Fact & Fiction on the WTO's Codex Alimentarius, Health Freedom,and Nutritional Supplements

>From the Alliance for Natural Health
http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action=news&ID=214
Jan. 13, 2006

Be Wary of the Instant Experts

There is currently a significant amount of inaccurate and misleading
information circulating on the internet about Codex and other related health
freedom issues. Whilst some of the authors of this material claim to have
carefully studied more than 16,000 pages of Codex documentation, the content
of their articles and the nature of their proposed strategies strongly
suggests otherwise. The following article may help you to sort the facts
from the fiction.

Source:
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex-beware.htm

By publishing this article we are attempting to correct some factual
inaccuracies and promote better understanding of these complex issues. It
is, however, important to re-state clearly that we in no way endorse the
stance taken by Codex Alimentarius against natural health and continue to
oppose the work of Codex at every opportunity.

Be Wary of the Instant Experts

There is currently a significant amount of inaccurate and misleading
information circulating on the internet about Codex and other related health
freedom issues. Whilst some of the authors of this material claim to have
carefully studied more than 16,000 pages of Codex documentation, the content
of their articles and the nature of their proposed strategies strongly
suggests otherwise. The following article may help you to sort the facts
from the fiction.

Codex Alimentarius is not an easy subject to get to grips with. With as many
as 27 active committees meeting on an annual basis and reports comprising a
total of over 1,400 pages in 2005 alone, it is hardly surprising that most
people have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate it
thoroughly for themselves. As such, when relying upon other people for
information one needs to be sure that they have done their research
properly; especially so in the case of websites that make claims to the
effect that it only takes 5 minutes to find out what Codex Alimentarius is
all about. Sadly, therefore, and as we show here, much of the Codex-related
material on the internet is both inaccurate and misleading.

FICTION: Codex will go into global effect on December 31, 2009.

FACT: The authors of the above statement do not seem to be aware that Codex
already consists of around 300 official food standards, some of which have
been in global effect since as long ago as 1966.

If however the authors of the above statement are referring to the Codex
Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements then they are in fact
confusing these with the European Union's Food Supplements Directive.

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements were adopted by the
Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2005, and provide a framework for the
development of global restrictions upon the manufacture and sale of dietary
supplements containing vitamins and minerals. However, the Guidelines have
not yet established the maximum levels of vitamins and minerals that can be
contained in supplements, and nor has there been any date set for the
adoption of these.

The European Union's Food Supplements Directive, on the other hand, will go
into full effect in Europe on December 31, 2009, but it is a piece of
European legislation and as such will primarily affect consumers living in
Europe. Moreover, the Directive has not yet set the maximum levels of
vitamins and minerals that can be contained in supplements sold in the
European Union, and nor has there been any date set for the adoption of
legislation to implement such levels.

FICTION: Theoretical exceptions exist for natural substances which are
submitted and accepted for testing by July 12, 2005 at a cost of
approximately $250,000 per submission.

FACT: As with the previous example, the authors of the above statement are
confusing the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements with
the European Union's Food Supplements Directive.

Under the text of the Food Supplements Directive, vitamins and minerals not
on the permitted (positive) lists are prohibited from being marketed in
Europe. There is an exception to this restriction however, which is when a
safety dossier supporting use of the substance in question was submitted to
the European Commission, the European Union's executive body, by 12 July
2005. According to the UK Food Standards Agency, industry estimates
regarding the cost of producing these safety dossiers ranged from 80,000 to
250,000 per dossier.

The Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, meanwhile,
dont actually differentiate between natural and synthetic vitamins and
minerals, and explicitly permit both to be used in the manufacture of
supplements.

FICTION: The alternative Vitamin and Mineral Guidelines promoted by some
health freedom organizations are Codex compliant, and if passed by countries
would protect them against World Trade Organization (WTO) trade sanctions.
FACT: This is utter nonsense. Tellingly, therefore, what the promoters of
these alternative texts have seemingly not as yet publicly addressed is the
specific legal mechanism via which their revisions could supposedly be
utilized in place of the official Codex guidelines.

In the real world, of course, compliance with the official Vitamin and
Mineral Food Supplement Guidelines is effectively mandatory, and until such
time as it is revised by Codex itself the existing text is unfortunately the
only game in town.

FICTION: Codex has officially reclassified Vitamin C and every other vitamin
and mineral your body needs from the class of nutrients to the class of
toxins.

FACT: Whilst it is true that through its proposed use of risk assessment to
determine safe upper levels for vitamins and minerals Codex will essentially
be treating these nutrients like toxins, it has not officially reclassified
them as such, and nor could it, as they occur naturally in foods and are
essential for life. In fact, vitamin and mineral supplements are actually
classified as foods by Codex, which is why its guidelines for these products
are entitled the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.
In short, therefore, the claim that Codex has officially reclassified
Vitamin C and every other vitamin and mineral your body needs from the class
of nutrients to the class of toxins is both untrue and absurd.

FICTION: The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission meets every two years, always
offshore (Rome, Bonn, Paris, etc.) and never in Smallville, U.S.A.
FACT: The Codex Alimentarius Commission holds its meetings in Geneva and
Rome. It never meets in either Bonn or Paris. The Commissions subsidiary
committees and task forces, however, meet in a wide variety of locations
around the world, including Bonn and Paris.

Moreover, the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene has held 32 of its 37 annual
meetings since 1964 in the United States, the vast majority of which have
taken place in Washington D.C.

FICTION: Dr. Grossklaus, the head of Codex Alimentarius, owns the Risk
Assessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on the "benefit" of using Risk
Assessment to assess nutrients.

FACT: Dr. Rolf Grossklaus is the Chairman of the Codex Committee on
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), not the head of
Codex Alimentarius. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge he does not own
any risk assessment company advising CCNFSDU or Codex on the benefit of
using risk assessment to assess nutrients.

FICTION: Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, CCNFSDU chairman, is also the Chairman of the
Board of BfR, a private corporation which specializes in Risk Assessment.

FACT: As well as being Chairman of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and
Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) Dr. Rolf Grossklaus is Director of
BfR. However, BfR (the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment) is a German
Federal Government Agency, not a private corporation.

FICTION: Dr. Grossklaus, Chairman of CAC and anti-nutrition Chairman of the
pivotal "Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses"
(CCNFSDU), had the delegate from India bodily removed during a November 2003
CCNFSDU meeting. The delegate's crime? Insisting on discussing the inclusion
of CCNFSDU-approved material in baby formula which could kill 10% of
newborns in his country. After the delegate was forcibly removed, Dr.
Grossklaus nonchalantly declared the issue approved by "consensus".

FACT: Codex meetings can indeed be dramatic at times, however the above
statement is utterly false. Significantly therefore, it is apparent that the
authors of the above statement did not even bother to attend the Codex
meeting in question.

FICTION: DSHEA Protects America From Codex Alimentarius.
FACT: DSHEA only protects America from Codex so long as it remains in place
and unaltered, and so long as other legislation isnt passed to weaken its
effectiveness. There are now a growing number of threats to DSHEA that
could, in time, potentially conspire to dismantle it. The most serious of
these threats are the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food
Supplements compliance with which is effectively mandatory.

FICTION: The WHO has severely chastised the Codex Alimentarius Commission
for not making a significant contribution to human health in its 42 years of
existence.

FACT: A number of health freedom websites reported after the July 2005
meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome that a miracle had
occurred, and that the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) had expressed significant displeasure with
the anti-health approach to nutrition taken by Codex over the past 4
decades.

These reports also claimed, variously, that a WHO Under Secretary for Food
Safety had spoken sternly, sharply and scathingly of the fact that little
contribution to human health had been made by Codex; that WHO had stated
that things would be different in the future; that the Terms of Reference of
the Codex Committee on Food Labeling and the Codex Committee on Nutrition
and Foods for Special Dietary Uses are going to be changed; that Codex will
implement the WHO Global Strategy for world health through diet, physical
exercise and nutrition; and that Codex will make a yearly report to the
World Health Assembly about its progress in implementing the WHO Strategy.
However, and as we have described previously in our article Miracle in Rome,
these assertions are largely either mistaken or exaggerated.

WHO and FAO did not express significant displeasure with the anti-health
approach to nutrition taken by Codex over the past 4 decades at this
meeting. Moreover, neither did they state that little contribution to human
health had been made by Codex, or that things would be different in the
future.

In addition, although a paper prepared in advance of the meeting by WHO and
FAO had suggested that consideration could be given to the possibility of
considering amendments to the terms of reference of CCFL and/or CCNFSDU,
this matter was not brought up at the Codex meeting itself. Indeed, and as
the transcripts and recordings from the Codex Alimentarius Commissions
discussions on the Global Strategy clearly demonstrate, both the UK
(speaking for the 25 countries of the European Union) and the United States
appeared to be of the opinion that the current Codex mandate should be
retained.

As such, therefore, although it is certainly possible that Codex will
participate in the implementation of the Global Strategy, it presently seems
likely that this work would be carried out within the current terms of its
mandate, and that as such it is likely to pay little real attention to
nutrition and dietary supplements.

FICTION: Codex Alimentarius sharply restricts or eliminates most medicinal
herbs and limits the conditions which can be treated using medicinal herbs
to a small number of trivial ones.

FACT: The main Codex texts that relate directly to herbs are the Guide for
the Microbiological Quality of Spices and Herbs Used in Processed Meat and
Poultry Products and the Code of Hygienic Practice for Spices and Dried
Aromatic Plants. However, and as will be immediately apparent from their
titles, these texts deal with culinary herbs, not medicinal ones. Moreover,
whilst some other Codex texts, such as the General Standard for the
Labelling of Prepackaged Foods and the General Standard for Food Additives,
also make mention of herbs, these likewise deal with culinary herbs, not
medicinal ones.

Codex last considered the issue of medicinal herbs in 1996, when the meeting
of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
(CCNFSDU) that took place in Bonn, Germany, in October 1996 considered a new
proposal by the Codex Coordinating Committee for North America and the South
West Pacific to establish lists of Potentially Harmful Herbs and Botanical
Preparations sold as Foods.

Subsequent to the 1996 CCNFSDU meeting the Codex Alimentarius Commission met
in Geneva in June 1997, and agreed that no further action was needed
concerning herbs and botanicals, on the grounds that this was a matter for
national authorities to address. The matter was therefore deleted from the
Commission's Work Programme.

As such, it can be seen that Codex does not restrict or eliminate most
medicinal herbs, and nor does it limit the conditions which can be treated
using medicinal herbs to a small number of trivial ones.

FICTION: An official joint publication by the WHO and FAO called "Diet,
Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases" is in favor of nutritional
supplementation.

FACT: The WHO/FAOs Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases
publication describes how shifting dietary patterns, a decline in energy
expenditure associated with a sedentary lifestyle, an ageing population
together with tobacco use and alcohol consumption are major risk factors
for noncommunicable diseases and pose an increasing challenge to public
health.

However, this publication is mostly strongly dismissive of the relationship
between dietary supplements and the prevention of disease. For example, when
discussing the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, vitamin E
supplements are described as convincingly having no relationship to the
prevention of this particular class of diseases. (Page 88). Moreover,
beta-carotene supplements are even described in the publication as possibly
increasing the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. (Page 82).
Similarly, evidence that dietary elements such as vitamin E, chromium or
magnesium might decrease the risk of developing diabetes is described as
insufficient (Page 77); whilst evidence that vitamins B2, B6, folate, B12,
C, D, E, calcium, zinc or selenium might decrease the risk of developing
cancer is merely described as possible/insufficient. (Page 100).
In conclusion, therefore, whilst the aforementioned WHO/FAO publication does
of course have some positive things to say about nutrition in general, it
would be a gross exaggeration, at best, to say that it is in favor of
nutritional supplementation.

FICTION: The WTO can take a country to court in its own courts.

FACT: Although the WTO is increasingly using Codex texts as the benchmark
when ruling on international trade disputes it cannot in itself take
countries to court. Trade disputes are initiated by countries, not the WTO,
and the resulting cases are heard at the WTOs headquarters in Geneva,

Switzerland, not in a countrys own courts.

FICTION: CAFTA is not a health freedom issue.

FACT: CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement) extends the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA a treaty between Canada, the United
States, and Mexico) to Central America and the Dominican Republic, thus
acting as a stepping-stone towards the creation of a hemispheric, harmonized
trading bloc for the entire American continent.

As such, and in exactly the same way as the relatively liberal dietary
supplement laws of the UK were eventually overridden by the restrictive
European Union Food Supplements Directive (as a result of successive
treaties that the British Government had signed with its European
neighbors), CAFTA could ultimately lead to US dietary supplement regulations
(i.e. DSHEA) becoming susceptible to harmonization with the more restrictive
laws of countries in Central America.

CAFTA is therefore most definitely a health freedom issue.

FICTION: FTAA is not a major health freedom threat.

FACT: FTAA (the Free Trade Area of the Americas) is undoubtedly a major
health freedom threat, as it would effectively extend CAFTA into South
America, thus creating a harmonized pan-American trading bloc encompassing
the entire American continent. This could ultimately lead to US dietary
supplement regulations becoming susceptible to harmonization with the more
restrictive laws of countries in both Central and South America.

Although the ultimate goal of the FTAA is officially described as being to
achieve an area of free trade and regional integration, the recent evidence
of the European Union (EU) project shows that this can only be achieved via
the dismantling of the political and legal systems of participating nations
and the replacing of these with a hemispheric government. In essence,
therefore, this is why many observers see the FTAA as an embryonic EU in the
making.

Following the recent Summit of the Americas that took place in Argentina,
however, where leaders from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and
Venezuela were unable to agree to move forward with the FTAA project, some
commentators were quick to suggest that the plan is now dead and buried.
Nevertheless, such a conclusion would not appear to be warranted by the
facts, as 29 of the 34 proposed participant countries want to resume talks
on the issue in 2006 and Mexico's President Vicente Fox has specifically
stated that these nations are willing to move forward with free trade
negotiations without the dissenting countries.

Given that South American leaders are already developing a political and
economic bloc modelled on the European Union, it is becoming increasingly
likely that a harmonized pan-American trading bloc encompassing the entire
American continent would also utilize the European Union as its model, and
incorporate similar Codex-compliant restrictions upon health freedom and
freedom of choice to those that already exist in Europe.

Significantly therefore, FTAA participant countries including Antigua and
Barbuda, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, United States, Uruguay and
Venezuela all sent delegations to the July 2005 meeting of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission in Rome, and not one of them opposed the adoption of
the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements as the new global
standard.

As such, the idea that FTAA is not a major health freedom threat is becoming
increasingly difficult to understand.

FICTION: Linus Pauling, Ph.D., won the first of his two Nobel Prizes for his
work on Vitamin C.

FACT: Linus Pauling won the first of his two Nobel Prizes in 1954 for his
research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the
elucidation of the structure of complex substances". His second Nobel Prize
was for Peace, and was won in 1962. Neither of these prizes were won for
work on vitamin C.
Date: 13-Jan-06