The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

Dr. Rath Health Foundation

Codex meeting in Ottawa: Business

as Usual, or "Stunning Victory" for
Health Freedom?
May 2006 – May 1-5, 2006, saw the thirty-fourth
meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling
(CCFL) take place in Ottawa, Canada. Along with
the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for
Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), CCFL is one of
the main Codex committees whose work is
increasingly threatening the future of natural
healthcare and health freedom. Reporting on the
meeting, Rima Laibow and Major General Albert
(Bert) N. Stubblebine III (U.S. Army, Retired), founders of the so-called
Natural Solutions Foundation, curiously chose to describe the outcome as
having been a "Stunning Victory" for health freedom, despite the fact that this
assertion has absolutely no basis in fact. So, what really happened in Ottawa,
and why are Codex reports issued by the Natural Solutions Foundation
increasingly at odds with those of more experienced observers, including even
those of its own Legal Counsel?
As the following article shows, not only was there no "Stunning Victory" for health freedom
at this meeting, but in reality the Codex position remains blindly ignorant of the benefits of
dietary supplements. As such, the Codex Alimentarius Commission's increasingly desperate
attempts to protect the global markets in pharmaceuticals, artificial food additives,
agricultural chemicals and genetically-modified foods will, for the time being at least,
continue exactly as before.
The reality of this therefore calls into question not only the credibility of the Natural
Solutions Foundation, but also the possible motivations of its founders. Rima Laibow's
background is in psychiatry, for example, whilst Major General Albert (Bert) N.
Stubblebine has held several senior posts in US Army Intelligence. Together they sit on the
Board of Canadian Submarine Technologies Inc, and claim to be the designers of AEGIS, "a
major Homeland Security private initiative".
Perhaps unsurprisingly then, the wildly inaccurate Codex articles emanating from the
Natural Solutions Foundation are now believed by some to be part of a willful attempt to
divide and discredit the health freedom movement via the widespread dispersal of
misinformation and disinformation, and thus as acting clearly and squarely in the interests
of the "business with disease".

Down to Business – as Usual

Key items on the Codex Committee on Food Labelling's agenda this year included the
Implementation of the WHO Global Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Health;
Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organically Produced

1z8 2008-12-03 16:02

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

Foods; the Labeling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques
of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering; and a Discussion Paper on Advertising.
Each of these items are examined in detail below.

Agenda item 2b: Implementation of the WHO Global

Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Health
The background to this agenda item goes back to the July 2005 meeting of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, in Rome, where it was decided that the potential areas for
action by Codex in relation to the implementation of the WHO Global Strategy were mainly
relevant to the work of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) and the Codex
Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU). As a result it was
agreed that the World Health Organization (WHO), in cooperation with the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), would produce a document for
consideration by these committees, including specific proposals for new work.
The discussions in Ottawa began with a presentation by Janice Albert, a Nutrition Officer
from the Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division of FAO, who summed up the
background to the discussion paper and outlined further areas for developing the Global
Strategy. Significantly therefore, and as also confirmed by the National Health Federation,
Ms. Albert did not make a single mention of food supplements during her entire
presentation.
During the deliberations that followed Ms Albert's presentation, the Delegation of South
Africa – supported by the National Health Federation but by not so much as one single
other delegation out of the 82 that were present – put forward eleven proposals for the
Committee's consideration. These were as follows:

1. Formally recognize and accept that nutrients are not toxins. They should be
subjected to sound assessment procedures which take into account empirical,
clinical, statistical and peer review processes and which take acknowledged benefits
and desirable impact from the use of them in order to achieve positive outcomes, into
consideration;
2. Formally accept nutrients as generally safe and encourage the unrestricted sale of
that category of food called "dietary supplements" at all levels, including optimum
potency levels, throughout the world;
3. Ban all added trans fats derived from industrial hydrogenation in the production of
food;
4. Ensure that countries are encouraged to add, and do not place restrictions on the
addition of nutrients which are supported by biochemistry, clinical nutrition, clinical
experience, empirical observation and customary usage to food;
5. Ensure that countries enact strong legislative restrictions on the addition of
industrial toxins to food, which are not supported by biochemistry, clinical nutrition,
clinical experience and customary usage;
6. Allow and encourage enrichment of foods through the addition of that class of food
called dietary supplements in order to optimize nutrient density of foods. Require
that countries compensate for the decline in micronutrients in agricultural produce
(e.g., fruits and vegetables) as a result of the depletion of trace nutrients in soil by
commercial agriculture practices through the incorporation of that class of food
called dietary supplements in order to optimize nutrient density of these foods;
7. Encourage and support the development of national and international policies which,
enhance local, national, regional and global optimal nutrition through life-style
modification (including diet), fortification and supplementation with that category of
food called dietary supplements at all levels, including optimum potency levels;
8. Identify foods that do not contribute to, conflict with or are not essential for a healthy
lifestyle ("junk food"). Similarly, identify foods that can support a healthy life-style.
Support nutrition and health claims in labelling and advertising for those foods that
do contribute to a healthy life-style and ban nutrition and health claims on the
labelling and advertising of those foods which do not contribute to a healthy life style

2z8 2008-12-03 16:02

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

in order to encourage healthsupporting foods and discourage ones that do not

support health;
9. Ensure that countries encourage truthful, full and accurate labelling and advertising
on all foods, which contribute to health and ban advertising and health claims on
those that do not;
10. Ensure that countries develop a ban on junk food advertising to children (birth to 18
years);
11. Require that the Chairpersons of CCFL and CCNFSDU report to the Codex
Alimentarius Commission every other year on the status of the implementation of the
WHO/FAO GLOBAL STRATEGY ON DIET, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND HEALTH
and items 1-10 listed above.

Recommendations of South Africa made at meeting of the Codex Committee on Food

Labelling (CCFL), in Ottawa, Canada, May 1-5, 2006

After listening to these proposals, and also those of numerous other delegations, including
those of Austria (speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Community),
India, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil, Senegal, Canada, France, Panama, the United States,
Malaysia, Argentina, Bhutan, New Zealand and Norway, the Committee's Chairperson, Dr.
Anne MacKenzie, noted that the comments and proposals made during the discussion
could be grouped according to the following five main themes:

Enhancing and improving the label information about the nutritional aspects of foods
offered to consumers to assist them in making informed choices about foods to improve
their health. In this regard, making nutrition labelling mandatory even in the absence of
claims was suggested by several delegations.
The importance of truthful and non-misleading marketing practices and advertising in
the promotion of the nutritional aspects of foods was mentioned as part of the
implementation of the Global Strategy.
Food standards: It was noted that Codex standards should not impede the development
of modified versions of these foods intended to assist consumers in improving their food
choices.
Sound science: The importance of a sound scientific basis for any actions taken to
implement the Global Strategy was emphasized. The work on the framework for the
scientific basis for health claims was noted in this regard.
Improving access to information that is adequate, accurate and truthful is important
and particularly challenging with low levels of literacy.

Chairperson's summary of comments and proposals made regarding Implementation of

the WHO Global Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Health, at meeting of the Codex
Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL), in Ottawa, Canada, May 1-5, 2006.

Several delegations however expressed the view that these themes "should be considered
only as questions for further discussion and did not reflect the consensus of the Committee,
since there were different views regarding some areas of work, especially mandatory
nutrition labelling and advertising." Moreover, some delegations "did not support any
reference to specific areas of work at this stage". As a result therefore, whilst the Committee
indeed noted some specific proposals for wording put forward in the discussion the
Chairperson explicitly stated that these were not specific proposals for new work.
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
Bearing all of this in mind, the very best that we can say at the current time is that FAO and
WHO will be taking the themes proposed into account and preparing a new document for
consideration at the upcoming meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Geneva,
3-7 July, 2006. As such it can be seen that whilst WHO and FAO will be seeking the
agreement of the Commission to proceed with the development of a document containing
proposals for future areas of work in the implementation of the Global Strategy, it would be
grossly premature, at best, to say that this constitutes a "Stunning Victory" for health
freedom, as was claimed by the Natural Solutions Foundation. (EMPHASIS ADDED)

3z8 2008-12-03 16:02

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

For example, crucial pro-health freedom language proposed by the National Health
Federation relating to the optimizing of health and nutrition was opposed by the United
States (represented as always at this meeting by the US Food and Drug Administration)
and was consequently excluded from the list of five themes described above – despite
having initially been accepted by the Chairperson for inclusion in the report. Significantly
therefore, neither the text of the current WHO/FAO discussion paper nor even that of the
Global Strategy itself makes any mention of the word "supplements" or of the terms
"dietary supplements" / "food supplements".
In addition however, and contrary to claims being made by the Natural Solutions
Foundation, Codex has not been directed to implement the eleven proposals made by South
Africa. Moreover, the fact that South Africa's proposals were summed up in 9 lines in the
official report released following the meeting can hardly be described as a "Stunning
Victory" for health freedom, regardless of their merits. To draw an analogy, saying so is
akin to claiming that when a politician stood up in Parliament and made a great speech his
statements were a stunning victory for his policies because they were summarised in the
minutes.
Seasoned observers of Codex, FAO and WHO will not find any of this surprising, of course,
as all three of these organizations have a long track record in defending the interests of the
"business with disease", and thus in having direct responsibility for the suffering and
deaths of countless millions of people. Moreover, experienced observers are also becoming
increasingly used to reading erroneous claims by the Natural Solutions Foundation that
miracles have taken place at Codex meetings, and so in this sense too, one could definitely
say that the Committee on Food Labelling's meeting in Ottawa this year was business as
usual.

Agenda item 4: Guidelines for the Production,

Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically
Produced Foods
Under this agenda item the Committee considered substances to be permitted as additives
for use in organic food production. Worryingly therefore, some of these substances,
although natural in origin, are known to cause allergic reactions in some people. An
example of such a substance is sulphur dioxide, which may precipitate an asthmatic attack
in asthma suffers or headaches or hives in others. Nevertheless this substance is being
considered for approval by the Committee for use in organic cider, perry and wines.
Similarly the Committee is also considering approving the use of sodium nitrite as a colour
retention agent and preservative in cured (including salted) and dried non-heat treated
processed organic meat, poultry and game products. Sodium nitrite, which does not occur
naturally, is capable of reacting with substances called amines in the stomach to form
nitrosamines which are potentially carcinogenic. Sodium nitrite has also been implicated in
hyperactivity in children, and the UK's Hyperactive Children's Support Group (HACSG)
recommend its elimination from the diets of children afflicted with this disorder.
Worse still however, the Committee gave its final approval for carrageenan to be permitted
for use in organic foods of plant origin and in some organic dairy products. Carrageenan,
an extract from red seaweed, is believed by some to be associated with the formation of
ulcers in the intestines and cancerous tumors in the gut. Nevertheless, it is expected that
the Codex Alimentarius Commission will endorse the approval of carrageenan at its
upcoming meeting in Geneva, 3-8 July.
The Committee is also considering approving the use of "natural sodium nitrate" for use as
a fertilizing and conditioning agent in organic soil. Nitrates are capable of being converted
to nitrites in the stomach, which in turn are capable of reacting with substances called
amines in the stomach to form nitrosamines which are potentially carcinogenic. Like
sodium nitrite therefore, sodium nitrate has also been implicated in hyperactivity in
children, and the UK's Hyperactive Children's Support Group (HACSG) recommend its
elimination from the diets of children afflicted with this disorder. Fortunately however the

4z8 2008-12-03 16:02

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

Committee's discussions regarding "natural sodium nitrate" are still at an early stage, and
at least for now there remains a significant amount of opposition to the inclusion of this
substance on the permitted list of additives.
Finally, and perhaps most worrying of all, the Committee agreed to seek the approval of the
Codex Alimentarius Commission to undertake new work on the inclusion of ethylene in the
Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically
Produced Foods. Ethylene is used to artificially induce fruits and vegetables to ripen whilst
they are in transit, and as such its approval for use on organic foods would represent a
disturbing step towards WTO-enforced acceptance of the same dubious and unnatural
agricultural practices that their non-organic cousins are already subject to.
Why does Codex want to water down organic standards in this way? Simple. Organic foods
promote better health than non-organic foods by virtue of their containing higher levels of
micronutrients. In addition, of course, organic foods don't contain pesticides, residues of
veterinary drugs or genetically-modified organisms. Good health is inimical to the
"business with disease", and this ultimately makes organic foods a threat to the
pharmaceutical and chemical cartel; not only because they promote better health, but also
because they result in lower sales of pesticides and veterinary drugs – and thus in lower
profits.
Moreover, and unlike genetically-modified seeds, organic seeds cannot be patented. As
such, given that some of the major players in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry,
such as Bayer and BASF, are also major players in the biotech industry, it can easily be seen
that the rising popularity of non-patentable organic foods is in fact a serious and growing
threat to the profits of the "business with disease".
And how is the "business with disease" proposing to deal with this problem?
The answer to that question can be found by studying – perhaps not coincidentally – the
very next item on the Committee's agenda.

Agenda item 5) Proposed Draft Guidelines for the

Labelling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained
through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification /
Genetic Engineering: Labelling Provisions
At the previous meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, in May 2005, it was
agreed that the Guidelines for the Labelling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained
through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification / Genetic Engineering should be
redrafted by a working group led by the Delegation of Canada, in order that they could be
reconsidered at this year's meeting. However the working group was not able to reach
agreement on the proposed restructured text, and the development of the Guidelines
essentially reached an impasse.
The key question the working group could not agree upon was whether or not it should be
mandatory to fully disclose the presence of genetically modified (GM) organisms on food
labels. Not surprisingly therefore this issue was hotly debated by the Committee during the
discussions that took place at this year's meeting.
Contrary to most of the rest of the World, and as reliably reported by the National Health
Federation, the general position of the food-exporting Western Hemispheric delegations
(Canada, USA, Mexico, and Argentina) at this meeting was that work on this issue should
be dropped from the agenda. Naturally, such a development would mean that there would
be no international requirement for manufacturers or exporters of genetically modified
food to disclose the presence of genetically modified organisms on their product labelling.
This is what the big GM food manufacturers want, of course, as they have long realized that
growing numbers of people are opposed to GM food products, and moreover that they will
not be able to change public opinion anytime soon.
As such, given that some of the major players in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry,

5z8 2008-12-03 16:02

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

such as Bayer and BASF, are also major players in the GM industry, it can be seen that as
with bans on vitamin and mineral supplements the pharmaceutical industry is once again
positioning itself as a key beneficiary at Codex. To their great credit therefore, some of the
national delegates at this year's meeting not only recognised this fact but openly spoke up
in opposition to it.
The Moroccan delegate, for example, stated: "The credibility of the Committee has taken a
blow today. GMOs should be subjected to mandatory labelling that is clear and specific to
the consumer. We must not mortgage the future to the pharmaceutical companies and
their allies."
Nevertheless, after a long discussion the Committee was still unable to reach a consensus
on this topic, and the Chairwoman accepted Norway's suggestion for a working group to
meet in Norway in January 2007 to consider the issue further.
Business as usual, perhaps? On this question, at least, we would concede that only time will
tell. One thing is already for sure however, in that neither the Committee's discussions on
organic foods nor those on genetically-modified foods can remotely be described as a
"Stunning Victory" for health freedom.

Agenda item 8) Discussion Paper on Advertising

Arguments as to how or whether Codex should deal with advertising issues have been going
on since at least 1972.
Discussions at the Committee's meeting in Ottawa this year centred around whether or not
work on a definition for advertising should be initiated, and if it should, where (i.e. within
which Codex text) such a definition should be placed.
Prior to the meeting a discussion paper had been prepared by the Delegation of Canada,
after taking into consideration comments received following discussions at the Committee's
previous meeting. In introducing the paper Canada said that it could see merit in
developing a definition of advertising as it related to nutrition and health claims. From a
health freedom perspective however its proposed definition was most worrying, and read
as follows:
"Advertising: any representation to the public, by any means other than a label, that is
intended or is likely to influence and shape attitude, beliefs and behaviours in order to
promote directly or indirectly the sale of the food."
The wording of this proposed definition raises several key questions.
For example, as well as its potential to result in the prohibition of advertising legitimate,
published, peer-reviewed scientific research papers, could it also inhibit health freedom
organizations from influencing and shaping attitude, beliefs and behaviours regarding the
sale of dietary supplements?
Similarly, could restrictions on advertising based on this definition be said to contravene
the right to freedom of opinion and expression and/or the freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers (both of which are enshrined in Article 19 of the United
Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights)?
Regardless however, given that the "business with disease" depends for its survival upon
the restriction of any and all means by which consumers can obtain natural health
information, potential restrictions on advertising are clearly a key health freedom issue at
Codex.
After considerable discussion on this agenda item the Committee decided that work on a
definition for advertising should indeed be initiated, and, after approval by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission at its upcoming meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, 3-7 July, 2006,
that the definition proposed by Canada will be circulated for comments and further
developed at next year's meeting of the Committee in Ottawa.

6z8 2008-12-03 16:02

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

Without a doubt therefore, this development can only be viewed as anything but a
"Stunning Victory" for health freedom. Moreover, mention of it was curiously absent from
press releases and articles put out by the Natural Solutions Foundation. As such, we would
argue that seasoned Codex observers would be quite within their rights to wonder why so?
Were the founders of the Natural Solutions Foundation even in the room when this agenda
item was discussed, one wonders?

Truth – The First Casualty of War?

The claim that a "Stunning Victory" for health freedom took place in Ottawa at this year's
meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling is just the latest in an increasingly long
line of fictitious claims made by the Natural Solutions Foundation in relation to Codex.
Their other notable fabrications of this type, for example, include the claim that a miracle
had taken place in Rome at the July 2005 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
and a claim that the WHO and the FAO had expressed "significant displeasure with the
anti-health approach to nutrition taken by Codex over the past 4 decades." In reality, of
course, not only have these claims already been shown to be absolutely without foundation,
but Janice Albert, a Nutrition Officer from the Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division
of FAO, has now confirmed to the National Health Federation that there had been no
condemnation by either FAO or WHO of Codex on the subject of nutrition.
Of course, we wholeheartedly agree that it would be far preferable if we were able to
consistently report good news from Codex meetings. Moreover we are ever conscious of the
possibility that continued reporting of "business as usual", or worse, at Codex could
develop into a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, and seemingly unlike the Natural
Solutions Foundation, we remain committed to reporting the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. As such, and whilst we fully accept that we are witnessing a war on
our health freedoms, we find it both regrettable and disturbing that the oft-quoted maxim
of truth being the first casualty of war is now itself being knowingly turned into a
self-fulfilling prophecy by the Natural Solutions Foundation.
Without doubt, our strongest weapon in this war is the truth. The pharmaceutical industry
knows this, and the "business with disease" depends for its existence upon suppression of
the facts. As such, inaccurate reporting and exaggeration of the events that take place at
Codex meetings plays into the very hands of the pharma cartel itself, and will, in the end,
achieve nothing but discredit and failure for the health freedom movement if it chooses to
replace truth with misinformation and disinformation spread by the likes of the Natural
Solutions Foundation.

Conclusion
If, having read this article, you are still in any doubt as to whether or not there was a
"Stunning Victory" for health freedom at the thirty-fourth meeting of the Codex Committee
on Food Labelling (CCFL) in Ottawa, Canada, as was claimed by the Natural Solutions
Foundation, we suggest that you should consider the following:
The Natural Solution Foundation's own Legal Counsel, Ralph Fucetola, JD, attended the
meeting in Ottawa, and provided a report on it to his Vitamin Lawyer contact elist. Fucetola
has been practicing law, specializing in Nutrient and Alternative Health Law, since the early
1970s, and has been widely recognized as a leading attorney in the field. Significantly
therefore, not only does his report omit mention of any "Stunning Victory", but it also
specifically states that "Both vitamin purveyors and consumers could be the losers" and
that "'business as usual' predominated" at the meeting. Moreover, Fucetola also describes
"a coordinated attack on natural health lead (sic) by the otherwise rival US and EU
delegations", and talks about "the marginalization of the Global Strategy".
Similarly, an experienced delegation from the National Health Federation was also present
at the meeting. Established in 1955, the National Health Federation is no stranger to Codex
issues, and to this day remains the only health-freedom organization in the world that is
officially credentialed as an INGO (International Non-Governmental Organization) by the
Codex Alimentarius Commission with the right to attend and speak out at its committee

7z8 2008-12-03 16:02

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation | Responsibility for a healthy world http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/cod...

meetings. The National Health Federation's report on the Ottawa meeting concludes that
"with anti-health-freedom delegations such as the United States and the European
Commission running the show at Codex and with most other delegations blissfully
uncaring or unknowledgeable about the true health benefits that optimal health and
nutrition play in preventing disease and other health problems, the direction of the
various Codex guidelines is still off-course".
So, do YOU trust the Natural Solutions Foundation – an organization whose website did
not even come into existence until February 2005?
We most certainly don't.

© 2008 by Dr. Rath Health Foundation | www.Dr-Rath-Foundation.org

8z8 2008-12-03 16:02