Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

by Matthias Rath
2001
from DrRath Website
recovered through WayBackMachine Website

There is an entire industry with an innate economic interest to obstruct, suppress and discredit any
information about the eradication of diseases. The pharmaceutical industry makes over one trillion
dollars from selling drugs for ongoing diseases. These drugs may relieve symptoms, but they do not
cure.

We have to realize that the mission of this industry is to make money from ongoing diseases.

The cure or eradication of a disease leads to the collapse of a multi-billion dollar market of
pharmaceuticals.

1. The natural purpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to

increase sales of pharmaceutical drugs for ongoing diseases and to find new
diseases to market existing drugs.

2. By this very nature, the pharmaceutical industry has no interest in curing

diseases. The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar

1 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

market of prescription drugs as a source of revenues. Therefore, pharmaceutical

drugs are primarily developed to relieve symptoms, but not to cure.

3. If eradication therapies for diseases are discovered and developed, the

pharmaceutical industry has an inherent interest to suppress, discredit and
obstruct these medical breakthroughs in order to make sure that diseases
continue as the very basis for a lucrative prescription drug market.

4. The economic interest of the pharmaceutical industry itself is the main reason why
no medical breakthrough has been made for the control of the most common
diseases such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure,
Diabetes, cancer, and osteoporosis, and why these diseases continue like
epidemics on a worldwide scale.

5. For the same economic reasons, the pharmaceutical industry has now formed an
international cartel by the code name "Codex Alimentarius" with the aim to outlaw
any health information in connection with vitamins and to limit free access to
natural therapies on a worldwide scale.

6. At the same time, the pharmaceutical companies withhold public information about
the effects and risks of prescription drugs and life-threatening side effects are
omitted or openly denied.

7. In order to assure the status quo of this deceptive scheme, a legion of

pharmaceutical lobbyists is employed to influence legislation, control regulatory
agencies (e. g. FDA), and manipulate medical research and education. Expensive
advertising campaigns and PR agencies are used to deceive the public.

8. Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice: A major
portion of their income is used up to finance the exploding profits of the
pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not even
cure.

CODEX
WHAT IS IT AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOU AND YOUR HEALTH?
by Paul Anthony Taylor
October 2006
from DrRathFoundation Website

Codex is not an easy subject to get to grips with. With over 20 committees meeting on an annual
basis, and published reports comprising a total of over 1,400 pages in 2005 alone, most people are
blissfully unaware of the extent to which its activities affect their health.

Read on to discover the bigger picture behind the Codex Alimentarius Commission's support for the
"business with disease".

What is Codex?
The World Trade Organization uses Codex Guidelines and Standards as the benchmark in the

2 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

adjudication of international trade disputes involving foods. It's headquarters, above, are located in
Geneva, Switzerland.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the main global body that makes proposals to, and
is consulted by, the Directors-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on all matters pertaining to the implementation
of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.

Established in 1963, the Commission's main purposes are stated in its Procedural Manual as being:

protecting the health of consumers

ensuring fair practices in the food trade
promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international
governmental and non-governmental organizations

Unfortunately however, and as we shall see, its activities do not protect the health of consumers and
the international food trade is anything but fair.

At the time of writing, the Commission presides over a total of 27 active subsidiary committees and
ad hoc intergovernmental task forces, the main functions of which revolve around the drafting of
standards, guidelines and other related texts for foods, including food supplements.

Once completed these texts are presented to the Commission for final approval and adoption as new
global standards.

How does Codex affect you and your health?

Codex standards and guidelines now exist for virtually all foods.

Whilst the adoption by countries of the various standards and guidelines developed by Codex is
theoretically optional, the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 1 January 1995
essentially changed their international status, in that they are now increasingly used by the WTO as
the benchmark in the adjudication of international trade disputes involving foods.

As such, the potential threat of becoming involved in – and losing – such a dispute now effectively
makes the adoption of Codex guidelines and standards mandatory, in that it leaves WTO member
countries little or no option but to comply with them. Given therefore that a total of 149 countries are
currently members of the WTO, and also that Codex standards or guidelines now exist for virtually
every food one can name, this effectively means that the activities of Codex now directly affect the
vast majority of people on the planet.

In addition to dealing with ordinary foods, however, Codex also sets standards and guidelines for,
amongst other things: vitamin and mineral food supplements; health claims; organic foods;
genetically modified foods; food labeling; advertising; food additives and pesticide residues.

Significantly, therefore, and as we shall see below, in all of these areas the evidence is now
inescapable that Codex is increasingly putting economic interests – and particularly those of the
pharmaceutical and chemical industries – before human health.

Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission as a new global standard at its meeting in Rome, Italy, in July 2005.

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission as a new global standard at its meeting in Rome, Italy, in July 2005. Drafted using the

3 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

European Union's restrictive Food Supplements Directive as a blueprint, the Guidelines mandate the
setting of restrictive upper limits on the dosages of vitamins and minerals, and the prohibiting of
claims that vitamin and mineral supplements are suitable for use in the prevention, alleviation,
treatment or cure of disease.

As a result, and bearing in mind the growing mountain of evidence demonstrating the impressive
health improvements that can be achieved via the use of nutritional supplements, it can be seen that
far from protecting the health of consumers, the global enforcement of these guidelines would ensure
that the sale of curative, preventative, and therapeutic health products remains the exclusive province
of the pharmaceutical industry.

Health claims
The Codex General Guidelines on Claims protects the patent on the pharmaceutical industry's control
of our healthcare systems.

There are already several Codex texts in existence that place restrictions upon the health benefits
that can be attributed to food products, and perhaps the most significant of these is the Codex
General Guidelines on Claims. Adopted in 1979, and revised in 1991, these guidelines are in some
senses the very root of the Codex problem – in terms of placing severe restrictions upon natural
forms of healthcare – in that they effectively seek to ensure that the only products that can make
claims relating to the prevention, alleviation, treatment, and cure of disease are pharmaceutical
drugs.

Specifically, and amongst other things, the Codex General Guidelines on Claims prohibit all claims
implying that a balanced diet or ordinary foods cannot supply adequate amounts of all nutrients, and
all claims that food products are suitable for use in the prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of
diseases.

As such, it can be seen that they essentially protect the patent on the pharmaceutical industry's
control of our healthcare systems.

Organic foods
Organic foods have been receiving increased attention from Codex in recent years, and it is now
increasingly clear that the Codex Committee on Food Labeling is attempting to water down global
organic standards to permit the use of substances such as:

sulphur dioxide, which can cause allergic reactions in some people

sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate, which are potentially carcinogenic, and have
been implicated in hyperactivity in children
carrageenan, for which there is evidence that it is associated with the formation of
ulcers in the intestines and cancerous tumors in the gut

Worse still, however, the Codex Alimentarius Commission recently gave the go-ahead for work to
begin on the inclusion of ethylene in the Codex Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling
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 non-organic foods are
already subject to.

Why does Codex want to water down organic standards in this way?

On a basic level it is simply because organic foods fetch higher prices than ordinary, non-organic,

4 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

foods, and that as such the large non-organic food producers see an easy opportunity to break into
the market for organic foods and make larger profits. On a deeper level, however, organic foods
promote better health than non-organic foods, by virtue of the fact that they contain higher levels of
micronutrients.

In addition, of course, organic foods don't contain pesticides, residues of veterinary drugs or
genetically-modified organisms either. Bearing in mind therefore that good health is not in the
interests of the "business with disease", this ultimately makes the increasing demand for organic
foods a threat to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries; not only because organic foods
promote good health, however, but also because they result in a lower demand for pesticides,
veterinary drugs and GM foods – 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
pharmaceutical industry's "business with disease".

Genetically-modified foods
The increasing popularity of food supplement, natural health practices and organic food is a serious
threat to the pharmaceutical industry's business with disease.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted its first guidelines and principles for
genetically-modified (GM) foods in 2003. These texts subsequently became instrumental in the
United States, Canada and Argentina launching, and winning, a trade dispute at the WTO against the
European Union (EU), where it was argued that the EU had been applying a moratorium on the
approval and importation of foods containing GM material.

Further guidelines and standards for GM foods are now in the process of being drafted by Codex.
The eventual adoption of these texts will further contribute to making the approval, and importation, of
GM foods that comply with them mandatory for all WTO member countries. Crucially, therefore, the
United States, Canada and Argentina are also pushing for there to be no requirement for
manufacturers or exporters of GM foods to disclose the presence of genetically modified organisms
on their product labeling.

This is exactly 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 about these products anytime soon.

Unlike the seeds for regular foods, the seeds for GM foods can be patented. This, essentially, is the
real key to why biotech companies are so desperate for these foods to be forced onto world markets,
as the potential long-term profits are so colossal as to compare quite favorably with the market in
pharmaceutical drugs. Given therefore that some of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry,
such as Bayer and BASF, are also major players in the biotech industry, it can be seen that the
pharmaceutical industry is once again positioning itself as a key beneficiary at Codex.

As such – so far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned – the only products that are worth
producing are those that are patentable. Because of this, the rise in the popularity of food
supplements, natural health practices and even organic food represents a serious threat to the
pharmaceutical industry.

The financial interest groups behind the Codex Alimentarius Commission know this only too well, of
course, and as such are now engaged in a desperate struggle to maintain their monopoly upon the
healthcare industry and expand into GM food production.

5 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

Food labeling
A specific Codex committee to deal with food labeling issues, the Codex Committee on Food
Labeling (CCFL), has been in existence since 1965.

The issue of food labeling is particularly crucial to the further spreading of life-saving natural health
information, as restrictions upon the written content of food labels contribute, along with those on
advertising, to preventing nutritional supplement manufacturers from informing people of the proven
benefits of dietary supplementation.

Crucially, therefore, CCFL has refused to acknowledge the role of optimum nutrition in the prevention,
alleviation, treatment and cure of disease, and, as such, rather than protecting the health of
consumers, can be seen to be acting in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry's "business with
disease".

Advertising
Arguments as to how or whether Codex should deal with advertising issues have been going on since
at least 1972.

These arguments continued at the May 2006 CCFL meeting in Ottawa, where they centered 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. After considerable discussion regarding
this issue CCFL decided that work on a definition for advertising should indeed be initiated.

From a natural health perspective, however, the definition proposed is far from satisfactory:

"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 behaviors 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, might it also inhibit non-profit natural health advocacy
organizations from influencing and shaping attitude, beliefs and behaviors regarding the sale of
nutritional supplements?

Similarly, could any restrictions on advertising that are based upon 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 pharmaceutical industry's "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 now a key issue at Codex.

Food additives
Codex has a specific committee that deals with the safety of food additives, one of the main functions
of which is to establish their maximum permitted levels. In all, the Codex Food Additive Index
currently lists a total of around 300 individual additives – both synthetic and natural – that it permits to
be used in foods.

6 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

However, whilst it may be the case that some artificial additives are essentially safe when consumed
in small amounts and in isolation from one another, the reality is that no substantive consideration
has been given by Codex to the fact that such chemicals are consumed not in isolation, but in tandem
with each other. As such, and to the benefit of their manufacturers, the cumulative long-term effect
that the consumption of multiple patented chemicals and artificial additives has on the health of
consumers is largely being ignored.

Diseases caused or aggravated by the long-term consumption of pesticides increase the potential
market for pharmaceutical drugs.

Revealingly, therefore, many artificial additives are being manufactured by some of the same
pharmaceutical and chemical companies that would like to ban vitamin supplements and force GM
foods onto our dinner plates.

And, as is similarly the case with pharmaceutical drugs and GM seeds, the main reason why many of
these substances exist is because they can be patented - and patents equal higher profits.

Pesticides
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues was formed in 1966, and is responsible for setting the
maximum limits for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food.

Once again, however, the safety or otherwise of each individual pesticide is generally examined in
isolation, and the long-term effect that their collective presence might have upon the body is mostly
ignored.

Given therefore that many of these dangerous chemicals are manufactured by pharmaceutical and
chemical companies, it is not difficult to imagine that their widespread usage may be seen by these
industries as having a dual financial benefit, in that they potentially increase the size of the market for
– and hence the profits to be made from – the patented drugs used as treatments for any diseases
that their long-term consumption might cause.

Conclusion
Codex is not just about nutritional supplements. In fact, it is the primary political battlefield where the
war is being waged about who will regulate and control the global food supply from farm to fork. This
'war' is being waged by an increasingly tangled web of global authorities, big business and financial
interests, and, as such, trade and profit are its prime goals – not human health.

Current indications suggest that the long-term financial winners in the battle to gain control over the
world's food supply are likely to be the pharmaceutical and chemical industries; especially so given
that the adoption of still further Codex guidelines for foods derived from biotechnology now seems
almost inevitable. As a result, our freedom of choice, our future health and the environment itself are
all now clearly at risk.

Good nutrition and optimum health threaten the pharmaceutical industry's "business with disease"
because they reduce the size of the marketplace for synthetic drugs.

However, food that is free of pesticide residues, artificial additives and other contaminants can, by
definition, only come about as a result of a lower global usage, or ideally the entire elimination, of
these chemicals. This, of course, would not be in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical and
chemical companies that manufacture such substances, as it would clearly result in lower profits,
better health for entire populations, and a consequent reduction in the use of synthetic drugs.

7 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

In conclusion therefore, whilst it may have been somewhat "out of the limelight" recently, the Codex
Alimentarius Commission's support for the "business with disease" has continued unabated, and the
wide scope of its activities makes it a significant danger to the future health of all humanity.

Do we want to see a world where our access to safe, nutritious foods and effective dietary
supplements is restricted and controlled by pharmaceutical and chemical interests?

If not then we must act now, before it's too late.

Further Information
Codex Alimentarius Commission 28th Session, FAO Headquarters - Rome, Italy,
4-9 July, 2005 - Official Report
Codex Alimentarius Commission - Report of the thirtieth session - Rome, 2-7 July
2007 - Official Report
Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements
European Union Food Supplements Directive

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
THE CONTROL AND DENIAL OF SCIENCE
by Paul Anthony Taylor
2007
from DrRathFoundation Website

We don't want to change. Every change is a menace to

stability. That's another reason why we're so chary of applying
new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially
subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a
possible enemy.
– Aldous Huxley
Brave New World.

The 29th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses was held
in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany, from 12 to 16 November 2007.

A subsidiary body of the FAO/WHO-sponsored Codex Alimentarius

Commission, the activities of this Committee are increasingly
perceived by natural health advocates as one of the biggest global
threats to the future availability of therapeutic vitamin supplements
and other micronutrient-based natural health therapies.

The Dr. Rath Health Foundation's External Relations Director, Paul

Anthony Taylor, attended the meeting as a delegate of the
National Health Federation, the only consumer-orientated
pro-natural health organization in the world to have official observer status at Codex meetings.

Paul's eye-witness report, below, describes how Codex continues to deny the health benefits of
vitamins, micronutrients and nutrition in the battle against today's most common diseases and
explains how its key beneficiaries are the large multinational food, biotech and pharmaceutical
corporations.

8 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

The blatant dismissal of consumers' concerns regarding genetically

modified foods

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses,
meeting in Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany, November 2007.

There can surely be little doubt that consumers are overwhelmingly opposed to eating genetically
modified foods. Time and again, surveys and polls in countries throughout the world have proven this
beyond any reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the fact that genetically modified seeds can be patented
– because, unlike regular seeds, they are created in laboratories and do not exist in nature –
continues to make them a highly attractive investment proposition to the biotech and pharmaceutical
companies that produce them.

Patents on genetically modified seeds, and the multi-billion dollar potential profits and market control
that may result from them, are acting as powerful incentives for these manufacturers to find ways of
forcing such foods onto consumers' dinner plates, regardless of the possible dangers to human
health.

Notably, therefore, this year's meeting of the Committee was attended by Dr. H. Yoshikura, the
Chairman of the Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, a group
that has already produced several global guidelines on genetically modified foods.

The Task Force's creation of these guidelines subsequently became instrumental in the United
States, Canada and Argentina launching, and winning, a trade dispute at the World Trade
Organization against the European Union (EU), where they successfully argued that the EU had been
applying a moratorium on the approval and importation of foods containing genetically modified
material and that this was contrary to WTO rules.

Yoshikura had been invited to attend this Codex meeting because the Task Force has recently been
working on an annex to a global guideline for foods that have been genetically modified to
(supposedly) provide nutritional or health benefits. Because the text of this annex contains references
to concepts related to nutrition, the Committee was invited to review the draft annex and to provide
comments on it.

Aside from making a few minor comments, however, the Committee decided to endorse the text of
the annex without making any changes to it whatsoever.

In response to this, and noting that not one single country had spoken out to defend the interests of
consumers regarding this issue, the National Health Federation made the following statement:

9 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

Dr. Rolf Grossklaus,

the Chairman of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses,
claims that consumers do not realize the 'benefits of genetically modified foods'
and that they will in time change their minds about them.

"Mr Chairman, the NHF would like to put on the record that while the issue of risk
assessment of foods derived from biotechnology is being discussed, 95% of European
consumers and millions of consumers from other parts of the world have continued to
indicate their rejection of such foods. We would like to know therefore how the Task
Force aims to balance the need to undertake exposure studies on representative human
populations when so many people reject these foods outright?"

In other words, the Federation was asking how the Task Force was planning to carry out human
safety studies of genetically modified foods when so few people are prepared to eat them.

The Committee's Chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, gave a breathtakingly dismissive response to this
question and, unwilling to admit that comprehensive human exposure studies would not be carried
out before these foods are marketed, he stated that these aspects could not be discussed at this
meeting. Astonishingly, however, he then went on to claim that consumers do not realize the benefits
that these foods provide and that he believes consumers will in time change their minds about them.

Later, at the end of the week, during the meeting to adopt the Committee's official report, I requested,
on behalf of the National Health Federation, that the report should make mention of the Federation's
statement regarding this matter. Dr. Grossklaus refused to allow this however, arguing that the issue
was not discussed and that including mention of all issues that were not discussed would make the
report too long.

All in all, therefore, this was arguably the most blatant example of the concerns of consumers being
dismissed in a Codex meeting that I have ever witnessed.

Recommendations on the scientific basis of health claims – designed

for the large multinationals
Another key issue discussed at this year's meeting was a text dealing with Recommendations on the
Scientific Basis of Health Claims.

Mr Gert Lindemann,
State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Germany,

10 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

addressing the committee at the opening of the meeting.

In recent years, the Committee has given very little time and no substantial debate to this agenda
item at its meetings.

However, although a more in-depth discussion did take place at this year's meeting, the general
thrust of the debate made it clear that, without a drastic change in direction, the key beneficiaries
from these Recommendations will be the large multinational food, biotech and pharmaceutical
corporations, who will most easily be able to afford the substantial financial costs of jumping through
the various scientific and regulatory hoops that the Committee is erecting.

As a result, therefore, it seems likely that we will increasingly see breakfast cereals, genetically
modified foods and pharmaceutically-manufactured RDA vitamin products carrying health claims, for
example, whilst supplements produced by small, innovative vitamin manufacturers – assuming that
they are not regulated out of existence – will probably not do so.

That said, however, and despite the longer debate time for this agenda item at this year's meeting,
only minimal progress was made and several key questions – including defining the necessary level
of scientific evidence for the substantiation of health claims – remain outstanding. If the Committee
were to insist on human studies and clinical trials, for example, even some common health claims for
foods such as fruits and vegetables would have to be banned on the grounds that they were based on
observational studies and epidemiological research, which would clearly be an absurd state of affairs.

With the discussions essentially having reached an impasse, therefore, the Committee agreed that
the text should be returned to Step 2 of the 8-Step Codex approvals process, to be rewritten by the
delegation of France in light of the discussions that had taken place.

As a result, the Recommendations on Health Claims now seem unlikely to be approved and finalized
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission until July 2010, at the earliest.

Nutritional risk analysis – making up the rules as they go along

A further topic that has been given very little discussion time at recent meetings of this Codex
Committee is that of nutritional risk analysis. As regular Codex-watchers will already be aware, this
issue has enormous relevance to the future development of the restrictive Codex Guidelines for
Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, as the Guidelines state that the upper safe levels of vitamins
and minerals in supplements will be established by scientific risk assessment.

Whilst the pro-pharmaceutical lobby – most especially including the anti-supplement extremists within
the European Commission – are desperately trying to reassure everybody that the use of risk
assessment will ensure that upper safe levels for vitamins and minerals will be calculated
scientifically, the reality is that most current methodologies for assessing the supposed "risk" of
consuming nutritional supplements are anything but scientific, and are actually deeply flawed.

Interestingly, therefore, during this year's discussions, the representative from the World Health
Organization (WHO) indicated that WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) should be the primary if not only source of scientific advice to the Committee, arguing
that international expert groups might not provide independent and unbiased scientific advice.

Setting aside the issue as to whether WHO and FAO themselves can be considered to be
independent and unbiased, as the discussions progressed it became increasingly clear that the vast
majority of the Committee was not remotely interested in obtaining independent and unbiased
scientific advice in this area.

11 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

Basil Mathioudakis,
the European Commission's senior representative at the meeting.
Anti-supplement extremists within the European Commission are disingenuously claiming that
the upper safe levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements will be calculated scientifically.

For example, at one point during the discussions, the National Health Federation specifically
requested that a key section of the text should refer to "independent sources of scientific advice" on
risk assessment.

Significantly, however, Basil Mathioudakis, of the European Commission, stated that he was
opposed to the use of the word "independent" in the text and, as a result, it was not included.

In a further key intervention, the National Health Federation wanted language inserted to recognize
the nutrient depletion in soils and foods that has taken place over the past fifty years or so. Upon
hearing this, however, the Chairman, Dr. Grossklaus, responded by saying that the institute he
works for, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, has made a statement on this issue to
the effect that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. In typical fashion, he then
attempted to move straight on and did not give the Committee so much as a moment's opportunity for
comment.

The National Health Federation then made an additional intervention, asking that its comments be
noted in the report and, ideally, considered by the Committee so that the record could be accurate
and complete. Dr. Grossklaus declined to allow this however, saying that since the Federation is a
non-governmental organization, and that no Member State supported its position, its comments could
not go into the report.

Just as he has done in previous years, therefore, Dr. Grossklaus was once again making up the rules
as he went along. This is particularly well illustrated by the fact that paragraph 131 of the Committee's
official report for this meeting makes mention of another National Health Federation intervention and
that this was not supported by any Member State either.

At the close of these discussions, the Committee decided that it had made significant progress and
that it should recommend to the Codex Alimentarius Commission that the text (the Proposed Draft
Nutritional Risk Analysis Principles and Guidelines for Application to the Work of the Committee on
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses) be advanced to Step 5.

As such, only relatively minor changes will now be possible at next year's meeting of the Committee,
and it could now potentially be approved and finalized by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July
2009.

Proposals for nutrient reference values – out of touch with the latest
science
Viewed in light of the latest and most up-to-date research in the area of nutrition, it seems safe to
predict that the Committee's current approach to the setting of nutrient reference values for labeling
purposes may well be judged by future nutritional historians as being almost farcically anachronistic.

12 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

For example, the science of genetics has already taught us that we are all genetically unique and we
now have convincing evidence that factors such as age, sex, contraceptive use, race, dress code,
geographical location, regular blood donation, medicinal drug use, genetic mutations or biochemical
individuality can affect a person's nutrient needs and/or status, sometimes dramatically so.

However, rather than protecting the health of consumers, which is after all one of the stated purposes
of Codex, the Committee is proposing instead to simply set one single reference value for each
vitamin and mineral, and to apply these to the entire world population from the age of three years and
upwards. Then, after work on this is complete, a further set of vitamin and mineral reference values,
to apply to children aged between six months and three years, would be developed.

As such, it would seem that the Committee's intention is essentially to provide a ringing endorsement
of the existing outdated and scientifically invalid recommended daily allowance concept.

Notably, therefore, although the National Health Federation attempted to intervene in this
monumentally myopic error, by proposing the establishment of an additional reference value for each
vitamin and mineral, to represent the population group with the greatest need for it, the Chairman
overruled it, but without giving any valid scientific reason.

Clearly then, whilst the Committee's proposals on nutrient reference values are still admittedly at an
early stage, anyone hoping for an outcome that reflects the latest science or that promotes optimum
nutrition would currently be well advised not to hold their breath.

Still waiting for the ‘Stunning Victory’ at Codex? You're not alone…
Natural health advocates with good memories may recall the so-called Natural Solutions Foundation,
in its report on a meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling that took place in May 2006,
claiming that the outcome of discussions regarding the proposed role of Codex in the implementation
of the World Health Organization's Global Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Health were a
"Stunning Victory" for health freedom.

Well, this certainly wasn't true then and it still isn't now, especially if the outcome of discussions at
this meeting were anything to go by. Eighteen months after the claimed "Stunning Victory", whilst
Codex is still talking about the Global Strategy, there's no sign of any significant action.

For example, although the Chairwoman of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, Dr. Anne
MacKenzie, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the subject of the Global Strategy, asking what
mechanisms were available for inter-committee communication and cooperation, and proposing to
seek guidance from WHO and FAO, her valiant contribution was relegated to a relatively minor
position in the Committee's agenda, under "Other Business and Future Work."

After the somewhat unfocussed and confusing discussion that followed, during which even a
representative of the Codex Secretariat, Dr. Jeronimas Maskeliunas, admitted to being "completely
confused" as to what the Committee was talking about, it was eventually agreed that a Working
Group should meet to discuss the Global Strategy immediately prior to next year's meeting of the
Committee and, after its discussions, that it should report back to the Committee.

Yet more talk, in other words, and still no sign of any action.

At this current juncture, therefore, Codex discussions regarding the World Health Organization's
Global Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity and Health would appear to be light years away from
turning into any sort of victory, let alone a stunning one.

Conclusion
Like the World Controllers in Aldous Huxley's ‘Brave New World’, the Codex Alimentarius

13 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

Commission doesn't want to change.

From its perspective, change – in the form of a new global healthcare system based on scientific
breakthroughs in the areas of vitamin research and cellular health – is a menace to the financial
stability of the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, groundbreaking discoveries in nutritional
therapeutics are increasingly seen as subversive and treated as an enemy to the ‘business with
disease’.

However, the lies and deceit that are necessary to maintain this situation are not sustainable in the
long term. Whether Codex likes it or not, change will eventually come and, when it does, consumers
will overwhelmingly demand that those who had knowingly tried to prevent their access to therapeutic
vitamin supplements and other natural therapies should be called to account for their actions.

In the meantime, however, whilst cardiovascular disease, cancer, AIDS and other common diseases
will undoubtedly be largely unknown to future generations, it is our responsibility to ensure that this
comes about sooner rather than later.

The treatment of diseases with patented synthetic chemical drugs, when safer and more effective
natural treatments are already available, borders on insanity and should no longer be tolerated in any
civilized society worthy of the name.

As such, the sooner the pharmaceutical industry's ‘business with disease’ is confined to the dustbins
of medical history, where it belongs, the better for all mankind.

Video
The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative
medicine and nutrition. Ratified by the World Health Organization, and going into Law in the United
States in 2009, the threat to health freedom has never been greater.

This is the first part of a series of talks by Dr. Rima Laibow MD, available on DVD from the Natural
Solutions Foundation, an non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about how to stop
Codex Alimentarius from taking away our right to freely choose nutritional health.

Nutricide
Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs

14 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15
Codex Alimentarius Commission - A Threat to Humankind http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu3...

Return to Temas / Sociopolitica

Return to Depopulation of Planet Earth
Return to Industry "Weapons" for Earth's
Depopulation

15 z 15 2008-12-03 15:15