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.
