Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind

8/14/2019 Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind

1/15

ex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

15 2008-12-03 15:15

by Matthias Rath2001

from DrRath Websiterecovered through WayBackMachine Website

There is an entire industry with an innate economic interest to obstruct, suppress and discredit anyinformation about the eradication of diseases. The pharmaceutical industry makes over one trilliondollars from selling drugs for ongoing diseases. These drugs may relieve symptoms, but they do notcure.

We have to realize that the mission of this industry is to make money from ongoing diseases.

The cure or eradication of a disease leads to the collapse of a multi-billion dollar market ofpharmaceuticals.

The natural purpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to

increase sales of pharmaceutical drugs for ongoing diseases and to find newdiseases to market existing drugs.

1.

By this very nature, the pharmaceutical industry has no interest in curingdiseases. The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar

2.


2/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

market of prescription drugs as a source of revenues. Therefore, pharmaceuticaldrugs are primarily developed to relieve symptoms, but not to cure.If eradication therapies for diseases are discovered and developed, thepharmaceutical industry has an inherent interest to suppress, discredit andobstruct these medical breakthroughs in order to make sure that diseasescontinue as the very basis for a lucrative prescription drug market.

3.

The economic interest of the pharmaceutical industry itself is the main reason whyno medical breakthrough has been made for the control of the most commondiseases such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure,Diabetes, cancer, and osteoporosis, and why these diseases continue likeepidemics on a worldwide scale.

4.

For the same economic reasons, the pharmaceutical industry has now formed aninternational cartel by the code name "Codex Alimentarius" with the aim to outlawany health information in connection with vitamins and to limit free access tonatural therapies on a worldwide scale.

5.

At the same time, the pharmaceutical companies withhold public information aboutthe effects and risks of prescription drugs and life-threatening side effects areomitted or openly denied.

6.

In order to assure the status quo of this deceptive scheme, a legion ofpharmaceutical lobbyists is employed to influence legislation, control regulatoryagencies (e. g. FDA), and manipulate medical research and education. Expensiveadvertising campaigns and PR agencies are used to deceive the public.

7.

Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice: A majorportion of their income is used up to finance the exploding profits of thepharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not evencure.

8.

CODEX

WHAT IS IT AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOU AND YOUR HEALTH?by Paul Anthony TaylorOctober 2006

from DrRathFoundation Website

Codexis not an easy subject to get to grips with. With over 20 committees meeting on an annualbasis, and published reports comprising a total of over 1,400 pages in 2005 alone, most people areblissfully unaware of the extent to which its activities affect their health.

Read on to discover the bigger picture behind the Codex Alimentarius Commission'ssupport for the"business with disease".

What is Codex?

The World Trade Organizationuses Codex Guidelines and Standardsas the benchmark in the


3/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

adjudication of international trade disputes involving foods. It's headquarters, above, are located inGeneva, Switzerland.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission(Codex) is the main global body that makes proposals to, andis consulted by, the Directors-General of the World Health Organization(WHO) and the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) on all matters pertaining to the implementationof the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.

Established in 1963, the Commission's main purposes are stated in its Procedural Manualas being:

protecting the health of consumersensuring fair practices in the food tradepromoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by internationalgovernmental and non-governmental organizations

Unfortunately however, and as we shall see, its activities do not protect the health of consumers andthe international food trade is anything but fair.

At the time of writing, the Commission presides over a total of 27 active subsidiary committees andad hoc intergovernmental task forces, the main functions of which revolve around the drafting ofstandards, guidelines and other related texts for foods, including food supplements.

Once completed these texts are presented to the Commission for final approval and adoption as newglobal standards.

How does Codex affect you and your health?

Codex standards and guidelines now exist for virtually all foods.

Whilst the adoption by countries of the various standards and guidelines developed by Codex is

theoretically optional, the creation of the World Trade Organization(WTO) on 1 January 1995essentially changed their international status, in that they are now increasingly used by the WTO asthe benchmark in the adjudication of international trade disputes involving foods.

As such, the potential threat of becoming involved in and losing such a dispute now effectivelymakes the adoption of Codexguidelines and standards mandatory, in that it leaves WTO membercountries little or no option but to comply with them. Given therefore that a total of 149 countries arecurrently members of the WTO, and also that Codexstandards or guidelines now exist for virtuallyevery food one can name, this effectively means that the activities of Codex now directly affect thevast majority of people on the planet.

In addition to dealing with ordinary foods, however, Codex also sets standards and guidelines for,

amongst other things: vitamin and mineral food supplements; health claims; organic foods;genetically modified foods; food labeling; advertising; food additives and pesticide residues.

Significantly, therefore, and as we shall see below, in all of these areas the evidence is nowinescapable that Codex is increasingly putting economic interests and particularly those of thepharmaceutical and chemical industries before human health.

Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplementswere adopted by the Codex AlimentariusCommissionas a new global standard at its meeting in Rome, Italy, in July 2005.

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplementswere adopted by the Codex AlimentariusCommissionas a new global standard at its meeting in Rome, Italy, in July 2005. Drafted using the


4/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

European Union's restrictive Food Supplements Directive as a blueprint, the Guidelines mandate thesetting of restrictive upper limits on the dosages of vitamins and minerals, and the prohibiting ofclaims that vitamin and mineral supplements are suitable for use in the prevention, alleviation,treatment or cure of disease.

As a result, and bearing in mind the growing mountain of evidence demonstrating the impressivehealth improvements that can be achieved via the use of nutritional supplements, it can be seen thatfar from protecting the health of consumers, the global enforcement of these guidelines would ensure

that the sale of curative, preventative, and therapeutic health products remains the exclusive provinceof the pharmaceutical industry.

Health claims

The Codex General Guidelines on Claimsprotects the patent on the pharmaceutical industry's controlof our healthcare systems.

There are already several Codex texts in existence that place restrictions upon the health benefitsthat can be attributed to food products, and perhaps the most significant of these is the Codex

General Guidelines on Claims. Adopted in 1979, and revised in 1991, these guidelines are in somesenses the very root of the Codex problem in terms of placing severe restrictions upon naturalforms of healthcare in that they effectively seek to ensure that the only products that can makeclaims relating to the prevention, alleviation, treatment, and cure of disease are pharmaceuticaldrugs.

Specifically, and amongst other things, the Codex General Guidelines on Claimsprohibit all claimsimplying that a balanced diet or ordinary foods cannot supply adequate amounts of all nutrients, andall claims that food products are suitable for use in the prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure ofdiseases.

As such, it can be seen that they essentially protect the patent on the pharmaceutical industry's

control of our healthcare systems.

Organic foods

Organic foods have been receiving increased attention from Codex in recent years, and it is nowincreasingly clear that the Codex Committee on Food Labelingis attempting to water down globalorganic standards to permit the use of substances such as:

sulphur dioxide, which can cause allergic reactions in some people

sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate, which are potentially carcinogenic, and havebeen implicated in hyperactivity in childrencarrageenan, for which there is evidence that it is associated with the formation ofulcers in the intestines and cancerous tumors in the gut

Worse still, however, the Codex Alimentarius Commissionrecently gave the go-ahead for work tobegin on the inclusion of ethylene in the Codex Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelingand Marketing of Organically Produced Foods.

Ethylene is used to artificially induce fruits and vegetables to ripen whilst they are in transit, and assuch its approval for use on organic foods would represent a disturbing step towards WTO-enforcedacceptance of the same dubious and unnatural agricultural practices that non-organic foods are

already subject to.

Why does Codex want to water down organic standards in this way?

On a basic level it is simply because organic foods fetch higher prices than ordinary, non-organic,


5/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

foods, and that as such the large non-organic food producers see an easy opportunity to break intothe market for organic foods and make larger profits. On a deeper level, however, organic foodspromote better health than non-organic foods, by virtue of the fact that they contain higher levels ofmicronutrients.

In addition, of course, organic foods don't contain pesticides, residues of veterinary drugs orgenetically-modified organisms either. Bearing in mind therefore that good health is not in theinterests of the "business with disease", this ultimately makes the increasing demand for organic

foods a threat to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries; not only because organic foodspromote good health, however, but also because they result in a lower demand for pesticides,veterinary drugs and GM foods and thus in lower profits.

Moreover, and unlike genetically-modified seeds, organic seeds cannot be patented.

As such, given that some of the major players in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry, such asBayer and BASF, are also major players in the biotech industry, it can easily be seen that the risingpopularity of non-patentable organic foods is in fact a serious and growing threat to the profits of thepharmaceutical industry's "business with disease".

Genetically-modified foods

The increasing popularity of food supplement, natural health practices and organic food is a seriousthreat to the pharmaceutical industry's business with disease.

The Codex Alimentarius Commissionadopted its first guidelines and principles forgenetically-modified(GM) foods in 2003. These texts subsequently became instrumental in theUnited States, Canada and Argentina launching, and winning, a trade dispute at the WTO against theEuropean Union (EU), where it was argued that the EU had been applying a moratorium on theapproval and importation of foods containing GM material.

Further guidelines and standards for GM foods are now in the process of being drafted by Codex.The eventual adoption of these texts will further contribute to making the approval, and importation, ofGM foods that comply with them mandatory for all WTO member countries. Crucially, therefore, theUnited States, Canada and Argentina are also pushing for there to be no requirement formanufacturers or exporters of GM foods to disclose the presence of genetically modified organismson their product labeling.

This is exactly what the big GM food manufacturers want, of course, as they have long realized thatgrowing numbers of people are opposed to GM food products, and moreover that they will not be ableto change public opinion about these products anytime soon.

Unlike the seeds for regular foods, the seeds for GM foods can be patented. This, essentially, is thereal key to why biotech companies are so desperate for these foods to be forced onto world markets,as the potential long-term profits are so colossal as to compare quite favorably with the market inpharmaceutical drugs. Given therefore that some of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry,such as Bayer and BASF, are also major players in the biotech industry, it can be seen that thepharmaceutical industry is once again positioning itself as a key beneficiary at Codex.

As such so far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned the only products that are worthproducing are those that are patentable. Because of this, the rise in the popularity of foodsupplements, natural health practices and even organic food represents a serious threat to thepharmaceutical industry.

The financial interest groups behind the Codex Alimentarius Commissionknow this only too well, ofcourse, and as such are now engaged in a desperate struggle to maintain their monopoly upon thehealthcare industry and expand into GM food production.


6/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

Food labeling

A specific Codex committee to deal with food labeling issues, the Codex Committee on FoodLabeling(CCFL), has been in existence since 1965.

The issue of food labeling is particularly crucial to the further spreading of life-saving natural healthinformation, as restrictions upon the written content of food labels contribute, along with those on

advertising, to preventing nutritional supplement manufacturers from informing people of the provenbenefits of dietary supplementation.

Crucially, therefore, CCFL has refused to acknowledge the role of optimum nutrition in the prevention,alleviation, treatment and cure of disease, and, as such, rather than protecting the health ofconsumers, can be seen to be acting in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry's "business withdisease".

Advertising

Arguments as to how or whether Codexshould deal with advertising issues have been going on sinceat least 1972.

These arguments continued at the May 2006 CCFL meeting in Ottawa, where they centered aroundwhether or not work on a definition for advertising should be initiated, and if it should, where (i.e.within which Codex text) such a definition should be placed. After considerable discussion regardingthis issue CCFL decided that work on a definition for advertising should indeed be initiated.

From a natural health perspective, however, the definition proposed is far from satisfactory:

"Advertising: any representation to the public, by any means other than a label, that is

intended or is likely to influence and shape attitude, beliefs and behaviors in order topromote directly or indirectly the sale of the food."

The wording of this proposed definition raises several key questions.

For example, as well as its potential to result in the prohibition of advertising legitimate, published,peer-reviewed scientific research papers, might it also inhibit non-profit natural health advocacyorganizations from influencing and shaping attitude, beliefs and behaviors regarding the sale ofnutritional supplements?

Similarly, could any restrictions on advertising that are based upon this definition be said tocontravene the right to freedom of opinion and expression and/or the freedom to hold opinions

without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media andregardless of frontiers (both of which are enshrined in Article 19 of the United Nations' UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights)?

Regardless however, given that the pharmaceutical industry's "business with disease" depends for itssurvival upon the restriction of any and all means by which consumers can obtain natural healthinformation, potential restrictions on advertising are clearly now a key issue at Codex.

Food additives

Codex has a specific committee that deals with the safety of food additives, one of the main functionsof which is to establish their maximum permitted levels. In all, the Codex Food Additive Indexcurrently lists a total of around 300 individual additives both synthetic and natural that it permits tobe used in foods.


7/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

However, whilst it may be the case that some artificial additives are essentially safe when consumedin small amounts and in isolation from one another, the reality is that no substantive considerationhas been given by Codex to the fact that such chemicals are consumed not in isolation, but in tandemwith each other. As such, and to the benefit of their manufacturers, the cumulative long-term effectthat the consumption of multiple patented chemicals and artificial additives has on the health ofconsumers is largely being ignored.

Diseases caused or aggravated by the long-term consumption of pesticides increase the potentialmarket for pharmaceutical drugs.

Revealingly, therefore, many artificial additives are being manufactured by some of the samepharmaceutical and chemical companies that would like to ban vitamin supplements and force GMfoods onto our dinner plates.

And, as is similarly the case with pharmaceutical drugs and GM seeds, the main reason why many ofthese substances exist is because they can be patented - and patents equal higher profits.

Pesticides

The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residueswas formed in 1966, and is responsible for setting themaximum limits for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food.

Once again, however, the safety or otherwise of each individual pesticide is generally examined inisolation, and the long-term effect that their collective presence might have upon the body is mostlyignored.

Given therefore that many of these dangerous chemicals are manufactured by pharmaceutical andchemical companies, it is not diff icult to imagine that their widespread usage may be seen by these

industries as having a dual financial benefit, in that they potentially increase the size of the market for and hence the profits to be made from the patented drugs used as treatments for any diseasesthat their long-term consumption might cause.

Conclusion

Codexis not just about nutritional supplements. In fact, it is the primary political battlefield where thewar is being waged about who will regulate and control the global food supply from farm to fork. This'war' is being waged by an increasingly tangled web of global authorities, big business and financialinterests, and, as such, trade and profit are its prime goals not human health.

Current indications suggest that the long-term financial winners in the battle to gain control over theworld's food supply are likely to be the pharmaceutical and chemical industries; especially so giventhat the adoption of still further Codex guidelines for foods derived from biotechnology now seemsalmost inevitable. As a result, our freedom of choice, our future health and the environment itself areall now clearly at risk.

Good nutrition and optimum health threaten the pharmaceutical industry's "business with disease"because they reduce the size of the marketplace for synthetic drugs.

However, food that is free of pesticide residues, artif icial additives and other contaminants can, bydefinition, only come about as a result of a lower global usage, or ideally the entire elimination, ofthese chemicals. This, of course, would not be in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical andchemical companies that manufacture such substances, as it would clearly result in lower profits,better health for entire populations, and a consequent reduction in the use of synthetic drugs.


8/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

In conclusion therefore, whilst it may have been somewhat "out of the limelight" recently, the CodexAlimentarius Commission'ssupport for the "business with disease" has continued unabated, and thewide scope of its activities makes it a significant danger to the future health of all humanity.

Do we want to see a world where our access to safe, nutritious foods and effective dietarysupplements is restricted and controlled by pharmaceutical and chemical interests?

If not then we must act now, before it's too late.

Further Information

Codex Alimentarius Commission 28th Session, FAO Headquarters - Rome, Italy,4-9 July, 2005 - Official ReportCodex Alimentarius Commission - Report of the thirtieth session - Rome, 2-7 July2007 - Official ReportCodex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food SupplementsEuropean Union Food Supplements Directive

CODEX ALIMENTARIUSTHE CONTROL AND DENIAL OF SCIENCE

by Paul Anthony Taylor2007

from DrRathFoundation Website

We don't want to change. Every change is a menace tostability. That's another reason why we're so chary of applyingnew inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentiallysubversive; even science must sometimes be treated as apossible enemy. Aldous HuxleyBrave New World.

The 29th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Useswas heldin Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany, from 12 to 16 November 2007.

A subsidiary body of the FAO/WHO-sponsored Codex AlimentariusCommission, the activities of this Committee are increasinglyperceived by natural health advocates as one of the biggest globalthreats to the future availability of therapeutic vitamin supplementsand other micronutrient-based natural health therapies.

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation's External Relations Director, PaulAnthony Taylor, attended the meeting as a delegate of theNational Health Federation, the only consumer-orientated

pro-natural health organization in the world to have official observer status at Codex meetings.

Paul's eye-witness report, below, describes how Codex continues to deny the health benefits of

vitamins, micronutrients and nutrition in the battle against today's most common diseases andexplains how its key beneficiaries are the large multinational food, biotech and pharmaceuticalcorporations.


9/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

The blatant dismissal of consumers' concerns regarding geneticallymodified foods

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses,meeting in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany, November 2007.

There can surely be little doubt that consumers are overwhelmingly opposed to eating geneticallymodified foods. Time and again, surveys and polls in countries throughout the world have proven thisbeyond any reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the fact that genetically modified seeds can be patented

because, unlike regular seeds, they are created in laboratories and do not exist in nature continues to make them a highly attractive investment proposition to the biotech and pharmaceuticalcompanies that produce them.

Patents on genetically modified seeds, and the multi-billion dollar potential profits and market controlthat may result from them, are acting as powerful incentives for these manufacturers to find ways offorcing such foods onto consumers' dinner plates, regardless of the possible dangers to humanhealth.

Notably, therefore, this year's meeting of the Committee was attended by Dr. H. Yoshikura, theChairman of the Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, a groupthat has already produced several global guidelines on genetically modified foods.

The Task Force's creation of these guidelines subsequently became instrumental in the UnitedStates, Canada and Argentina launching, and winning, a trade dispute at the World Trade

Organizationagainst the European Union(EU), where they successfully argued that the EU had beenapplying a moratorium on the approval and importation of foods containing genetically modifiedmaterial and that this was contrary to WTO rules.

Yoshikura had been invited to attend this Codex meeting because the Task Force has recently beenworking on an annex to a global guideline for foods that have been genetically modified to

(supposedly) provide nutritional or health benefits. Because the text of this annex contains referencesto concepts related to nutrition, the Committee was invited to review the draft annex and to providecomments on it.

Aside from making a few minor comments, however, the Committee decided to endorse the text ofthe annex without making any changes to it whatsoever.

In response to this, and noting that not one single country had spoken out to defend the interests ofconsumers regarding this issue, the National Health Federationmade the following statement:


10/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

Dr. Rolf Grossklaus,the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses,

claims that consumers do not realize the 'benefits of genetically modified foods'and that they will in time change their minds about them.

"Mr Chairman, the NHF would like to put on the record that while the issue of riskassessment of foods derived from biotechnology is being discussed, 95% of Europeanconsumers and millions of consumers from other parts of the world have continued toindicate their rejection of such foods. We would like to know therefore how the TaskForce aims to balance the need to undertake exposure studies on representative human

populations when so many people reject these foods outright?"

In other words, the Federation was asking how the Task Force was planning to carry out humansafety studies of genetically modified foods when so few people are prepared to eat them.

The Committee's Chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, gave a breathtakingly dismissive response to thisquestion and, unwilling to admit that comprehensive human exposure studies would not be carriedout before these foods are marketed, he stated that these aspects could not be discussed at thismeeting. Astonishingly, however, he then went on to claim that consumers do not realize the benefitsthat these foods provide and that he believes consumers will in time change their minds about them.

Later, at the end of the week, during the meeting to adopt the Committee's official report, I requested,

on behalf of the National Health Federation, that the report should make mention of the Federation'sstatement regarding this matter. Dr. Grossklaus refused to allow this however, arguing that the issuewas not discussed and that including mention of all issues that were not discussed would make thereport too long.

All in all, therefore, this was arguably the most blatant example of the concerns of consumers beingdismissed in a Codex meeting that I have ever witnessed.

Recommendations on the scientific basis of health claims designed

for the large multinationals

Another key issue discussed at this year's meeting was a text dealing with Recommendations on theScientific Basis of Health Claims.

Mr Gert Lindemann,State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Germany,


11/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

addressing the committee at the opening of the meeting.

In recent years, the Committee has given very little time and no substantial debate to this agendaitem at its meetings.

However, although a more in-depth discussion did take place at this year's meeting, the generalthrust of the debate made it clear that, without a drastic change in direction, the key beneficiariesfrom these Recommendations will be the large multinational food, biotech and pharmaceuticalcorporations, who will most easily be able to afford the substantial financial costs of jumping throughthe various scientific and regulatory hoops that the Committee is erecting.

As a result, therefore, it seems likely that we will increasingly see breakfast cereals, geneticallymodified foods and pharmaceutically-manufactured RDA vitamin products carrying health claims, forexample, whilst supplements produced by small, innovative vitamin manufacturers assuming thatthey are not regulated out of existence will probably not do so.

That said, however, and despite the longer debate time for this agenda item at this year's meeting,only minimal progress was made and several key questions including defining the necessary levelof scientific evidence for the substantiation of health claims remain outstanding. If the Committeewere to insist on human studies and clinical trials, for example, even some common health claims forfoods such as fruits and vegetables would have to be banned on the grounds that they were based onobservational studies and epidemiological research, which would clearly be an absurd state of affairs.

With the discussions essentially having reached an impasse, therefore, the Committee agreed thatthe text should be returned to Step 2 of the 8-Step Codex approvals process, to be rewritten by thedelegation of France in light of the discussions that had taken place.

As a result, the Recommendations on Health Claimsnow seem unlikely to be approved and finalizedby the Codex Alimentarius Commissionuntil July 2010, at the earliest.

Nutritional risk analysis making up the rules as they go along

A further topic that has been given very little discussion time at recent meetings of this CodexCommitteeis that of nutritional risk analysis. As regular Codex-watchers will already be aware, thisissue has enormous relevance to the future development of the restrictive Codex Guidelines forVitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, as the Guidelines state that the upper safe levels of vitaminsand minerals in supplements will be established by scientific risk assessment.

Whilst the pro-pharmaceutical lobby most especially including the anti-supplement extremists withinthe European Commission are desperately trying to reassure everybody that the use of riskassessment will ensure that upper safe levels for vitamins and minerals will be calculatedscientifically, the reality is that most current methodologies for assessing the supposed "risk" of

consuming nutritional supplements are anything but scientific, and are actually deeply flawed.

Interestingly, therefore, during this year's discussions, the representative from the World HealthOrganization(WHO) indicated that WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations(FAO) should be the primary if not only source of scientific advice to the Committee, arguingthat international expert groups might not provide independent and unbiased scientific advice.

Setting aside the issue as to whether WHO and FAO themselves can be considered to beindependent and unbiased, as the discussions progressed it became increasingly clear that the vastmajority of the Committee was not remotely interested in obtaining independent and unbiasedscientific advice in this area.


12/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

Basil Mathioudakis,the European Commission's senior representative at the meeting.

Anti-supplement extremists within the European Commission are disingenuously claiming thatthe upper safe levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements will be calculated scientifically.

For example, at one point during the discussions, the National Health Federationspecificallyrequested that a key section of the text should refer to "independent sources of scientific advice" onrisk assessment.

Significantly, however, Basil Mathioudakis, of the European Commission, stated that he was

opposed to the use of the word "independent" in the text and, as a result, it was not included.

In a further key intervention, the National Health Federationwanted language inserted to recognizethe nutrient depletion in soils and foods that has taken place over the past fifty years or so. Uponhearing this, however, the Chairman, Dr. Grossklaus, responded by saying that the institute heworks for, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, has made a statement on this issue tothe effect that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. In typical fashion, he thenattempted to move straight on and did not give the Committee so much as a moment's opportunity forcomment.

The National Health Federationthen made an additional intervention, asking that its comments benoted in the report and, ideally, considered by the Committee so that the record could be accurate

and complete. Dr. Grossklaus declined to allow this however, saying that since the Federation is anon-governmental organization, and that no Member State supported its position, its comments couldnot go into the report.

Just as he has done in previous years, therefore, Dr. Grossklaus was once again making up the rulesas he went along. This is particularly well illustrated by the fact that paragraph 131 of the Committee'sofficial report for this meeting makes mention of another National Health Federationintervention andthat this was not supported by any Member State either.

At the close of these discussions, the Committee decided that it had made significant progress andthat it should recommend to the Codex Alimentarius Commissionthat the text (the Proposed DraftNutritional Risk Analysis Principles and Guidelines for Application to the Work of the Committee on

Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses) be advanced to Step 5.As such, only relatively minor changes will now be possible at next year's meeting of the Committee,and it could now potentially be approved and finalized by the Codex Alimentarius Commissionin July2009.

Proposals for nutrient reference values out of touch with the latestscience

Viewed in light of the latest and most up-to-date research in the area of nutrition, it seems safe topredict that the Committee's current approach to the setting of nutrient reference values for labelingpurposes may well be judged by future nutritional historians as being almost farcically anachronistic.


13/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

For example, the science of genetics has already taught us that we are all genetically unique and wenow have convincing evidence that factors such as age, sex, contraceptive use, race, dress code,geographical location, regular blood donation, medicinal drug use, genetic mutations or biochemicalindividuality can affect a person's nutrient needs and/or status, sometimes dramatically so.

However, rather than protecting the health of consumers, which is after all one of the stated purposesof Codex, the Committee is proposing instead to simply set one single reference value for eachvitamin and mineral, and to apply these to the entire world population from the age of three years andupwards. Then, after work on this is complete, a further set of vitamin and mineral reference values,to apply to children aged between six months and three years, would be developed.

As such, it would seem that the Committee's intention is essentially to provide a ringing endorsementof the existing outdated and scientifically invalid recommended daily allowance concept.

Notably, therefore, although the National Health Federationattempted to intervene in thismonumentally myopic error, by proposing the establishment of an additional reference value for eachvitamin and mineral, to represent the population group with the greatest need for it, the Chairmanoverruled it, but without giving any valid scientific reason.

Clearly then, whilst the Committee's proposals on nutrient reference values are still admittedly at anearly stage, anyone hoping for an outcome that reflects the latest science or that promotes optimumnutrition would currently be well advised not to hold their breath.

Still waiting for the Stunning Victory at Codex? You're not alone

Natural health advocates with good memories may recall the so-called Natural Solutions Foundation,in its report on a meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labelingthat took place in May 2006,claiming that the outcome of discussions regarding the proposed role of Codex in the implementationof the World Health Organization's Global Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Healthwere a"Stunning Victory" for health freedom.

Well, this certainly wasn't true then and it still isn't now, especially if the outcome of discussions atthis meeting were anything to go by. Eighteen months after the claimed "Stunning Victory", whilstCodex is still talking about the Global Strategy, there's no sign of any significant action.

For example, although the Chairwoman of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, Dr. AnneMacKenzie, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the subject of the Global Strategy, asking whatmechanisms were available for inter-committee communication and cooperation, and proposing toseek guidance from WHO and FAO, her valiant contribution was relegated to a relatively minorposition in the Committee's agenda, under "Other Business and Future Work."

After the somewhat unfocussed and confusing discussion that followed, during which even a

representative of the Codex Secretariat, Dr. Jeronimas Maskeliunas, admitted to being "completelyconfused" as to what the Committee was talking about, it was eventually agreed that a WorkingGroup should meet to discuss the Global Strategy immediately prior to next year's meeting of theCommittee and, after its discussions, that it should report back to the Committee.

Yet more talk, in other words, and still no sign of any action.

At this current juncture, therefore, Codex discussions regarding the World Health Organization'sGlobal Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Healthwould appear to be light years away fromturning into any sort of victory, let alone a stunning one.

Conclusion

Like the World Controllersin Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the Codex Alimentarius


14/15


15 2008-12-03 15:15

Commissiondoesn't want to change.

From its perspective, change in the form of a new global healthcare systembased on scientificbreakthroughs in the areas of vitamin research and cellular health is a menace to the financialstability of the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, groundbreaking discoveries in nutritionaltherapeutics are increasingly seen as subversive and treated as an enemy to the business withdisease.

However, the lies and deceit that are necessary to maintain this situation are not sustainable in thelong term. Whether Codexlikes it or not, change will eventually come and, when it does, consumerswill overwhelmingly demand that those who had knowingly tried to prevent their access to therapeutic

vitamin supplements and other natural therapies should be called to account for their actions.

In the meantime, however, whilst cardiovascular disease, cancer, AIDS and other common diseaseswill undoubtedly be largely unknown to future generations, it is our responsibility to ensure that thiscomes about sooner rather than later.

The treatment of diseases with patented synthetic chemical drugs, when safer and more effectivenatural treatments are already available, borders on insanity and should no longer be tolerated in anycivilized society worthy of the name.

As such, the sooner the pharmaceutical industry's business with disease is confined to the dustbinsof medical history, where it belongs, the better for all mankind.

VideoThe Codex Alimentariusis a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternativemedicine and nutrition. Ratified by the World Health Organization, and going into Law in the UnitedStates in 2009, the threat to health freedom has never been greater.

This is the first part of a series of talks by Dr. Rima Laibow MD, available on DVD from the NaturalSolutions Foundation, an non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about how to stopCodex Alimentariusfrom taking away our right to freely choose nutritional health.

NutricideCriminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs


15/15


Return to Temas / Sociopolitica

Return to Depopulation of Planet EarthReturn to Industry "Weapons" for Earth's

Depopulation

Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind

Documents

Transcript of Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind