http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/10/15/codex_alimentarius_will_eu_laws_

[Guest guest]

Codex Alimentarius: Will EU Laws Become World Standard?

_http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/10/15/codex_alimentarius_will_eu_laws\

_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2007/10/15/codex_alimentarius_will_eu_laws\

) _

 

In a recent article, The Economist discusses _How the European Union is

becoming the world's chief regulator_

(http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9832900) . The

article says the EU regulatory framework

is in the process of becoming " world standard " . The Economist quotes an

unnamed US official:

One American official says flatly that the EU is “winning†the regulatory

race, adding: “And there is a sense that that is their precise intent.†He

cites a speech by the trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, claiming that the

export of “our rules and standards around the world†was one source of

European power. Noting that EU regulations are often written with the help of

European incumbents, the official also claims that precaution can cloak

“plain

old-fashioned protectionism in disguiseâ€.

While the prime example in the Economist's article is a fine imposed on

Microsoft for bullying its competitors, the fact that EU regulations are copied

in the rest of the world holds true in many sectors of the economy. In the

area of nutrition and healthcare, EU legislative activity has led to several

new

pieces of legislation that are - _seen in their context_

(http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHwebsiteDoc_281.pdf) -

potentially disastrous

for public health. The directives and regulations discussed in the linked

document prepared by the _Alliance for Natural Health_

(http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/) diminish individual choice in health

and prevention, while

preserving the profitability of big industry and indeed slanting the 'playing

field' in favor of the largest competitors.

Codex Alimentarius, the United Nation's international food standard-setting

body, has also been discussing food supplements, one of the subjects of the

recent EU health legislation.

 

The Codex guidelines, _adopted at the Codex Commission's plenary session_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/07/04/codex_alimentarius_adopts_vitam\

i

n_guidelines.htm) in July 2005 here in Rome, are little more than a copy of

the European Directive adopted some years before. This seems to confirm the

view expressed in the Economist's article, according to which the EU is

" winning the regulatory race " .

Americans are proud of their freedoms, particularly in the area of health

and nutrition. The _Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act_

(http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html) of 1994 (DSHEA) put food

supplements firmly in

the food category, preventing the FDA from regulating nutrients as either

additives or medicines, a practice which previously had led to much friction

between the FDA and the producers and consumers of supplements. To the chagrin

of the FDA and the pharmaceutical interests that influence its policies,

supplements have enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth since the passage of

DSHEA.

Perhaps that is why the FDA is now working to harmonize US law and

administrative practice for supplements with Codex guidelines and with other

countries' more restrictive regulations. The Life Extension Foundation _laments

this

trend_ (http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/consumer_alert_042707.htm) in a

recent article:

The anti-American FDA is actively seeking to undermine U.S. laws and

harmonize our dietary supplement laws with Mexico and Canada. This is being

done

through the Trilateral Cooperation Charter – an illegal agreement set up with

health regulatory agencies in Mexico and Canada. It is part of the campaign

towards a North American Union, one which would be a catastrophe for health

freedom in this country as dietary supplement laws in Canada and Mexico are far

more restrictive than in the U.S.

The FDA would also like to harmonize our dietary supplement laws with the

evolving international standards set by Codex, thus branding therapeutic

nutrition as dangerous and risky and needing to be sold by Big Pharma or

removed

from the market altogether (if it competes with a blockbuster category of

drugs). Codex is planning to use the same proteomics and biomarker technology

that

will be used by the FDA’s Critical Path Initiative to remove therapeutic

dietary supplements from the international market and force their policies on

America, thereby superseding the sovereignty of American law on threat of trade

sanctions. The FDA fully supports draconian Codex guidelines to regulate

dietary supplements and is working with the Germans to concoct technology to

brand nutrients as drugs.

Will Americans be able to maintain their nutritional freedoms in the face of

pressure coming from both, international and domestic agencies?

It appears that the problem may no longer be only American - there is an

international trend of using " precaution " to brand nutrients as more dangerous

than the pharmaceutical drugs that are killing hundreds of thousands every

year.

To counter the trend, we may have to look at its origins: a conservative

view of nutrition rooted in certain European nations that never had a culture

of

nutrient-mediated prevention and healing, coupled with a view that the only

remedies for good health are pharmaceutical drugs.

Research and education will be essential to meet the challenge. Research to

find and better define the effects of nutrients in prevention and healing,

education to bring the conservative Europeans up to speed on how useful

nutrients can be in prevention and maintenance of good health.

With food supplements, we have an extremely cost effective and very safe

tool to better public health.

Why not use it to its full extent?

As a friend recently said, Europe has really no need for all these

complicated regulations. The Community has a principle - the free movement of

goods

and services - which would be quite sufficient on its own to ensure a working

internal market. That means people could determine whether to use supplements

to stock up on nutrients and to what extent they want to do that. The Germans

and the French could buy their supplements in England or the Netherlands, if

they weren't locally available. But apparently some governments believe they

have to control every last aspect of our lives, and the EU bureaucracy seems

to agree.

 

- - -

How the European Union is becoming the world's chief regulator

(_Original article in The Economist_

(http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9832900) )

A VICTORY for consumers and the free market. That was how the European

Commission presented this week's ruling by European judges in favour of its

multi-million euro fine on Microsoft for bullying competitors. American

observers

had qualms. Would a French company have been pursued with such vigour? Explain

again why a squabble among American high-technology firms ends up being

decided in Brussels and Luxembourg (where Euro-judges sit)? One congressman

muttered about sneaky protectionism and " zealous European Commission

regulators " .

It certainly seemed zealous of the competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, to

say that a " significant drop " in the software giant's market share was " what

we'd like to see " .

More broadly, the ruling confirms that Brussels is becoming the world's

regulatory capital. The European Union's drive to set standards has many

causes-and a protectionist impulse within some governments (eg, France's) may be

one.

But though the EU is a big market, with almost half a billion consumers,

neither size, nor zeal, nor sneaky protectionism explains why it is usurping

America's role as a source of global standards. A better answer lies in

transatlantic philosophical differences.

The American model turns on cost-benefit analysis, with regulators weighing

the effects of new rules on jobs and growth, as well as testing the

significance of any risks. Companies enjoy a presumption of innocence for their

products: should this prove mistaken, punishment is provided by the market (and

a

barrage of lawsuits). The European model rests more on the " precautionary

principle " , which underpins most environmental and health directives. This

calls

for pre-emptive action if scientists spot a credible hazard, even before the

level of risk can be measured. Such a principle sparks many transatlantic

disputes: over genetically modified organisms or climate change, for example.

In Europe corporate innocence is not assumed. Indeed, a vast slab of EU laws

evaluating the safety of tens of thousands of chemicals, known as REACH,

reverses the burden of proof, asking industry to demonstrate that substances

are

harmless. Some Eurocrats suggest that the philosophical gap reflects the

American constitutional tradition that everything is allowed unless it is

forbidden, against the Napoleonic tradition codifying what the state allows and

banning everything else.

Yet the more proscriptive European vision may better suit consumer and

industry demands for certainty. If you manufacture globally, it is simpler to

be

bound by the toughest regulatory system in your supply chain. Self-regulation

is also a harder sell when it comes to global trade, which involves trusting

a long line of unknown participants from far-flung places (talk to parents

who buy Chinese-made toys).

A _gripping new book_

(http://www.amazon.ca/Exposed-Toxic-Chemistry-Everyday-Products/dp/1933392150)

by an American, Mark Schapiro, captures the change.

When he began his research, he found firms resisting the notion that the

American market would follow EU standards for items like cosmetics, insisting

that their American products were already safe. But as the book neared

completion, firm after firm gave in and began applying EU standards worldwide,

as

third countries copied European rules on things like suspected carcinogens in

lipstick. Even China is leaning to the European approach, one Procter & Gamble

executive tells Mr Schapiro, adding wistfully: " And that's a pretty big

country. "

The book records similar American reactions to the spread of EU directives

insisting that cars must be recycled, or banning toxins such as lead and

mercury from electrical gadgets. Obey EU rules or watch your markets

" evaporating " , a computer industry lobbyist tells Mr Schapiro. " We've been hit

by a

tsunami, " says a big wheel from General Motors. American multinationals that

spend

money adjusting to European rules may lose their taste for lighter domestic

regulations that may serve only to offer a competitive advantage to rivals

that do not export. Mr Schapiro is a campaigner for tougher regulation of

American business. Yet you do not have to share his taste for banning chemicals

to

agree with his prediction that American industry will want stricter standards

to create a level playing-field at home.

Winning the regulatory race

One American official says flatly that the EU is " winning " the regulatory

race, adding: " And there is a sense that that is their precise intent. " He

cites a speech by the trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, claiming that the

export of " our rules and standards around the world " was one source of European

power. Noting that EU regulations are often written with the help of European

incumbents, the official also claims that precaution can cloak " plain

old-fashioned protectionism in disguise " .

Europe had no idea the rest of the world was going to copy its standards,

retorts a Eurocrat sweetly. " It's a very pleasant side-effect, but we set out

to create the legislation we thought that Europe needed. " At all events,

America's strategy has changed. Frontal attempts to block new EU regulations are

giving way to efforts to persuade Brussels to adopt a more American approach to

cost-benefit analysis. That would placate students of rigour, who accuse

some European governments of ignoring scientific data and pandering to consumer

panic (as shown by European campaigns against " Frankenstein foods " ).

But rigour can quickly look like rigidity when it involves resisting

competition. There is a genuine competition to set global regulatory standards,

as

Europe and America have discovered. There are also rising protectionist

pressures. Perhaps zealous EU regulators may be what jumpy consumers need if

they

are to keep faith with free trade and globalisation. Viewed in such a light,

even Microsoft's champions might hope that this week's verdict will help

global competition in future.

 

See also:

_EU-U.S. Summit Signals New Threats To Natural Health Therapies_

(http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/us/summit07/index.html)

_http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/us/summit07/index.html _

(http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/us/summit07/index.html )

(April 2007) - The European Union and the United States recently announced

the signing of a Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration at

a summit in Washington. Describing the agreement as “a statement of the

importance of tradeâ€, President Bush, speaking at the post-summit press

conference, claimed that it was “a commitment to eliminating barriers to

trade†and “

a recognition that the closer that the United States and the EU become, the

better off our people become.â€

posted by Sepp Hasslberger

---------

Related Articles

_Codex Alimentarius Adopts Vitamin Guidelines_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/07/04/codex_alimentarius_adopts_vitam\

in_guidelines.htm)

4 July 2005 - The Codex Alimentarius Commission has voted to adopt

potentially restrictive guidelines for vitamin and mineral supplements proposed

by the

Codex Nutrition Committee. In its 28th session here in sun dried, heat

plagued Rome, the planet's supreme food regulator has given a nod to industry

in

approving guidelines for food supplements over the strenuous opposition of

consumer representatives. Several associations representing consumers and

health

practitioners were present... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/07/04/codex_alimentarius_adopts_vitam\

in_guidelines.htm) ]

July 04, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger

_Codex 2003 - Grossklaus and Mathioudakis: Nutrition not relevant to

Health_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/11/25/codex_2003_grossklaus_and_mathi\

oudakis_nutrition_not_relevant_to_health.htm)

November 3-7, 2003, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for special

dietary uses met in BONN, Germany, for their once-yearly come-together. On the

agenda for discussion were, before baby foods and the description of healthy

properties of food on labels, the proposed Codex Giudelines for " Vitamin and

Mineral Food Supplements " . Such guidelines would be, once passed, the

equivalent of international law to be followed in all commerce of vitamin...

[_read

more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/11/25/codex_2003_grossklaus_and_mathi\

oudakis_nutrition_not_relevant_to_health.htm) ]

November 25, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

_Codex and the Titanic's Deck Chairs_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/12/04/codex_and_the_titanics_deck_cha\

irs.htm)

Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic is the title of the report of

Scott Tips, correspondent of Whole Foods Magazine and representative of the

National Health Federation on this year's meeting in Bonn, Germany where, in

the

first days of November, the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and

Special Dietary Foods - CCNFSDU - had its yearly conclave. I have previously

reported on this meeting, and have also posted... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/12/04/codex_and_the_titanics_deck_cha\

irs.htm) ]

December 04, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger

_European Health Legislation, Codex And The Sustainability Of Health Care_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/04/20/european_health_legislation_cod

ex_and_the_sustainability_of_health_care.htm)

Brussels has been busy " adjusting " EU food and medicine laws for several

years now, bringing increasingly onerous controls for natural products - notably

herbs and food supplements. Some observers have criticized these moves as

designed to give an unfair advantage to " conventional " , pharma-based medicine

and will cut across preventive health strategies. Prevention is high on the

agenda, but official strategies are largely limited to avoiding and killing off

germs. Nutritional... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/04/20/european_health_legislation_cod\

ex_and_the_sustainability_of_health_care

..htm) ]

April 20, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger

_Codex: FDA 'Vetoes' Optimal Nutrition For Health_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/06/04/codex_fda_vetoes_optimal_nutrit\

ion_for_health.htm)

Just a month ago today,

at the Codex Alimentarius Food Labelling Committee meeting in Ottawa, Canada,

the US delegate Dr Barbara Schneeman said that no reference should be made to

" optimizing nutrition and health " in guidelines that would encourage

" adequate information " on food labels. A Codex Committee meeting - Image by

Sepp The

Committee was discussing how the World Health Organization's Global Strategy

on Diet, Physical Activity and Health should... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/06/04/codex_fda_vetoes_optimal_nutrit\

ion_for_health.

htm) ]

June 04, 2006 - Sepp Hasslberger

_The Dark Side of Precaution: Preventing Prevention_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/07/09/the_dark_side_of_precaution_pre\

venting_prevention.htm

)

The precautionary principle mandates intervention to save the environment

and - most importantly - our health from degradation in the case of a pressing

danger, even if all the scientific data are not yet on hand. It is invoked

when we face threats from chemicals, radiation or other causes. The principle

seems important, yet it is difficult to find an authoritative definition. The

European Union has issued a communication in... [_read more_

(http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/07/09/the_dark_side_of_precaution_pre\

venting_prevent

ion.htm) ]

July 09, 2006 - Sepp Hasslberger