The Worst Is Still To Come (Codex Report - Bonn 2005)

[Guest guest]

" Zeus " <info

The Worst Is Still To Come (Codex Report - Bonn 2005)

Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:20:11 -0000

 

 

The Worst Is Still To Come

By Paul Anthony Taylor

 

November 2005 saw the 27th meeting of the Codex Committee on

Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) take place in

Bonn, Germany. The Committee, one of 27 currently active Codex

committees, has been meeting in Germany since its inception in 1966,

and was responsible for the drafting of the controversial Guidelines

for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. However, and as this article

will show, the most potentially damaging aspects of the Committee's

attacks on natural healthcare and health freedom are still to come.

 

The 2005 meeting of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for

Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) took place from 21-25 November, in

Bonn, Germany, and was attended by 315 delegates representing 68

countries and 33 international organizations.

 

Any doubts as to whether or not Codex is concerned about its loss of

trust and respect amongst consumers were immediately dispelled by the

Committee's infamous Chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, who opened the

meeting by stating that the Committee had to improve its public

relations image. However, any hopes that Codex might be about to

change course proved to be wide of the mark when he went on to

announce that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO), one of the two Codex parent bodies, would be filming

this year's meeting, and explained that as a part of the film the FAO

filmmakers would be interviewing some of the delegates. Clearly

therefore we can expect to see a particularly propaganda-laden film

becoming available for viewing on the Codex Alimentarius website in

due course, complete with Codex delegates talking gushingly and

disingenuously about 'protecting' consumers.

 

In addition, Dr. Grossklaus revealed that next year's CCNFSDU meeting

will be taking place not in Germany, but in Thailand. Perhaps not

surprisingly, therefore, some delegates subsequently speculated,

privately, that this change in venue might in part be due to the

adverse publicity that has been generated by the work of the Committee

in recent years and that by holding their next meeting in Thailand,

away from the public gaze, the Committee might be hoping to avoid

further damaging scrutiny of its work.

 

Four items on the Committee's agenda this year were of particular

importance to the future of natural healthcare and health freedom.

 

Proposals for Additional or Revised Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs)

for labeling purposes

The proposal to consider additional or revised nutrient reference

values (NRVs) for labeling purposes was originally made at the

November 2003 meeting of the Committee, and this year the Codex

delegates were considering a discussion paper prepared by a working

group under the coordination of South Africa.

 

NRVs can essentially be thought of as a way of describing the

nutritional requirements of the average person. Naturally however this

concept presents an immediate problem, because, given that each of us

is genetically unique, can it really be said that there is such a

thing as an 'average' person? Moreover, in considering 'requirements'

the fundamental question then arises as to whether one is talking

about the nutritional requirements for ordinary health, or those for

optimum health. As always, of course, the pro-pharmaceutical lobby can

easily be distinguished in these discussions by virtue of their

pressing for the NRVs to be set at, or near to, RDA levels.

 

The setting of the NRVs at realistic levels would be an important step

towards the liberation of human health and the global recognition that

dietary supplements are required for the optimum functioning of the

human body. No small wonder then that the pro-pharmaceutical lobby is

so vigorously opposed to the NRVs being raised to levels that can only

be obtained via supplementation, as the concept of optimum health is

inimical to the 'business with disease'.

 

Fortunately however the discussion paper prepared by South Africa

showed clear evidence of support for the argument that the NRVs should

reflect the most recent scientific research, in order to promote

optimum health and reduce the risk of disease in the majority of

people. Predictably, therefore, there was a good deal of controversy

over this during the meeting, and the Committee's Chairman, Dr. Rolf

Grossklaus, even went so far as to interrupt South Africa during their

presentation, asking them to hurry up and finish.

 

Later on in the discussion, in a particularly partisan intervention,

Dr. Grossklaus instructed the Committee that this was not about

providing consumers with optimum nutrition, but about not misleading

them and setting nutrient reference values for foods for global trade

purposes. Nevertheless, and as the National Health Federation (NHF)

delegation then quite logically pointed out, if the mandate of the

Committee was really to avoid misleading consumers then there is most

definitely a need to discuss optimum nutrition levels. Significantly

however, NHF was the only non-governmental delegation representing the

interests of health freedom at this meeting.

 

Towards the end of this discussion a representative of the FAO

announced that along with the World Health Organization (WHO) they

were about to hold a meeting in Florence, Italy, with the goal of

reaching agreement on principles and guidelines that will lead to

" evidence-based dietary standards " . As a part of this work FAO/WHO

will apparently be discussing the possibility of setting up an expert

consultation to establish new NRVs.

 

Clearly then, it would appear that the eventual setting of the NRVs

will now be strongly influenced by FAO and WHO; two organizations with

even less accountability to consumers than Codex itself.

 

Draft Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims

The outcome of the Codex discussions regarding the Draft

Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims are

absolutely crucial to the future of natural healthcare and health

freedom, because, in order for chronic disease to become largely a

thing of the past, dietary supplement manufacturers need to be able to

provide truthful and non-misleading information about their products.

Naturally therefore the pro-pharmaceutical lobby is becoming

increasingly desperate to prevent the communication of lifesaving

natural health information, as once this becomes sufficiently

widespread it will essentially spell the beginning of the end for the

'business with disease'.

 

Nevertheless, and for the second year running, there was only a very

limited opportunity for the Committee to consider the Recommendations

at this year's meeting. Issues discussed during the short debate that

did take place included authorization procedures for health claims,

the scientific substantiation of health claims, and disease risk

reduction claims. There was no in-depth examination of these topics

however, and the Committee agreed that this work would be continued

over the next year by a working group under the coordination of France.

 

Crucially however the European Union (EU) is currently expected to

adopt a very restrictive Regulation on Nutrition and Health Claims in

mid-2006. As such it seems very likely that the EU will be pushing for

the Draft Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims to

be given a much higher priority at next years CCNFSDU meeting in

Thailand, at which point we can expect it to begin pressing for the

Recommendations to be drafted in such a way as to reflect what will

then be EU law. Given the degree to which the European Union has

already been able to shape the development of the Guidelines for

Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements to match its highly restrictive

EU Food Supplements Directive, the extent to which it will be able to

do likewise with the Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health

Claims should not therefore be underestimated.

 

In this respect it is particularly worth bearing in mind the now

infamous statement of the European Commission delegate at the 2003

meeting of the Committee, that health claims for vitamin and mineral

supplements should be prohibited. Given that the Committee's Chairman,

Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, stated at the same meeting that drugs are to

mitigate and prevent diseases, and that the role of food supplements

is to support the diet, the type of world that both the European Union

and Codex envisage is now becoming increasingly apparent.

 

Discussion Paper on Risk Analysis

This discussion paper was prepared by a working group coordinated by

Australia. The eventual outcome of this work has enormous relevance to

the future development of the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food

Supplements, as the Guidelines state that the upper safe levels of

vitamins and minerals in supplements will be established by scientific

risk assessment.

 

Notably therefore, when this agenda item was discussed at last year's

meeting the Committee indicated that it would be dealing with the

" over dosage of nutrients. " The content of this year's discussion

paper continues in much the same vein, making it abundantly clear that

the Committee is intending to treat vitamins and minerals as dangerous

chemicals, as opposed to essential dietary elements. Until such time

as this approach changes, therefore, our health and freedoms will

continue to be at risk.

 

The good news however is that due to a shortage of time there was very

little discussion on this agenda item this year. Ominously, however,

the Committee's Chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, stated that this work

was of enormous importance, and that it should be given the highest

priority. As such it appears likely that substantially more discussion

time will be given over to this issue at next year's meeting of the

Committee, in Thailand.

 

In addition however, it was also announced during the meeting that the

final report from the FAO/WHO Nutrient Risk Assessment Project is

currently being prepared, and that this should be available during or

before early 2006. Moreover, the report will then be discussed at next

year's meeting of the Committee. As such it seems likely that FAO/WHO

will now be very influential upon not only the development of the

NRVs, but also the setting of the upper safe levels for the Guidelines

for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.

 

The FAO/WHO Nutrient Risk Assessment Project has thus far been

conducted with a disturbing lack of transparency and accountability,

and, as such, the fears of many observers - that the project could

eventually result in maximum levels being set for vitamin and mineral

supplements that are little better than, and in some cases identical

to, the RDAs - would currently appear to be entirely justified.

 

WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health

The WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health was

endorsed by the World Health Assembly in May 2004, and recognizes that

a few largely preventable risk factors account for most of the world's

disease burden. Describing how cardiovascular disease, diabetes,

cancers and obesity-related conditions now account for some 60% of

global deaths and almost half (47%) of the global burden of disease,

the Strategy explains how healthier diet, nutrition and physical

activity can help to prevent and control these illnesses.

 

At the July 2005 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in

Rome, it was decided that the potential areas for action by Codex in

relation to the implementation of the Global Strategy were mainly

relevant to the work of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL)

and the CCNFSDU; and that WHO, in cooperation with FAO, would produce

a document for consideration by these committees, including specific

proposals for new work.

 

Discussions on this agenda item had originally been scheduled to take

place very early on in this year's CCNFSDU meeting, under agenda item

2. However, the Committee decided instead to move this debate to the

very end of the last day of its meeting, and as a result there was

only a very limited amount of time available to discuss the matter.

 

During the short discussion that did take place WHO presented a new

two-page proposal document for the Committee's consideration.

Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of delegations had not even

seen the document because its presence had not been previously

announced and the WHO had apparently run out of copies to distribute.

After a short debate therefore the Codex Secretariat stated that the

Committee should report to the Codex Alimentarius Commission that

there had been insufficient time to fully address the proposal, and it

was decided that Codex delegations could submit comments upon the

proposal to FAO/WHO by email. Nevertheless, it seemed clear that the

lack of proper discussion time for this issue was totally intentional,

rather than merely accidental.

 

Conclusion

As can be seen, the work of the CCNFSDU remains a significant danger

to the future of natural healthcare and health freedom.

 

Specifically, the pro-pharmaceutical lobby want to see the NRVs to be

set at, or near to, RDA levels, thus weakening the arguments in favour

of dietary supplements; the Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of

Health Claims to as far as possible prevent the communication of

lifesaving information by dietary supplement manufacturers; the

Discussion Paper on Risk Analysis to be developed in such a way as to

ensure that the upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals are set as

low as possible; and the implementation of the WHO Global Strategy on

Diet, Physical Activity and Health to be delayed for as long as

possible and to not interfere with the multi-trillion dollar 'business

with disease'.

 

Clearly, therefore, now more than ever we must remain vigilant, as the

most potentially damaging aspects of the CCNFSDU's attacks on natural

healthcare and health freedom are still to come.

 

To / : chrisgupta

List information is at: http://tinyurl.com/2xohw

ARCHIVES: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/archives.htm

Share The Wealth: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/

Communication Agents: http://www.communicationagents.com/

Council Member: Friends of Freedom - http://www.friendsoffreedom.org

 

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com

All information, data and material contained, presented or provided

herein is for general information purposes only and is not to be

construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinion of Zeus Information

Service.

Subscribe Free/Un: info

feel free to forward far and wide....