by Brandon Turbeville
Excerpt from Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom
2010-2011
from
ActivistPost Website
German version
|
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina.
He has a
Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee
Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate.
He has had numerous articles
published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health,
economics, and civil liberties.
He is also the author of
Codex Alimentarius
- The End of Health Freedom |
Part 1
Codex Alimentarius
November 17, 2010
Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy.
It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the
Food and
Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization under the
direction of
the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due
to statements made by many critics referring to the “implementation” of
Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect.
A
more accurate phrase would be the “implementation of Codex Alimentarius
guidelines,” as it would more adequately describe the situation.
Codex is merely another tool in the chest of an elite group of individuals
whose goal is to create a one world government in which they wield complete
control. Power over the food supply is essential in order to achieve this.
As will be discussed later, Codex Alimentarius will be “implemented”
whenever guidelines are established and national governments begin to
arrange their domestic laws in accordance with the standards set by the
organization.
The existence of Codex Alimentarius as a policy-making body has roots going
back over a hundred years.
The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is Latin for
“food code” [1] and directly descended from the
Codex Alimentarius Austriacus,
a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the
Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911.[2]
This set of standards was
the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the
courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion.
Even as far back as 1897, nations were being pushed toward harmonization of
national laws into an international set of standards that would reduce the
“barriers to trade” created by differences in national laws.[3]
As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localized area, the idea of
having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up steam as
well.
From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the
Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius). Almost immediately
the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action
when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a
global international set of standards for food.
The FAO Regional Conference
then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the
suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO program dealing with food standards.
The very next year, the Codex Alimentarius Europeaus adopted a resolution
that its work on food standards be taken over by the FAO.
In 1961, it was
decided by,
...to create an
international food standards program known as the Codex Alimentarius.[4]
In 1963, as a result of the resolutions passed by these organizations two
years earlier, Codex Alimentarius was officially created.[5]
Although created under the auspices of the FAO and the WHO, there is some
controversy regarding individuals who may or may not have participated in
the establishment of Codex. Many anti-Codex organizations have asserted that
Nazi war criminals, Fritz Ter Meer [6] and Hermann Schmitz [7] in particular,
were principal architects of the organization.
Because many of these claims
are made with only indirect evidence, or no evidence at all, one might be
tempted to disregard them at first glance. However, as the allegations gain
more and more adherents, Codex has attempted to refute them.
In its
Frequently Asked Questions section, Codex answers the question,
“Is it true
that Codex was created by a former war criminal to control the world food
supply?” [8]
It then goes on to answer the charges by stating:
No. It is a false claim. You just need to type the words "Codex Alimentarius"
in any search engine and you will find lots of these rumors about Codex.
Usually the people spreading them will give no proof but will ask you to
send donations or to sign petitions against Codex.
Truthful information about Codex is found on the Internet - there is nothing
to hide from our side - we are a public institution working in public for
the public - we are happy if people want to know more about our work and ask
questions. There is an official Codex Contact Point in each member country
who will be pleased to answer your questions on Codex.[9]
But, as one can see from the statement above, Codex’s response does very
little to answer this question beyond simply disagreeing with it.
While it
is true that many individuals who make this claim provide little evidence
for it, the presentation of the information does not necessarily negate its
truthfulness.
In fact, Codex offers its own website as a source for accurate
information about the organization; yet, beyond the FAQ section, there is
nothing to be found that is relevant to the “war criminal” allegations.
Furthermore, the codexalimentarius.net website is virtually indecipherable,
almost to the point of being completely useless. In the end, this response
raises more questions than it answers.
This is because Codex, if it wanted,
could put these rumors to rest by simply posting a list of the individuals
and organizations that funded or played an integral role in its creation.
However, it does nothing of the sort. Beyond mentioning the FAO and the WHO,
we are completely unaware of who or how many other individuals and
organizations participated in the creation of Codex Alimentarius.
The “war criminal” claims center around the chemical conglomerate known as
I.G. Farben.
I.G. Farben was made up of several German chemical firms
including,
-
BASF
-
Bayer
-
Hoechst
-
AGFA,[10]
...that merged together.
It was
essentially the manufacturing wing of the Third Reich and was the engine
behind the Nazi war machine.
The company provided the vast majority of
explosives and synthetic gasoline used for the military conquest and murder
of millions.
It also manufactured the now infamous
Zyklon-B gas used in the
gas chambers. Not only that, but it was influential in the conducting of
experiments on concentration camp victims. Indeed, camp victims were often
purchased outright at the behest of the company for the express purposes of
testing by several different branches of the company, particularly Bayer and
Hoechst.
Without I.G. Farben, the German wars simply could not have been sustained.
During the Nuremberg war trials, the tribunal convicted 24 board members and
executives of the company and dissolved it into several different daughter
companies. Namely, BASF, Hoechst (later to be known as Aventis), and Bayer.
By 1951, virtually all 24 of these executives were released, including Fritz Ter Meer and
Hermann Schmitz.
Ter Meer had been a member of the I.G. Farben
executive committee from 1926-1945 and also a member of the working
committee and the technical committee as well as a director of the infamous
Section II. He was also the ambassador to Italy given full power by the
Reich Minister for armaments and war production and was the industrialist
most responsible for Auschwitz. Schmitz was also a member of the I.G. Farben
executive committee from 1926-1935, and was chairman of the board and “head
of finances” from 1935-1945.
He was also head of military economics and a
member of the Nazi party. Both men were found guilty by the Nuremberg war
tribunal in 1948, yet Schmitz was released in 1950 and Ter Meer in 1952.[11]
After all this, Schmitz was appointed board member of the German bank of
Berlin West in 1952 and in 1956, the honorary chairman of the board of
Rheinish steel plants. Ter Meer, however, was even more successful. Upon his
release, he was appointed board member of Bayer in 1955 and, in 1956 was
appointed chairman.
In the years following, he would take on many additional
roles such as chairman of the board of Theodore Goldschmidt AG, deputy
chairman of the board of Commerzbank and Bank-Association AG, as well as a
board member of the Waggonfabrik Uerdingen, Duesseldorger Waggonfabrik AG,
the bank association of West Germany, and United Industrial Enterprises
AG.[12]
These are documented connections for both of these men. Indeed, Ter
Meer’s’ connections to the pharmaceutical firm Bayer earned him a foundation
named in his honor, the Fritz Ter-Meer Foundation.[13]
Through all of this
however, this writer could not confirm that either Ter Meer or Schmitz had
direct connections to the creation of Codex Alimentarius.
However, Codex does nothing to dispel the allegations besides simply
disagreeing with them and the connections are not at all implausible. Codex
is very secretive about its beginnings, as evidenced on its website where it
only states that it was created at the behest of the FAO and the WHO. It is
highly unlikely that such an organization would be created without the
assistance, input, and even funding of privately owned international
corporations.
Thanks to both the anti-Codex community and Codex Alimentarius
itself, there is no evidence (again at least to this author) that documents
which individuals or corporations were involved in its establishment.
However, there are other ties that lend more credence to the belief that war
criminals played a role in the creation of Codex.
NOTES
[1] Tips, Scott C. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” FHR. 2007.
P. ii.
[2] “Opening Statement by Dr. B.P. Dutia Assistant Director-General Economic
and Social Policy Department, FAO to the Nineteenth Session of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission.” Food and Agricultural Organization. July 1, 1991.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/005/t0490e/T0490E04.htm
See also,
Taylor, Paul Anthony. “Codex Guidelines for Vitamins and Minerals - Optional
or Mandatory?” Dr.Rath Health Foundation.
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/codex_wto.html
[3] “Codex Alimentarius: how it all began.” Food and Agricultural
Organization. http://www.fao.org/docrep/v7700t/v7700t09.htm
[4] “Understanding the Codex Alimentarius.” World Health Organization. Food
and Agricultural Organization. 2006. P. 7 http://www.scribd.com/doc/25710873/WHO-Understanding-the-Codex-Alimentarius
[5] Tips, Scott C. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” FHR. 2007.
P.ii
[6] “The History of the ‘Business With Disease.’” Dr. Rath Health
Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm
[7] Minton, Barbara. “Codex Threatens Health of Billions.” Naturalnews. July
30, 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/026731_CODEX_food_health.html
[8] “FAQs - Rumours” CodexAlimentarius.net http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/faq_rum.jsp#R1
[9] Ibid.
[10] Behreandt, Dennis. “The crimes of I.G. Farben: during WWII, I.G. Farben,
a synthetic-fuels manufacturer for the German war machine, was a major
supporter of the Nazi regime and a willing co-conspirator in the Holocaust.”
The New American. November 27, 2006. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_24_22/ai_n24996865/
See also,
“The Documentation About ‘Codex Alimentarius.’” Dr. Rath Health Foundation.
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/health_movement_against_codex/health_movement24.htm
[11] “The History of the ‘Business With Disease.’” Dr. Rath Health
Foundation. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/history_of_the_pharmaceutical_industry.htm.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Weimbs Lab: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology University of
California, Santa Barbra. http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/mcdb/labs/weimbs/people/weimbs/index.html. Dr. Thomas Weimbs received a scholarship from the
Fritz ter Meer Foundation in 1988.
Part 2
The Health Tyrants - Codex Alimentarius
November 22, 2010
The health commission of Codex Alimentarius, and the subsequent legislation
to come from it, has provable roots to,
Let's put forth a few of the names and
philosophies of the tyrants responsible for this proposed global health
tyranny.
I.G. Farben was not isolated to Germany.
Not only were they a conglomerate
of Bayer, Hoechst, BASF and other companies, I.G. Farben was also welded to
Shell Oil of Britain and Standard Oil and DuPont of the United States by
1929. This occurred after I.G. Farben discovered how to make petroleum out
of coal. Subsequently, there was an agreement for I.G. Farben to stay out of
the petroleum market if Standard Oil would stay out of the chemical
market.[1]
Hermann Schmitz, who was chairman of the board for I.G. Farben, as mentioned
above, had a large amount of stock in Standard Oil New Jersey, while the
Rockefeller Foundation likewise owned a substantial amount of stock in I.G.
Farben.[2]
So much stock that when I.G. Farben’s holdings were completely
sold off in 1962,
the Rockefellers were the dominant holders involved in the
transactions.[3] This is significant because the Rockefeller Foundation and
the Rockefeller family in general were major supporters not just of the Nazi
regime and eugenics, but the creation of the United Nations.[4]
Indeed, the connections between the Rockefellers and the atrocities of Nazi
Germany, Communist Russia, and Communist China are so plentiful as to
preclude them from being dealt with in much detail in this article. This
evidence is readily available to anyone who wishes to investigate and is
made much easier because, in large part, the Rockefellers do not deny it.
In
addition to open support for eugenics, the Rockefellers are also committed
globalists, again a philosophy which is readily admitted.
The Rockefeller
connections to globalist organizations such as,
...to name a
few are widely documented and discussed. Indeed, it was John D. Rockefeller
that donated the land on which the United Nations headquarters was built.[8]
As one digs deeper and deeper into the history of the United Nations and
even the concept of globalization itself, one encounters more and more of
the Rockefeller family tree along the way.
It eventually becomes obvious
that the Rockefellers, along with other elite families, had a vested
interest in the creation of an international governing body as well as a
powerful hand in its creation through organizations such as those mentioned
above, specifically,
All of these groups and
organizations exist for the stated purpose of world government, with the UN
in particular being a vital piece of the infrastructure used to facilitate
it.
Indeed, much evidence has shown definite links between these
organizations and the creation of the United Nations.[10]
But eliciting perhaps even more concern, especially since the Rockefeller
family has as much control as it does, is their obsession with eugenics. It
seems that the Rockefeller family has been involved in the eugenics movement
since the inception of its more modern form. To be clear, eugenics is the
pseudo-scientific theory that some humans are hereditarily more fit than
others and that those deemed unfit should be eradicated through various
means.
Its contemporary form originated with Charles Darwin’s
theory of
evolution and natural selection, but gained more steam when Sir Francis
Galton (a cousin of Darwin’s) began to push these theories with increased
vigor.
Galton also claimed that if fit or talented human beings would only
marry other fit or talented human beings then the end result would be much
more fit and talented offspring.
At the same time Darwin and Galton’s
theories were being considered, the idea of heredity was being given more
attention as well. Yet, in just a few years, what were mainly just bizarre
theories came to be not only accepted but turned into a mass movement of
eugenics that resulted in forced sterilizations, abortions, euthanasia and
even infanticide in the United States.
This was years before these practices
were introduced and intensified in Germany. In fact, it was the United
States that Hitler took as a model for his own plan to eliminate “unfits.”
These practices blossomed in the years before World War II due to large
scale acceptance of eugenics in academia and the media as well as massive
funding from hereditary elite families such as the Rockefellers and
Carnegies.[11]
Though certainly not the only proponents of eugenics, these families played
an immensely important role in its expansion. The Rockefeller Foundation
alone funded the American Eugenics Society to the point where its own
eugenics foundation, the Rockefeller Population Council, was virtually
indistinguishable from it.
The Foundation funded the Eugenics Society, which
eventually changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology,
the name that it currently holds. Rockefeller also helped to create and
subsequently fund the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the
Kaiser
Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity.[12]
The latter was directly responsible for the coordination, funding, and
implementation of the program in which Josef Mengele worked prior to his
infamous experiments at Auschwitz.[13]
Indeed, many of the experiments
themselves were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation via the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity.[14]
Through the
Bureau of Social Hygiene, another Rockefeller eugenics foundation, John D.
Rockefeller also anonymously funded the notorious racist, eugenicist, and
abortion pioneer Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, Birth
Control Clinical Research Bureau, and Planned Parenthood of America.[15]
Sanger was the initiator of
The Negro Project, a concerted effort to
eliminate the black race.
In a 1939 letter to Clarence Gamble she wrote,
“We
do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population
and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever
occurs to their more rebellious members.” [16]
In 1939, Sanger renamed her
Clinical Research Bureau to the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, both
integral institutions to the Negro Project, which became the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America in 1942, its current name as it exists
today.[17]
Considering the many connections of the Rockefellers to the United Nations
and their role in its creation, it would seem logical that the two would
share ideals. Indeed, population control and reduction is one of the main
concerns of the UN as they fund and operate a variety of different
organizations under the UN umbrella to serve just that purpose; most notably
the United Nations Population Fund.[18]
Sven Burmester, a representative of
the latter organization, even stated publicly his support for the barbaric
practices of China’s population control programs. He said,
“China has had
the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in
terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favor.” [19]
This is only one example of the ideology that is pervasive among those
intricately involved in the United Nations and, unfortunately, much of the
scientific community.
Although little more will be said about the elite and
UN ideologies here, the evidence is readily available and it should be
researched in order to gain a clearer picture of the direction this system
of global governance is moving. When one has a basic understanding of the
connections between the Rockefellers and the UN, as well as the common
belief system of eugenics and population reduction, it is not such a stretch
to see traces of these elitists in the architecture of Codex Alimentarius.
Codex, after all, is an organization created under the FAO and WHO, which
are both under the jurisdiction of the UN. The connections between
the
Rockefellers and
the pharmaceutical industry and medical establishments also
serve as a motive for the destruction of the natural healthcare industry and
natural supplement access.[20]
However, this evidence is not presented in order to pin the goal of global
tyranny and mass population reduction on the backs of the Rockefeller family
alone.
The Rockefellers are not the only elite hereditary ruling class
family with this ideology, nor are they necessarily at the top of the heap
when it comes to the pecking order of those that are. The Rockefellers
themselves are only agents of individuals in even higher places, but who
manage to remain unseen.
Nevertheless, the Rockefeller connection to Codex
should not be ignored because in this case, as in many others, history
predicts the future.
The globalists plans of a one-world state built upon
eugenics were not born with Adolph Hitler and they certainly did not die
with him. It is as alive today as it ever was.
NOTES
[1] Griffin, G. Edward. “World Without Cancer.” 2nd edition. American Media.
1997. P. 235-236.
See Also,
Nield, Michael. “The
Police State Road Map.” March 2005, specifically, Chapter 2, “The
Great Trust.”
[2] Griffin, G. Edward. “World Without Cancer.” 2nd edition. American Media.
1997. P. 235-236.
See Also,
Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!” Tetrahedron.com.
2002
[3] Griffin, G. Edward. “World Without Cancer.” 2nd edition. American Media.
1997. P. 235-236.
[4] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!”
Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[5] National Park Service: Biographical Vignettes - John D. Rockefeller.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sontag/rockefeller.htm
[6] Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/about/people/international_advisory_board.html
[7] The Trilateral Commission: Membership. http://www.trilateral.org/memb.htm
[8] National Park Service: Biographical Vignettes - John D. Rockefeller.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/sontag/rockefeller.htm
[9] Marrs, Jim. “Rule By Secrecy.” Harper. 2000. Pp. 20-58.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Black, Edwin. “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.” History
News Network, George Mason University. November 11, 2003. http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
[12] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!”
Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[13] Black, Edwin. “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.” History
News Network, George Mason University. November 11, 2003. http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
[14] Chaitkin, Anton. “Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.!”
Tetrahedron.com. 2002 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.html
[15] Takeuchi, Aiko. “The Transnational Politics of Public Health and
Population Control: The Rockefeller Foundation’s Role in Japan, 1920’s - 1950’s.” Rockefeller Archives. 2009. http://www.rockarch.org/publications/resrep/takeuchi.pdf
[16] “Birth Control or Race Control?” Margaret Sanger Papers Project #28,
Fall 2001. New York University. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html
[17] “Birth Control Organizations - American Birth Control League - About
Margaret Sanger.” New York University. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/secure/aboutms/organization_abcl.html
[18] United Nations Population Fund website. http://www.unfpa.org/public/about
Accessed April 29, 2010.
[19] Watson, Steve; Watson, Paul Joseph; Jones, Alex. “Professor’s ‘Kill 90%
of Population’ Comments Echo UN, Elite NGO Policies.” April 4, 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406_b_depopulation.htm
[20] “Medisin.” Whitaker, Scott; Fleming, Jose. Divine Protection
Publications. 2007. Pp. 12-14.
See Also:
Rockwell, Llewellyn Jr. “Medical Control, Medical Corruption.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/medical.html
Part 3
Structure of Health Tyranny - Codex Alimentarius
December 2, 2010
Nevertheless, the eight-step
procedure is described as follows by the FAO/WHO Codex Training Package:
-
Step 1 - The Commission decides to elaborate a standard and assigns the work
to a committee. A decision to elaborate a standard may also be taken by a
committee.
-
Step 2 - The Secretariat arranges the preparation of a proposed draft
standard.
-
Step 3 - The proposed draft standard is sent to governments and
international organizations for comment.
-
Step 4 - The Secretariat forwards comments to the Committee.
-
Step 5 - The proposed draft standard is sent to the Commission through the
Secretariat for adoption as a draft standard.
-
Step 6 - The draft standard is sent to governments and international
organizations for comment.
-
Step 7 - The Secretariat forwards comments to the committee.
-
Step 8 - The draft standard is submitted to the Commission through the
Secretariat for adoption as a Codex Standard.[6]
Essentially, the Commission introduces a standard to be debated, at which
point the designated committee takes up the standard and creates a draft of
the guidelines.
This draft is circulated to member countries who comment on
it. These comments are reviewed and potentially incorporated into the next
draft which is then adopted by the committee. This draft is then
redistributed to member countries for comment. The committee then adopts the
guidelines and sends them to the Commission for final approval.
Both the
Commission and the committee can require that the draft guideline be pushed
back to a previous step if it so desires.[7]
While one might at first be tempted to accuse Codex of being bogged down in
bureaucracy, this setup is only for show. Like most of the international
organizations that set global agendas, bureaucracy exists only to confuse
the lower level participants that engage in virtually meaningless debates
during the meetings. When an agenda is meant to be pushed through,
bureaucracy doesn't hinder it at all. As mentioned earlier, all that is
needed is the illusion of consensus and one is declared, even if the
illusion itself is weak.
Codex Alimenarius is a true health tyranny: from its ideological
foundations, to its connections with key players within dictatorial regimes
and eugenics movements, to its hierarchical structure which restricts
openness and debate.
Only by exposing this committee and its stated goals
can we hope to restore our health freedom.
NOTES
[1] “What is Codex?” American Holistic Health Association, http://ahha.org/codex1.htm
[2] Franzon, Ingrid. “Report from the Thai Codex Meeting.” Codex
Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism. Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR 2007. Pp. 199.
[3] Codex Alimentarius: Committees and Task Forces
- General Subject
Committees. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/codex_alimentarius/General_Subject_Committees/index.asp
[4] MacKenzie, Anne A. “The Process of Developing Labeling Standards for GM
Foods In The Codex Alimentarius.” AgBioForum - Vol.3 Number 4, 2000. Pp.
203-208
[5] Codex Alimentarius - USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Codex_Alimentarius/index.asp
[6] “FAO/WHO Training Package - Section Two: Understanding the Organization
of Codex” CodexEurope.
[7] “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR.
2007.
Part 4
The Language of Health Tyranny
Decoding the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines
For Vitamins and Supplements
December 17, 2010
Perhaps the most publicized aspect of Codex Alimentarius is the threat it
poses to free access to vitamin and mineral supplements.
While there are
varying opinions on the effects the Codex guidelines would have on dietary
supplements, there is little debate about the fact that these effects would
be detrimental. At best, the guidelines will reduce dose levels to minuscule
amounts too small to be beneficial, as well as causing the prices to
skyrocket for both consumers and producers.[1]
However, a more frightening scenario is possible and, unfortunately, quite
likely. When one examines the evidence, it is clear that the effects of the
Codex guidelines will do more than just reduce the level of nutrients
available in supplements. The truth is that it will actually go so far as to
list vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other nutrients as toxins, while at the
same time listing dangerous chemicals as nutrients.
The committee charged with completing this task is the Codex Committee on
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, until recently.
In 2005, and in the face of much opposition from
the informed pro-supplement and natural health community, the CCNFSDU
approved The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, the set of
rules by which vitamin and mineral supplements may very well be removed from
the market.[2]
The Natural Health Federation (NHF) and the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH)
have traditionally been the most vocal opponents of Codex’s attempts.
However, it appears that these organizations, as well as the many others
that oppose Codex such as the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF), are
fighting a losing battle. While these groups and individuals spend countless
amounts of money and energy fighting this global tyranny, their efforts
amount to little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
At
this point, their work focuses on lessening the blow from the Codex
guidelines. Unfortunately, it does nothing to stop the blow from coming, nor
does it protect against subsequent heavier blows. While these statements are
not meant to belittle their work, it is meant to show that the battle is not
within Codex itself, but outside of it.
That said, the idea that nutrients (vitamins and minerals) will be
considered as toxins is not readily apparent even when reading the actual
guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. Nowhere in the
guidelines is it stated that “nutrients will be listed as toxins.” However,
as with most governmental and institutional mandates, it is hidden within
coded language and meticulous directives.
Such a technicality exists in this
instance in the form of risk assessment; the technique specified by Codex to
evaluate the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements. In section 3.2.2
(a), the Guidelines state:
Upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals [should be] established by
scientific risk assessment based on generally accepted scientific data,
taking into consideration, as appropriate, the varying degrees of
sensitivity of different consumer groups. [3]
Risk assessment, while seemingly benign, is actually crucial to the ability
of Codex to justify the ban of vitamin and mineral supplements.
This concept
works on the assumption that the item being tested is inherently dangerous
and toxic. This method is completely the opposite of what should be used
when evaluating vitamins and minerals.
As Dr. Rima Laibow states in her
article "'Nutraceuticide' and Codex Alimentarius:"
This use of risk assessment, of course, represents a major deflection from
the real use and value of risk assessment, which is to make sure that people
are not exposed to the dangerous industrial chemicals that have serious and
sometimes lethal effects on them and their children.[4]
By applying “scientific risk assessment” to nutrients and supplements, they
are essentially considering them toxins as they are lumped into the same
category as chemicals and poisons.
There is no need to explicitly state that
“nutrients are toxins.” This is done by default. So, in the end, we have the
categorization of vitamins and minerals that are essential to human health
and life as something that is actually toxic. In this sense, we are entering
the world of doublethink.
Regardless, this is the position of Codex, as well as the position of the
U.S. Delegation throughout the discussion.[5]
Indeed, even many alleged
“health freedom” International Non-Governmental Organizations were either
gullible enough to be taken in by the promise of the benefits of risk
assessment, or morally bankrupt enough to be bought off by the
pharmaceutical industry or others who might benefit from the demise of the
natural supplement industry.
Yet, some of the support for risk assessment
methods early on seems to have been based on the fear of the implementation
of maximum limits proposed by European countries like France. These limits
would have reduced the potency level of each pill to no more than 15%
Recommended Daily Intake (RDI), a figure that is already set much too low.
[6]
Yet those who favored risk assessment seemed to jump from the frying pan
into the fire. As Scott Tips of the Natural Health Federation writes:
The so-called 'science-based risk assessment' for establishing Safe Upper
Limits (maximum levels) for vitamin-and-mineral potencies, to which the EU
has agreed, and about which the Americans are as happy as flies on cow dung,
is nothing but a trap. The Americans think that they will be able to get
real science to establish high maximum levels for their vitamins and
minerals and then sell them to European consumers by the bushels.
But by the
time the Europeans get through applying their science, those maximum limits
will be so low toddlers would be lucky to get any nutritional value out of
Codex-harmonized vitamins and minerals. The European Union’s Scientific
Committee on Food has already started using its science-based risk
assessment to establish laughably low maximum limits for European vitamins.
And, lately, I have begun to see a growing concern, if not outright fear, in
the faces of some science-based risk-assessment proponents that perhaps
things might not go their way here after all.[7]
Indeed, things are not going “their” way. That is, if the general wish is
that Codex would offer up new trade opportunities for American supplement
manufacturers in the form of a new European market.
To be sure, it takes
monumental ignorance to actually believe this. Nevertheless, trade
associations like the International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplements,
National Nutritional Foods Association, and even the Council for Responsible
Nutrition are proclaiming that Codex poses no threat to their access to
supplements and, specifically, to the DSHEA law which was passed in 1994.
In general, those individuals who rely on these organizations for their
knowledge of the legal and political workings of the industry take these
reports as truth, trusting them as “credible” sources. It should also be
noted that it is widely known that members of various natural
health/supplement trade organizations are increasingly being purchased by
the pharmaceutical industry themselves.
Once this is acknowledged, one can
understand more fully how disinformation spreads around the supplement
community and encourages apathy and a false sense of security among the
populace.[8]
Maximum Upper Limits on vitamins will be set for the few temporarily
remaining nutrients as well as the complete removal of others from
multi-vitamin supplements. The ramifications for human health and national
sovereignty will therefore be extremely destructive.
As always, this global
domination and subversion of national sovereignty will be done in the name
of trade, and the true aims of the perpetrators will be cloaked in flowery
language, wordplay, and semantics. It will also be done right under our
noses.
Notes
[1] “Codex Alimentarius: Codex - government and corporate control of our
food supply.” Alliance for Natural Health Europe. http://www.anhcampaign.org/campaigns/codex.
[2] “Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.”
Codexalimentarius.net http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10206/cxg_055e.pdf
[3] Ibid.
[4] Laibow, Rima. “’Nutraceuticide’ and Codex Alimentarius.” Alternative and
Complementary Therapies, October 2005. P. 227.
[5] Tips, Scott C. “Breathe Easier
- Codex Adjourns.” Codex Alimentarius:
Global Food Imperialism. Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR. 2007. P. 33.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Tips, Scott C. “A Meeting Of Two.” Codex Alimentarius: Global Food
Imperialsim. Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR. 2007. P. 101.
[8] Tips, Scott C. “The Maginot Mentality.” Codex Alimentarius: Global Food
Imperialism. Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR. 2007. P 220.
Part 5
S. 510 and Codex Alimentarius Link
Tracking, Tracing, and Monitoring
Independent Food Production
December 4, 2010
Regulated out of existence under S. 510
Being honest, I must confess some slight personal agitation at the thought
of writing another article on yet another “food safety” bill making its way
through congress with the words “tyranny” and “Codex” written all over it.
It seems that every legislative session, we are faced with the prospect of
the same food bill cloaked in a different name.
Invariably, this bill seeks
to corral all food production into the hands of a few major corporations and
essentially destroy the ability of the population to feed themselves.
Here
in late 2010, we have the new version of food imperialism known as S.510,
the Food Safety Modernization Act.
While it is true that S.510 contains new and improved tyrannical sections
that are unique specifically to it, the truth is that it is merely a
repackaging of past bills (See here and here ) and attempts to control
people through food. It is also yet another attempt to implement Codex
Alimentarius guidelines under the guise of domestic legislation.
One example of hidden Codex guidelines in the Food Safety Modernization Act
are the overly broad provisions regarding “traceability.”
The desire for
enhanced traceability of food products is sold to the public as a desire to
better respond to food-borne illnesses and follow them back to their source.
However, as with almost anything that comes out of the mouth of government,
there is a more sinister role that traceability programs have to play.
Essentially, traceability has little to do with food safety in this context.
While no one could argue being able to trace food contamination back to the
source is a bad thing, the fact is that these mechanisms already exist.
Unfortunately, they are generally ignored and unused when it comes to
adverse health effects related to food produced by multinational food
corporations. While there is always an exception to the rule, it is a fact
that international corporations are by far the source of food adulteration
more often than small independent farms.
The real reason behind traceability programs lies in the desire to monitor
where food is coming from to ensure that, in the future, it only comes from
large agribusiness. Hence, the new traceability procedures involve massive
financial, management, and bureaucratic burdens placed on the shoulders of
mainly small “food producers.”
It should be pointed out that, while it is true that major corporations
will also be burdened with these regulations (unless the Secretary exempts
them), it is also true that a company that makes billions in profits can
afford to deal with them. Your neighborhood farm down the road simply can’t.
For all the claims that small independent producers will be exempted, the
fact is that the “exemption” is merely semantics. Small independent
producers will be held to essentially the same guidelines as Big Agro. This
is because, in order to be exempted from the regulations as S.510, they have
to submit to similar regulations as the S.510 regulations themselves
dictate.
As Eric Blair points out in his article Why the Tester Amendment
Does NOT Help Small Food Producers Under S.510:
Those [S.510 Tester Amendment Exemption Requirements] bear a striking
resemblance to the ‘expensive’ food safety plans outlined in subsection (h)
of S.510 that small producers are supposedly exempt from. In other words,
they must submit similarly comprehensive plans just to qualify to be exempt
from creating them.
But it gets worse.
If Grandma wants to sell her famous
raspberry jam at the county fair (within 275 miles of her canning kitchen)
she will indeed be a small producer exemptions, but not before she forks
over 3 years of financials, documentation of hazard control plans, and local
licenses, permits, and inspection reports.
She must submit this
documentation to the satisfactory approval of the Secretary; and if she
fails to do so, the entirety of S.510 can be enforced on her.
That’s hardly
what I call an exemption.
He goes on to point out that the bill does not explicitly make it illegal to
sell food independently produced, but it does make it so cumbersome that
small producers will be unable to maintain compliance with the law.
While one could successfully argue that by forcing independent producers to
file information and obtain permits and licenses is in fact making the
production of food illegal, there is no doubt that small producers will be
forced out of business by the overbearing regulation.
Nevertheless, cumbersome traceability provisions have surfaced before in
other areas. In reading the traceability-related sections of S.510, there is
a striking similarity between the language of the bill and that of Codex
Alimentarius in its own proposed guidelines.
The HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point), a “food safety”
methodology used by Codex Alimentarius (and addressed in S.510), plays an
important role in the tracking, tracing, and monitoring of food production.
Under this system, food business operators (defined so broadly so as to
include both big agribusiness and recreational gardeners) are required to,
“identify any steps in their operations which are critical to the safety of
the food; implement effective control procedures at those steps; monitor
control procedures to ensure their continuing effectiveness; review control
procedures periodically and whenever the operations change.”
Likewise, in the document entitled, “Recommended International Code of
Practice General Principles of Food Hygiene,” Codex states that,
“Where
necessary, appropriate records of processing, production and distribution
should be kept and retained for a period that exceeds the shelf-life of the
product. Documentation can enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the
food safety control mechanism.”
Although the language of the bill and the
Codex document are not identical in every section, they are similar.
Unfortunately, this is all that is needed to initiate the implementation of
Codex Alimentarius guidelines in the United States.
However, there is yet another danger posed by S.510 in regards to Codex
Alimentarius. The fact that this bill provides the FDA, HHS, and even DHS
with even more authority over food production, transportation, and
consumption should be alarming enough.
But because these agencies often
respond to policy as much as they do law, the chances of Codex Alimentarius
guidelines being implemented domestically rises sharply. This is due to the
fact that no congressional approval would be needed to implement them.
Simply an executive order or change in policy from the executive branch or
even the FDA, HHS, or DHS acting independently would be enough to enact
Codex guidelines in the United States.
Because Codex Alimentarius guidelines are enforced by the WTO, any dispute
brought before the WTO and its dispute settlement board could essentially
force the United States to buckle under and implement Codex guidelines. With
the passage of S.510, the need to gain congressional approval for such a
change would be effectively erased.
Yet while Codex guidelines can be enforced through the WTO in one fell
swoop, it is much more likely that they will be implemented by stealth.
Introduced gradually and under the cover of domestic legislation, the chance
of organized public resistance is greatly reduced.
Without a doubt, the
majority of Americans have no idea what Codex Alimentarius actually is. In
fact, it is an unfortunate reality that the majority of the American public
have no idea what S.510 is. Even to the relatively informed individual, the
legislation is merely just another government power grab.
Little do they
know that is a major step forward on the path to a global dictatorship which
uses food as a weapon and a means of control.
Those who ridicule
activists and opponents of S.510 as paranoid conspiracy theorists march
unwittingly down a road which leads directly to just such a global tyranny
where food will be most definitely taken - but not for granted.
Part 6
The Methods of Health Tyranny
Codex Alimentarius "Risk Assessment" of Vitamins And
Nutritional Supplements
December 24, 2010
In the previous article I addressed the issue of
the language of “risk assessment” techniques used to determine the dangers
of consuming vitamin and mineral supplements as well as how this methodology
would be used to classify nutrients as toxins.
For the most part, I focused on the fact that
“risk assessment” is clearly an inappropriate testing method to apply toward
vitamins and minerals. This is because “risk assessment” is designed to be
applied to substances that are known to be toxic for the purpose of
establishing an upper safe levels of toxicity to them.
But there are other problems with the process of risk assessment as well.
First, the current methodologies are based upon the assessment of entire
groups of nutrients as opposed to the individual nutrients that make up the
group. This method is called the nutrient group approach, a method which
depends upon the lumping of many different forms of a nutrient into one
category rather than testing each individual form separately as is done for
toxic chemicals.[1]
An example would be assessing Vitamin B as a whole group.
Assessing Vitamin
B3, Vitamin B12, and Vitamin B6 as separate and individual nutrients is
called the nutrient form approach and would be the more rational method to
apply (even though risk assessment should not be used in the first place)
because the alleged risks posed by these supplements are themselves
dependent upon the form in which it occurs.
For instance, Vitamin C, in the form of ascorbic acid, has been known to
cause loose bowels in some people who take it in very high doses. Yet, when
taken as calcium ascorbate, this does not occur. Indeed, this is about the
most severe side effect from a vitamin supplement that one can document.
Yet
under the risk assessment process using the method of the nutrient group
approach, Vitamin C as a whole would be regulated based upon the “risks”
associated with the ascorbic acid form of Vitamin C. Therefore, the ascorbic
acid form of vitamin C would be the basis for the setting of the upper safe
levels or the Maximum Upper Limits of Vitamin C.
This is because this
particular method takes the most “toxic” form of the tested substance and
uses it for the basis of its regulation.[2]
In this case, the nutrient group
is considered only as safe as its most dangerous form.
Indeed, this is the method advocated by the FAO and WHO. In a joint FAO/WHO
report published in 2005 entitled “A Model for Establishing Upper Levels of
Intake for Nutrients and Related Substances,” reports of conclusions dealing
with Vitamin C, Iron, and Zinc are all listed as the nutrient group and not
the various forms in which they occur.[3]
Clearly, there is a double standard within the FAO, WHO, and Codex regarding
the safety testing of vitamin/mineral supplements and that of chemicals. As
Paul Anthony Taylor points out, in the process used for risk assessment of
toxins, pesticides, etc., each individual substance is analyzed as a
“separate chemical entity.” [4]
This is a recurring theme in the discussion
of Codex and its guidelines for various forms of food substances and
supplements and can be easily seen in its regulation requirements for GMO’s
as well. While GMO products are allowed in the international food chain,
nutrients are treated as dangerous substances. In this case, simply giving
nutrients the same treatment as toxic chemicals would be an improvement over
their current treatment.
A second problem with the risk assessment methodology is the fact that it
completely ignores the positive health benefits of nutritional supplements
and focuses only on their risks.
This is especially important because when a
regulatory agency determines, as Codex and other agencies apparently have,
that any risk, no matter how insignificant it is, may constitute an
“unreasonable risk of illness or injury” it may therefore be banned.
Unfortunately, this is actually provided for under the DSHEA law passed in
the United States in 1994.
This, however, is essentially what the risk
assessment procedure is all about - assessing dangers not benefits.
Not surprisingly, most of the evidence such as observational and clinical
data that demonstrates a positive effect is ignored. Instead, all we are
left with is “peer-reviewed” studies of isolated nutrient forms that are so
varied in terms of experimental design, dosages, and even the nutrient forms
themselves that they are virtually non-comparable.
Not only that, but the
form of the vitamin being tested is often in a synthetic form as opposed to
its natural state with very little concern given to the individuals’
nutritional requirements or current state of health. Even follow up times
vary significantly. [5]
Paul Anthony Taylor explains this in his article
“Nutrient Risk Assessment: What You’re Not Being Told,” when he writes:
In some areas of the world, such as the United States and the United
Kingdom, supplemental nutrients have been in use for over half a century
now.
As a result, some doctors and practitioners have built up extensive
databases containing carefully documented case histories of patients who
have used high doses of vitamin and mineral supplements, safely and
effectively, for many years. Similarly, research scientists have conducted
numerous small-scale clinical trials that have produced impressive results
providing clear evidence of the safety of high dose supplements in human
beings.
Nevertheless, a serious flaw in the current regulatory approach to nutrient
risk assessment is that some of the most valuable potential sources of
positive scientific evidence regarding the use and safety of supplements,
such as the types of observational and clinical data described above, are
generally ignored.
Instead, the sole source of evidence that is considered
are peer-reviewed scientific studies of particular nutrient forms, which are
often non-comparable owing to differing experimental designs, nutrient forms
delivered, dosages given, and so on.
The net result of this is that the evidence-base for nutrient risk
assessment tends to be skewed towards consideration of negative outcome
studies that used a single vitamin or mineral - frequently in a synthetic
rather than a naturally-occurring form - without full and proper
consideration of the participants’ overall state of health or individual
nutritional requirements.
Moreover such studies are often non-comparable
owing to differences in their follow-up periods; the fact that many have
been conducted on diseased rather than healthy populations; and that many
were started well after disease states had already been initiated.
As a
result, a process that may appear rational, objective and scientific to the
lay person or even the regulator, is, we discover, actually flawed and
deeply unscientific. [6]
Yet the problems extend to more than just unscientific expansion upon
unreliable models.
There is both rhyme and reason to the madness of Codex Alimentarius. It is on the basis of the aforementioned science that Codex
works to regulate nutrients as if they are industrial chemicals. This goal
is achieved through the use of risk assessment methodology by setting
Maximum Upper Limits (also described as Maximum Upper Levels or Upper Safe
Levels), and later Maximum Permitted Levels of nutrients.
There is a fine
line between the two but the difference is a very important one.
Notes
[1] Taylor, Paul Anthony. “Nutrient Risk
Assessment: What You’re Not Being Told.”
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/risk_assessment.html P.2
[2] Ibid.
[3] A Model for Establishing Upper Levels of Intake for Nutrients and
Related Substances, WHO/FAO. http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/full_report.pdf
[4] Taylor, Paul Anthony. “Nutrient Risk Assessment: What You’re Not
Being Told.” http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/risk_assessment.html
P.2 Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
Part 7
Codex Alimentarius - The Global Fallout of
Health Tyranny
January 26, 2011
In past articles, I have written extensively on the dangers of using Risk
Assessment when dealing with vitamins and minerals.
I have explained how the
risk assessment methodology is being used to establish both Upper Safe
Levels and Maximum Permitted Levels, as well as demonstrated the connections
between Codex Alimentarius and the German Federal Institute for Risk
Assessment (BfR).
These connections are important because it is BfR that has
been contracted by Codex to provide scientific information and advice on
nutritional supplements using just this process. In this and subsequent
articles, I will examine in more depth the findings presented by BfR and the
ramifications they will have for access to vitamin and mineral supplements
the world over.
In 2005, BfR published “Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and
nutritional-physiological aspects,” its list of recommendations for the
maximum levels of nutrients in vitamin and mineral supplements. Of the many
tables included in these results, Tables 3 and 4 are of particular interest.
Table 3 is an overview of the BfR teams’ classification of vitamins and
minerals into supply and risk categories (each of these categories being
separate).
Supply categories deal mainly with the status of the supply of tested
materials such as their possible contamination or their potential to be
contaminated during shipping as well as the intake status.
However, the risk
categories have to do with the potential for nutrients and vitamins to cause
adverse effects.
The risk category is divided into High risk, Moderate risk, and Low risk,
and is based on “how large the margin is between recommended/observed
intakes and the defined UL” [Upper Limit]. [1] Rather, how much further than
the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) a nutrient must go to reach the level
of perceived adverse side effects (the Upper Limit).[2]
Indeed, Table 2,
which is a different chart showing the criteria for each risk category, is
entitled “Various degrees of probability that a nutrient leads to adverse
side effects.” [3]
This in itself should trigger questions as to what amount
of “proof” this study actually offers.
The idea that it is the probability, not a clearly defined set of risks or
causes of those risks, shows that the study has not actually proven that
nutrients pose a threat of adverse side effects, even when using the risk
assessment process to begin with.
Yet BfR and subsequently Codex Alimentarius continue to use this data to
create a maximum permitted level for nutrients. Vitamins A and D,
Beta-Carotene, Niacin (as Nicotinic acid), Sodium, Potassium, Calcium, Iron,
Iodine, Zinc, Copper, and Manganese are all added into the High risk
category, while the best that any other nutrient or mineral can hope for is
the Low risk category. None fall into a no-risk category, because no such
category exists in this type of study.
Clearly, as one can see from the BfR results, the levels suggested by Codex
for the Maximum Permitted Levels are excessively low. For instance, the most
liberal dosage allowed is for Vitamin C at the levels of 225 mg. Yet the
Upper Safe Levels of Vitamin C are nowhere near this small amount.
Even according to Medline Plus, administered by the National Institute of
Health and the U.S. National Library of Medicine, the Upper Safe Levels for
Vitamin C is 2,000 mg for adults above the age of 18.[4]
This is a
difference of 1,750 mg set by an agency that is not considered exactly
friendly towards nutritional supplements or natural healthcare. Of course,
for individuals with some kind of sickness such as cancer, the limits on
Vitamin C intake are much higher.[5]
The limits placed on Vitamin D are perhaps the most egregious. BfR sets the
Maximum Permitted Levels of Vitamin D at 5 mcg while even the Medline
service lists the Upper Safe Limits at approximately 50 mcg (2000 IU).[6]
A
comparison of the Upper Safe Limits set by the Medline Plus system (under
the direction of the aforementioned government agencies) can be viewed by
going on to the Medline website and the BfR site.
Keep in mind, as mentioned earlier, that the U.S. agencies who established
these Upper Safe Limits are not exactly those that can be considered
champions of health freedom, natural healthcare, or nutritional
supplementation. Using their figures, however, provide an opportunity to see
just how dramatic a decrease in the level of nutrition is caused by BfR’s
Maximum Permitted Levels.
While some of these differences are smaller in scale than others, most BfR
MPLs are much more than double their Medline counterparts. The standards for
copper are quite telling as there is a 10,000 mcg difference between the
two.
The problem, however, goes even deeper than the establishment of MPLs and
USLs. The Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) are of great concern as well.
This is not only because they are often instrumental in the setting and
justification of MPLs and USLs, but also because they are referenced for
human health and individual intake.
In the United States, the RDA is often taken in conjunction with the
Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) under the umbrella of the Dietary
Reference Intake (DRI) which is set by the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences.[7]
The RDA is officially defined as,
“the
average dietary intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient
requirement of nearly all (97 to 98 percent) healthy individuals.” [8]
The
EAR is defined as,
“the daily intake value that is estimated to meet the
requirement... in half of the healthy individuals in a... group.” [9]
It goes on to say,
“At this level of intake, the other half of a specified
group would not have its nutritional needs met.” [10]
While this article will not deal in depth with this subject, it should be
noted that the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has
recommended that the national standard of nutritional intake be shifted from
the RDA to the EAR.[11]
This would effectively slash the DRI by close to
half due to the fact that the original referenced values of nutritional
intake would be affected likewise.
Another main concern related to RDAs is the fact that they are not
adequately set to promote optimal human health. Indeed, RDAs are set at the
lowest level for prevention of single-nutrient deficiency diseases. This
means that the RDA is not the level at which intake of a particular nutrient
is sufficient for good health, but the lowest level that must be maintained
in order to prevent a particular deficiency disease.
In the case of Vitamin C, for instance, the diseases would be scurvy or
rickets. Put plainly, RDAs are the levels of nutritional intake needed to
barely get by, not remain healthy.[12]
As James South points out in his
article, “Vitamin Safety, RDAs and the Assault on Vitamin Freedom,” the
Recommended Dietary Allowances from 1980 plainly stated as much.
South
quotes them as saying:
The requirement for a nutrient is the minimum intake that will maintain
normal function and health... For certain nutrients, the requirements may
be assessed as the amount that will just prevent failure of a specific
function or the development of specific deficiency signs - an amount that
may differ greatly from that required to maintain maximum (i.e. optimum)
body stores.[13]
This is a source of confusion for many consumers who believe that RDAs are
the levels at which their intake is topped out and adequately achieved.
Add
to this the fact that RDAs are continually being lowered by the agencies
responsible for setting them.
In 1989, the National Academy of Sciences revised the RDAs from their
already meager levels set in 1980 to even lower levels, some of them by
half. Interestingly enough, the National Academy of Sciences exercised some
twilight-zone logic similar to Codex Alimentarius when these decisions were
made.
The assumption made by the agency was that Americans are generally
healthy people and, because they generally fail to consume the 1980 RDA
levels of nutrients, then a lower standard is adequate for good human
health.[14]
Clearly, either lowering the RDAs or creating MPLs is a threat to the
natural supplement industry from the perspective of the consumer as well as
the manufacturer. Even without acknowledging the ideological and financial
reasons behind the push to end access to vitamin and mineral
supplementation, the setting of MPLs, especially at low levels, would create
a vast increase in the cost of supplements wherever they were sold.
Consumers would then be forced to purchase many more times the amount of
supplements to achieve the same result as their current dosage.
If the MPLs reduce a supplement's levels by half, as many do, then the
consumer would need to take two capsules for every one he/she currently
takes to achieve an equal amount of nutrition. Translate this into buying
two bottles for every one bottle purchased at the current levels.
This would
not only have a crippling effect on consumers, but the industry itself would
face similar repercussions as the option of natural supplementation would
become unaffordable. Even the supplements themselves would suffer, as each
capsule/pill/dose would therefore have to be produced using more filler
materials than actual nutrients.
This is actually a concern with another Codex policy that is much less
well-known than that of MPLs - minimum levels of nutrients. While many may
see this as contradictory to Codex’s general position toward natural
supplements, it is in fact included within the Codex Guidelines.
Section
3.2.1 of the Guidelines states,
“The minimum level of each vitamin and/or
mineral contained in a vitamin and mineral food supplement per daily portion
of consumption as suggested by the manufacturer should be 15% of the
recommended daily intake as determined by FAO/WHO.” [15]
No doubt some, out of ignorance, will assume that this position is positive.
In fact the opposite is true. The setting of minimum levels is merely part
of a two-pronged attack on vitamin and mineral supplements, and levels of
nutrition in general. The problem with this position is that it prevents
manufacturers from adding trace amounts of vitamins and minerals to
supplements that may be desired or needed to aid in the processing of the
main nutrient. Instead, filler will have to be added.
As Scott Tips writes:
Besides the obvious moral problem of prohibiting people from freely and
voluntarily contracting with one another as they wish, the practical problem
with minimum levels is that they foreclose manufacturers from adding
something useful (such as a vitamin or mineral) in a capsule or tablet
instead of something worthless, like a filler or excipient. In my view, it
would be better for a person to get some additional nutritive value from a
capsule or tablet, than nothing at all.[16]
Keep in mind, the MPLs of vitamin and mineral supplements will be set so
low, according to the risk assessment studies like those of BfR being
conducted, that it will be virtually impossible to include trace amounts of
supplements below the required 15% of the already low levels of the RDA.
They might as well not be included at all, which is the goal of Codex in the
first place.
Notes
[1] “Use of Vitamins in Foods:
Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects.” Domke, A.,
Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E.,
WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk
Assessment, BfR, 2005. P.18.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “Vitamin C.” Medline Plus website.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-vitaminc.html
[5] “Vitamin C.” Oregon State University. Linus Pauling Institute.
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/
[6] “Vitamin D.” Medline Plus Website.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-vitamind.html
[7] South, James. “Vitamin
Safety, RDAs and the Assault on Vitamin Freedom.” National
Health Federation. March 2004.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15]“Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.”
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/standard_list.do?lang=en
[16] Tips, Scott C. “Codex Gets One Step Closer To Control.” Codex
Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism. Ed. Scott C. Tips. P.49-50.
2007.