Codex Meeting in Germany Begins Amid Disputes Over Nutrient Reference Values for Consumers Around the World

[Guest guest]

Dear Lists,

 

This is very important. We don't want to lose vitamins and

nutrients. Remember in the UK they did and they get vitamins from

industry and even some they swallow they add aspartame to, so they

know they are harming the public. They can make the amount so small

they won't even help because of Codex.

 

You may wish to tor the National Health Federation who is

fighting hard this issue.

 

All my best,

Betty

www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com, www.wnho.net

Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

 

 

" National Health Federation " <thenhf

Codex Meeting in Germany Begins Amid Disputes Over Nutrient

Reference Values for Consumers Around the World

" bettym19 " <bettym19

 

 

NHF Logo

 

 

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

 

CODEX MEETING IN GERMANY BEGINS

 

AMID DISPUTES OVER NUTRIENT REFERENCE

 

VALUES FOR CONSUMERS AROUND THE WORLD

 

 

 

November 1, 2009

 

 

 

The US-based National Health Federation (NHF), the World's

oldest international health-freedom organization, yesterday began a

week of meetings at the 31st session of the Codex Committee on

Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) in Dusseldorf,

Germany. Expected to be attended by hundreds of delegates, observers,

and advisors, representing numerous member countries and

international organizations, the Committee, sponsored by the Food &

Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization, and hosted by

the German government, is part of the World's highest international

body setting global standards and guidelines on nutrition.

With consumer members all over the World, and an

international board of governors and advisory board, the NHF is

unique as being the only consumer health-freedom organization in the

World to enjoy official observer delegate status at Codex. The NHF

therefore has the opportunity to make representations on behalf of

natural health interests all over the World, which are presently

being threatened by over-regulation stimulated by spurious science,

misinformed media attacks, misguided regulators, and corporate

pressure from large food and pharmaceutical concerns.

 

 

 

 

Working Group Chairwoman Dr. Allison Yates shown on screen

in Robert Schumann Hall, Museum Kunst Palast, Dusseldorf, Germany,

October 31, 2009

 

 

The regular session of CCNFSDU begins on Monday morning,

November 2nd; however, the Physical Working Group on the Development

of NRVs Associated with Increased or Decreased Risk of

Non-Communicable Diseases (an offspring of CCNSFDU) held its one-day

session on Saturday, October 31st, with the NHF's president Scott

Tips in attendance. The NHF had already submitted its written

comments on NRVs for the Working Group and Committee's consideration

last September (to be found at

<http://www.thenhf.com/codex/nrv_comments.pdf>http://www.thenhf.com/codex/nrv_co\

mments.pdf).

As Scott Tips noted after the Saturday meeting, " The

purpose of this Working Group was to develop in advance of the

general meeting some of the principles, concepts, and wording to be

used in the creation of Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) affecting

non-communicable diseases. The meeting got off to an ironic start

when the U.S. delegate Barbara Schneeman proposed adding into NRV

language wording that would make sure the NRVs did not exceed an

acceptable 'Upper Limit.' Twice, the European Commission delegate,

Basil Mathioudakis, correctly questioned the need for this. In turn,

I also spoke out three times emphatically against the appropriateness

of such language, supporting the EC's challenge and also telling the

Group that it was mystifying that the USA could even take this

position given that it is contrary to US law. Australia weakly tried

to support the US position by claiming that such language with these

upper limits would 'give an extra degree of comfort.' The Canadian

delegate supported Australia, with the Chair strangely noting that

Australia had answered the EC's question, while I again intervened to

state in no uncertain terms that, no, the question had not been

answered and that an 'extra degree of comfort' was nothing more than

unnecessary suffocation. The Council for Responsible Nutrition's John

Hathcock supported the NHF and EC position by stating such language

would be 'redundant' in any event. The meeting moved on without clear

adoption of the wording, leaving it to the CCNFSDU to decide. "

 

The meeting then continued with its consideration of other

language dealing with chronic and non-communicable diseases and with

some of NHF's proposed wording being accepted, but did not heat up

again until the issue of establishing NRVs for saturated fats arose.

Malaysia, protective of its special table-oil industry with

vegetable-sourced saturated fats that are metabolized differently in

the body than those from animals, spoke out most aggressively against

establishing NRVs for saturated fats. The Malaysian delegate then

quoted from the NHF written document on the subject to support its

position ( " . . . given an adequately-nutritional-dense diet,

saturated fats are not typically a health problem in that cholesterol

is not a major cause of heart disease, rather it is calcification of

the arteries. Establishing an NRV-NCD for saturated fat would mislead

the consumer away from the true cause of heart disease. " ). The NHF

then spoke up in support of this position, later elaborating further

when disagreeing with the WHO representative's out-dated statement

that " There is convincing evidence that replacing saturated fat with

polyunsaturated fats reduces heart disease. "

" But the biggest fight of all, " said Scott Tips, " was over

the selection of data sources for NRVs, with the WHO wanting to

protect its monopoly as being the sole source of acceptable data for

establishing NRVs (as well as other scientific 'facts'). This is a

principle that is anathema to the NHF, which is absolutely opposed to

coercive monopolistic practices, especially by governmental or

international bodies. There are ample other sources of data out there

in the World and there is no need to limit Codex to just relying upon

WHO for its data. Yet, after the original proposed WHO/Codex wording

was placed upon the screen for all to read establishing just that

monopolistic principle no one opposed it until I spoke up in

opposition and suggested alternative wording to completely eliminate

the WHO monopoly of information. The US representative then suggested

compromise wording that favored the NHF position, while the EC's

follow-on suggested wording trimmed the monopoly down even further in

favor of the NHF position. This wording was on the way to acceptance

until Canada leaped in with its own additional wording that somewhat

watered down NHF's wording (which would allow Codex to consider other

sources of scientific information than just WHO's and FAO's) by

stating that such other sources can be used only where 'there is

substantial new evidence that has been evaluated through systematic review.' "

" The problem, " Mr. Tips continued, " is that, unlike a

decade ago, WHO and FAO will preselect their 'expert' panels and

stuff them with a narrow group of experts already predestined to make

the very finding that FAO or WHO wants. The result is anything but

scientific. Yet, that is exactly the kind of 'scientific' data that

the WHO representative wants to shove down the throats of every Codex

Committee. 'Garbage in, garbage out' is a saying they either don't

know or, worse, do know and want to make use of. "

 

The Working Group meeting ended at 6:00 pm that evening with its work

to go on to the regular session of the Committee itself for the

Committee's own review and debate. The Federation, more vocal than

all of the other INGOs combined at yesterday's meeting, will redouble

its efforts at the general session on all of these points and more.

 

 

********************

 

For further information on Codex, please visit the NHF website

(Codex): <http://www.thenhf.com/codex.html>http://www.thenhf.com/codex.html

NHF Codex Book - <https://www.thenhf.com/codex/buy_codex_book.html>

 

NHF Codex Overview (May be used as an article or printed as a handout

to educate on Codex) - <http://www.thenhf.com/codex/codex_handout.pdf>

 

 

 

 

********************

 

As the oldest and best-respected health-freedom group on Capitol

Hill, the NHF continues to be the credible source of objective

assessment of, and proactive actions on, Congressional legislation

and FDA matters that have material impact upon our freedom-of-health

choices and access to dietary supplements and nutritional foods.

 

********************

 

<http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_01_nov_2009.html>Click here

for the permanent link to this press release, use this link to inform others.

 

National Health Federation: Established in 1955, the National Health

Federation is a consumer-education, health-freedom organization

working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy

food, take supplements and use alternative therapies without

unnecessary government restrictions. The NHF is the only such

organization with recognized observer-delegate status at Codex

meetings. <http://www.thenhf.com>www.thenhf.com

 

**************************************

If you would like to be removed from this mailing list,

<contact-us?subject=Opt Out & body=Opt Out>

 

 

P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, CA 91017 USA ~ 1 (626) 357-2181 ~ Fax 1 (626) 303-0642

 

Website:

<http://www.thenhf.com>www.thenhf.com E-mail:

<contact-uscontact-us