Author finds much to
mistrust at recent Codex session in Berlin
by Scott Tips
November 2002 Codex Meeting
January 2003, Whole Foods Magazine
One and a
quarter hours! My flight from Zurich to Berlin took longer
than that. Yet, that was all the time allotted by the chairman
of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for
Special Dietary Uses at this 24th session in Berlin, Germany
for discussing the numerous standards that Codex wants to
impose on vitamin and mineral supplements. The chairman's and
most delegates' "dreamlist" includes maximum and minimum
potencies for supplements, a "positive" list denoting those
supplements permitted to be sold, and a "negative" list of
prohibited supplements. These are the basic top-down,
control-freak, bureaucratic mindset-driven types of rules and
regulations that stifle progress and result in needless human
suffering and deaths. Fortunately, due to the shortage of
time, virtually no progress was made at this meeting and
health freedom was the temporary winner.
To be fair, at last year's session, the infant-formula topics
had been badly short-changed in favor of the discussion on
dietary supplements. This year, it was vitamin and mineral
supplements' turn in the backseat. Nevertheless, there were
important developments. But first some background.
Credentials Denied
Unlike in previous years, I was not a member of the United
States delegation at this meeting. Due to other commitments, I
had submitted my application too late to the United States
Codex office to be automatically admitted to the delegation;
and, unlike last year when Dr. Elizabeth Yetley (the official
U.S. delegate) waived me onto the delegation, she refused to
permit me to be a member this year. Perhaps my criticism of
her failure to follow U.S. law or to advocate freedom at the
last meeting was an important factor in her refusal.
Regardless of the reasons, she was not saying why she would
not let me on this year when she had last time. No matter. I
had already applied to the Codex Alimentarius Committee for
International NonGovernmental Organization (INGO) seeking
observer status for my client, the National Health Federation
("NHF"). Such status would grant it a seat at the meeting and
the right to present its views if called upon by the chairman.
Although Codex initially refused to grant NHF this observer
status, I repeatedly persisted until they had agreed with my
arguments that NHF deserved to be an INGO at the upcoming
meeting, then a bare two weeks away.
Keep in mind that members of the U.S. delegation are forbidden
from lobbying other official delegates on Codex issues. INGOs,
on the other hand, are not prohibited from doing any lobbying.
So, thank God that I had not been admitted onto the U.S.
delegation (as I had wanted) but did obtain INGO status for
the NHF. In that way, I could both speak out at the meeting
and lobby other delegates without restriction. After all, to
my knowledge, there were no other INGO lobbying Codex
delegates in favor of health freedom. And there was certainly
no other INGO who spoke out in favor of health freedom either.
Surprisingly, one government delegate did advocate health
freedom and the beneficial effects of dietary supplements:
Mrs. Antoinette Booyzen of South Africa. Mrs. Booyzen, who has
herself personally witnessed the substantial beneficial health
effects of dietary supplements, had the courage to defy all
other delegates' mindless position that supplements are only
good to prevent deficiencies. In an opening statement, she
told the other delegates exactly what they needed to hear -
that overwhelming evidence exists that vitamin supplements are
important and necessary for optimum nutrition and to prevent
diseases. Only the NHF spoke up to support the South African
position.
Mrs. Booyzen then proposed a new preamble to the Codex
standards that recognized dietary supplements as important in
preventing and reducing the risk of disease. All other
delegations, such as Denmark, our old "favorite" Norway, and
Brazil, who spoke denigrated this position. Germany even
called South Africa's proposed change procedurally incorrect
because it had not been submitted in writing first. Because
the chairman, who is German, always defers to the German
delegate's stated position (I have never seen him act contrary
to any position stated by the German delegate), the proposed
South African change to the preamble was promptly deleted from
the overhead screen used to show Codex language changes.
Although I repeatedly requested recognition by the chairman to
speak out in support of South Africa's proposed new preamble,
the chairman flatly refused to call on me and I had to suffer
the other delegations' ignorant remarks in silence.
The U.S. delegate, Dr. Yetley, never stated support for the
South African position. However, she did at least advocate
certain language changes within the Codex document to clarify
that the Codex standards were only guidelines and not
requirements. The official U.S. position was that the
mandatory verb "shall" should be replaced by the
subjunctive-verb tense "should" in order to reflect the
"voluntary" nature of Codex standards. On behalf of the NHF, I
spoke out in favor of this U.S. position, although I do not
think it alone would protect consumers from harsh Codex
standards. I rather suspect that the U.S. position in this
regard was influenced in large part by the persistent
inquiries and comments of Suzan Walter, president of the
American Holistic Health Association, who has repeatedly
demanded of both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
Codex to specify whether Codex standards are guidelines or
mandates.
Name's Not the Same
The European Union's delegate proposed a change in the title
of the Codex standards to add the word "food" so that the
title would now read "Proposed Draft Guidelines for Vitamins
and Mineral Food Supplements." Although this change was never
voted upon, the chairman unilaterally decided that it was
appropriate and it became de facto the new title. The EU
delegate obviously did not want vitamins and minerals for food
use to be confused with those vitamins and minerals restricted
by the dictatorial European rules on vitamin and mineral drugs
(such as "over-potent" vitamin C).
The all-too-slick way in which the Codex document title was
changed without a vote, though, illustrates the truly
dangerous nature of these world organizations. Although on the
surface seemingly noble and egalitarian, they are really
composed of unelected government bureaucrats who make
fundamentally important decisions about rules and regulations
that govern our lives and our health. These bureaucrats would
not know true freedom if it walked up and bit them on their
collective noses. And the slick manner in which the Codex
title was changed simply because two men agreed that it should
be changed shows how easily far-reaching decisions affecting
our lives (and those of millions and billions of others) are
made with no real checks and balances.
The chairman then quickly moved on to his favorite topic -
setting maximum limits on vitamins and minerals. As before,
the delegates essentially divided into two camps: those who
supported maximum limits that should not exceed 100% of the
Recommended Dietary Intake levels and those who supported more
liberal maximum limits based upon "scientific" risk
assessment. The second, "scientific risk assessment" camp was
itself divided into a more restrictive European Union version
of risk assessment and a U.S.-led version of risk-assessment
that was more industry oriented. After some discussion, it
became clear that the RDI camp had lost a great number of
proponents with the United States gaining support from, of all
countries, Switzerland and Peru. Still stuck in the Middle
Ages, Norway, Brazil and Malaysia stood by their fear of
vitamins and minerals by espousing 100% RDI limits on vitamins
and minerals.
I was finally once again recognized by the chairman and told
the delegates that scientific evidence demonstrated that
vitamins and minerals were inherently safe and that, in fact,
more persons had died at the hands of doctors than from
vitamins or minerals. I suggested that if they wanted to
entertain upper limits on anything, then they should place
upper limits on hospital stays. The chairman, obviously
displeased with my comments, interrupted me.
Interestingly enough, when discussing infant cereals, Dr.
Yetley had, herself, previously provided support for the NHF
position when she stated, "There should be no upper limit for
fiber because there is no adverse effect." Her comment was
certainly true and certainly applicable to vitamin and mineral
supplements as well. Perhaps at next year's meeting she will
expand her position to include supplements.
The Codex session on vitamins and minerals ended rather
abruptly at 8:30 p.m. amidst chairman-generated confusion as
to whether the Committee would continue the next morning in a
special session. The delegates almost uniformly objected and,
so, after spending only a little more than one hour on the
issue of vitamins and minerals, the Committee deferred the
topic for the next year.
Because of some internal structural changes in the German host
organization, there are rumors that both the chairman and the
city location will be different next year. Some have predicted
that next year's meeting will be held in Bonn, Germany instead
of in Berlin and that Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, who is definitely
not liked by many delegates, will be replaced by another
German technocrat. Time will tell.
How Much Freedom?
In the meantime, though, what is clear is that the momentum
has shifted away from very restrictive limits on vitamin and
mineral potencies to more liberal limits. While some, such as
the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), seem to think
that risk-assessment based limits will mean no limits in many
cases, I am not so trusting of orthodox science. Remember,
these are the same men and women who think that niacin
flushing is a deleterious effect that requires potency limits
on niacin! Besides, what kind of person can accept and be
comfortable with any kinds of chains? It's like saying that we
should accept a curfew of 10 p.m. because it is so much better
than one of 7 p.m.
My own prediction is that the Codex Alimentarius process will
take so long that it will only briefly take effect or else be
discarded into the dustbin of history as major historical
events such as war, resurgent nationalism, and trade
protectionism overtake it. Unfortunately, the obvious
alternative of an international free market in dietary
supplements that lets the consumer freely choose for himself
or herself what to put into his or her own body is not
seriously discussed or considered. Yet, such freedom, as it
always has been, is the best way to health and prosperity.
