Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.