
that the FTC has determined is proven by the “science” it selects. No historical knowledge,
consumer experience, or traditional practice satisfies FTC demands. FTC recognizes only
expensive double blind “studies” as support for health claims. DC1 has asked its lawyers,
and its lawyers have agreed, to challenge this policy as violating DC1’s rights under
the U.S. Constitution.

Choice

By depriving consumers of the right to hear sellers’ knowledge about health aspects of their
products, the one-size-fits-all FTC health information standard deprives consumers of access
to health approaches that they might choose if they could hear what the seller knows. If
FTC had enforced this standard against DC1 over the past thirty years, hundreds of people
currently describing how DC1 products improved or even saved their lives might not be
here to speak to us today.

Safety

The FTC standard forces individual consumers to use highly toxic chemical products whose
benefits, according to its “science,” outweigh their toxicity. The FTC says this while regulators
acknowledge that they routinely reverse their approvals for many of these dangerous prod-
ucts. FTC, with no staff scientists or science capability, relies on old, selective science and
“quackbusters.” From both old and new science, including genetics, we know that biochemi-
cal individuality makes one person’s potential poison another’s possible cure.

Redress

The Constitution allows individuals to make potentially risky choices for themselves. The FTC
does not. Instead, the FTC makes highly risky choices for consumers who have no way to
object. Government and business fight the consumer rights battle between themselves.
Consumers have no voice. Most businesses sign an agreement to say only what the FTC
permits, because their overriding goal is to sell products. DC1’s goal is to help people honest-
ly, and they need the help of consumers to take this stand. If the FTC has its way with DC1,
consumers will be denied useful information, blocked from possibly lifesaving choices, forced
to use dangerous products and have nowhere to complain about their treatment. This out-
come stems from well intentioned regulators attempting a herculean job -- making people’s
decisions for them -- with minuscule resources. It is time we relieved them of the responsity
for running the lives of people who are perfectly capable of making their own choices.