The
Natural Solutions Foundation reported after the
July 2005 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome that a
"miracle" had occurred, and that
World Health Organization
(WHO) and the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) had expressed "significant
displeasure with the anti-health approach to nutrition taken by Codex over
the past 4 decades."
The Natural Solutions Foundation's reports also claimed,
variously, that a WHO Under Secretary for Food Safety had spoken
"sternly, sharply and scathingly of the fact that little contribution to
human health had been made by Codex"; that WHO had stated that
"things would be different in the future"; that the
Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling and the
Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses are going
to be redefined; that "Codex
will implement the WHO Global Strategy for world health through diet,
physical exercise and nutrition"; and that "Codex
will make a yearly report to the World Health Assembly about its progress
in implementing the WHO Strategy".
So, is there any truth behind these claims? In the following
article we attempt to set the record straight, and describe how the
Natural Solutions Foundation's assertions are largely either mistaken or
exaggerated.
Financial and budgetary matters
The majority of the confusion surrounding the claim that a “miracle”
occurred in Rome this year relates to three specific discussions that
occurred during the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s meetings.
The first of these discussions related to financial and budgetary matters.
During this debate, three speeches were made by officials from the WHO: in
each case the significance of which was subsequently either overstated or
misunderstood by the health freedom community.
Dr. Jorgen Schlundt was the initial WHO representative to speak on this
issue, and an excerpt from his speech is reproduced below:
In order to also strengthen the Codex mechanism itself we initiated
together with FAO the evaluation of Codex, and the outcome of that
evaluation was taken to the World Health Assembly, who clearly stated,
again a clear statement of the importance of Codex, and, the importance of
the WHO support to Codex.
As a result, the WHO contribution to the Codex budget increased by 26
percent, from 02/03 to 04/05, and the FAO contribution increased with
this, approximately with the same percentage.
So, I think, if you look at the figures, they give the clear picture that
the mother and father, or is it two mothers, or…..are really providing a
lot to the kid. We would now also hope that the kid will be able to
deliver at the end.
And might I here also just put in a small remark that when the outcome of
the Codex evaluation came out, and when the discussions were there in the
World Health Assembly, there was a clear direction that we need to do more
for human health through the Codex mechanism.
We would hope that some of these initiatives that have been going on over
the last six years would also result in some tangible outcomes, so that we
can show the world that Codex is actually helping also in relation to
public health.
But I think the figures show the picture that there is a commitment, and
that there has been, over that long period, a strategic redirection of
funding into scientific advice and into the Codex system.
We would hope then also in the future that we would be able to attract
maybe more extra-budgetary funding for the scientific advice needed for
Codex, because, as we have stated several times, also at this meeting, the
needs for scientific advice are clearly increasing.
Transcript from part of a meeting held in Rome, Italy, on Tuesday 5th
July, 2005
Note that although Dr. Schlundt was of the opinion that “we need to do
more for human health”, he did not actually criticize Codex. In fact, he
specifically talked about “the importance of Codex”, and stated his hope
that WHO would be able to attract “more extra-budgetary funding for the
scientific advice needed for Codex”.
Significantly, therefore, and as we shall see, with regard to what he
described as the “initiatives that have been going on over the last six
years”, along with the need he expressed to “ show the world that Codex is
actually helping also in relation to public health”, it soon became
apparent that Dr. Schlundt was primarily referring here to Codex work on
microbiological risk assessment and biotechnology, as opposed to
nutrition.
Later in this discussion, a second WHO representative spoke up, in
response to a number of countries who had expressed their dissatisfaction
with the lower level of funding provided by WHO to Codex compared to that
of FAO. Her speech is reproduced below:
I have to answer for the record that we hear you but I don’t think you go
about it in the right way.
This is not going to work because the Executive Board of Codex and the
Commission are going to be perceived by WHO governing bodies as an
interested party.
So you are asking the governing bodies of WHO, as an interested party, to
increase a share in our budget for your work.
Now, if WHO would always listen to all the external interested parties, I
can assure you our budget would be blown in no time.
So I think the only way forward is that you go back home and you talk to
your colleagues in ministries of health, and you ask them to speak up in
the WHO Executive Board and in the World Health Assembly, and that they
ask this, because at the last WHO World Health Assembly guess how many
Member States represented by ministries of health spoke on the issue of
Codex? One!
One Member State asked a question.
And that is just the truth of the matter.
What I, from the Secretariat have to tell you, is that WHO, at this point,
the Secretariat, the Director-General, is allocating 2 percent of the
overall budget to food safety work in the organization.
Now please do go back and ask your colleagues in ministries of health how
much of their budget goes to food safety-related work, and I’m sure you
will have a very, very harsh awakening.
So I think if you want to get away from just griping about not getting
enough money from the health community, we have to do it the proper way,
and the proper way is that those that represent your countries in the
governing bodies of WHO need to speak up on this.
For now, I can only assure you that we in the Secretariat are doing our
damnest to get the funds that you need in…..from us to get the scientific
advice, and to the support of the Codex machinery.
Transcript from part of a meeting held in Rome, Italy, on Tuesday 5th
July, 2005
This WHO representative’s manner was a little different to that of Dr.
Schlundt, and could arguably be described as ever so slightly “stern.”
Indeed, some might even go so far as to describe it as just a little
“sharp”. However, in no way could her speech be described as even remotely
“scathing”, and at no point did she state that “things would be different
in the future.”
Note too that she was actually sympathetic to the requests for more money
to come from the WHO to Codex, as particularly shown by the final sentence
of her speech. Her main point, however, was clearly that the WHO Executive
Board and the World Health Assembly are the correct venues in which to
frame requests for increased funding, and that a meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was not the place to do this.
Finally, just before the end of this agenda item, Dr. Schlundt spoke up
again, and talked about $1.6 million that WHO had put into Codex in 2001
for work on microbiological risk assessment. An except from this speech
follows below:
…..I just have to add to this that when there is a reference to the level
that we had in 0001, which was very high as you can see in table 1, it was
1.6 million, that was extra money put into this so that we could start up
microbiological risk assessment.
So we did Salmonella, Camplylobacter, Vibrio…..and Lysteria. And we put
them out very, very quickly into the Codex system. We initiated work on
biotechnology, and we put it directly into the biotech task force.
Now, we also need, I think also, the World Health Assembly also needs to
see that something is then happening to this extra influx of money. And
it’s difficult if we cannot see that something is happening with this
extra influx.
It would be difficult to make the arguments in the World Health Assembly
where the countries, you, all your countries, also had to take all the
other priorities into consideration.
So we hope, you know, that we can also really see some outcome out of the
extra money that was actually put in here from WHO.
Transcript from part of a meeting held in Rome, Italy, on Tuesday 5th
July, 2005
Apparently, therefore, Dr. Schlundt’s intention here was simply to make
the point that it would be difficult to argue for more money from WHO at
the World Health Assembly until such time as the work on microbiological
risk assessment and biotechnology has been completed and its outcome
apparent. As such it is clear that in his earlier speech, where he
expressed the need to “ show the world that Codex is actually helping also
in relation to public health”, he was almost certainly not thinking
principally about nutrition.
Just as importantly, however, it can also be seen that once again Dr.
Schlundt was neither criticizing Codex nor expressing displeasure with it.
The WHO Global Strategy on Diet Physical Activity and Health
The second discussion at the Codex meeting in Rome that has seemingly been
widely misreported relates to the WHO Global Strategy on Diet Physical
Activity and Health.
Prior to the Codex meeting, WHO, in cooperation with FAO, had prepared a
discussion paper entitled “Implementation of the WHO Global Strategy on
Diet, Physical Activity and Health: Action that Could be Taken by Codex”.
Paragraph eleven of this paper made the following observation:
Recognizing that the dietary goals of the Global Strategy have been based
on the advances and improved understanding within the field of nutrition,
it is possible that the Global Strategy in particular, but other
nutrition-related interests in general, would benefit if consideration
were given to the possibility of considering amendments to the terms of
reference of CCFL and/or CCNFSDU or to establish an ad hoc task force, as
appropriate. Related issues may include mechanisms for seeking scientific
advice and strategies for dealing with the increased need for data
collection and monitoring activities.
Transcript from part of a meeting held in Rome, Italy, on Tuesday 7th
July, 2005
However, the existence of this paragraph in the WHO/FAO discussion paper
appears to have been the subject of a great deal of misunderstanding
amongst some sections of the health freedom community, as at no time
during the meetings in Rome did anybody actually state that that the terms
of reference of the two Codex committees, CCFL (Codex Committee on Food
Labelling) and CCNFSDU (Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special
Dietary Uses), were going to be changed. And, just as importantly, nor was
it stated that Codex would either “ implement the WHO Global Strategy for
world health through diet, physical exercise and nutrition”, or develop a
“relationship with nutrition as demanded by WHO.”
During the meeting, the WHO/FAO paper was introduced by Dr. Ingrid Keller
of the WHO, who described it as follows:
This strategy is a comprehensive set of policy options that countries can
adopt, as appropriate, and in their national circumstances, and the
strategy recognizes that actions to prevent chronic diseases are needed at
international, regional, national, community and individual levels.
In endorsing the strategy, WHO calls upon the Codex Alimentarius
Committee, and I quote here, “to continue to give full consideration,
within the framework of its operational mandate, to evidence-based action
it might take to improve the health standards of foods consistent with the
aims and objectives of the strategy.”
At the 55 th Session of the Executive Committee of Codex it was agreed to
ask WHO and FAO to prepare a document highlighting the actions that could
be taken by Codex, in the framework of its mandate, to facilitate the
implementation of the Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and
Health, which is document LIM/6.
In preparing this paper, WHO and FAO recognize that the Global Strategy is
a relatively new strategy, that the relevant issues need further analysis
and consultation, and that coordination of ongoing activities is needed.
Two Codex Committees seem to be directly germane to the issues raised by
this global strategy, which are CCFL and CCNFSDU. So WHO therefore invites
the Commission to adopt the recommendations of the Codex Executive
Committee, for WHO and FAO to produce a more focussed document for
consideration by CCFL and CCNFSDU.
Transcript from part of a meeting held in Rome, Italy, on Tuesday 7th
July, 2005
As can be seen, therefore, Dr. Keller stated that action taken by Codex
should be considered “within the framework of its operational mandate”,
and merely invited the Codex Alimentarius Commission to recommend that WHO
and FAO should “produce a more focussed document for consideration by CCFL
and CCNFSDU.”
World Health Assembly Resolution on Infant and Young Children Nutrition
The third discussion at the Codex meeting in Rome that has seemingly been
widely misreported relates to a debate regarding a recent World Health
Assembly Resolution, WHA58.32, on Infant and Young Children Nutrition,
whereby the Director General of WHO was requested to:
….. report to the Health Assembly each even year, along with the report on
the status of implementation of the International Code of Marketing of
Breast-milk Substitutes and the relevant resolutions of the Health
Assembly, on progress in the consideration of matters referred to the
Codex Alimentarius Commission for its action.
Transcript from part of a meeting held in Rome, Italy, on Tuesday 7th
July, 2005
During this debate, Dr. Schlundt, of the WHO, described how the
Resolution, passed in May 2005, requires the Director-General of WHO to
report to the World Health Assembly (WHA) every two years - not each year
as has been claimed - on progress in the consideration of matters referred
to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for its action.
Of course, although this WHA Resolution was clearly passed in the context
of nutrition for infants and young children its’ wording indicates that
the Director-General’s report will encompass the entire range of work
carried out at Codex.
Nevertheless, at no time during the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s debate
on this issue was this development discussed as being either directly or
indirectly related to the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity
and Health. Indeed, the WHO Global Strategy was not even mentioned during
this debate. As such, although the Director-General’s report would clearly
include mention of any work carried out by Codex in relation to the Global
Strategy, it would be incorrect to assume that the two issues, the report
and the Global Strategy, are directly related.
We would therefore contend that the claim that “Codex will make a yearly
report to the World Health Assembly about its progress in implementing the
WHO Strategy” is unfortunately somewhat misleading.
Conclusion
To summarize, WHO and FAO did not express “significant displeasure with
the anti-health approach to nutrition taken by Codex over the past 4
decades” at this meeting. Moreover, neither did they state that “little
contribution to human health had been made by Codex”, or that “things
would be different in the future.”
In addition, although a paper prepared in advance of the meeting by WHO
and FAO had suggested that consideration could be given to the possibility
of considering amendments to the terms of reference of CCFL and/or CCNFSDU,
this matter was not brought up at the Codex meeting itself. Indeed, and as
the transcripts and recordings from the discussions on the Global Strategy
clearly demonstrate, both the UK (speaking for the 25 countries of the
European Union) and the United States appeared to be of the opinion that
the current Codex mandate should be retained.
As such, therefore, although it is certainly possible that Codex will
participate in the implementation of the Global Strategy, it presently
seems likely that this work would be carried out within the current terms
of its mandate, and that as such it is likely to pay little real attention
to nutrition and dietary supplements.
In conclusion therefore, it can be seen that there was no “miracle” at
Codex this year.
Finally, if you are still in any doubt regarding any of these issues, we
would urge you to examine the full transcripts of these Codex sessions by
clicking on the links below each of the quoted extracts above, and to
listen to the relevant audio recordings that can be accessed via the links
at the end of each transcript.
Original article may be found at:
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex-miracle.htm
