The Worst Is Still To Come (Codex Report - Bonn 2005

[Guest guest]

.... " the CCNFSDU remains a significant danger to the future of natural

healthcare and health freedom.

Specifically, the pro-pharmaceutical lobby want to see the NRVs to be set at,

or near to, RDA

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/12/15/an_open_challenge_to_the_ridicu\

lous_dietary_allowance_rda.htm levels, thus weakening the

arguments in favour of dietary supplements; the Recommendations on the

Scientific Basis of Health Claims to as far as possible prevent the

communication of

lifesaving information by dietary supplement manufacturers; the Discussion

Paper on Risk Analysis to be developed in such a way as to ensure that the upper

safe levels of vitamins and minerals are set as low as possible; and the

implementation of the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health

to

be delayed for as long as possible and to not interfere with the

multi-trillion dollar 'business with disease'.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/pharmaceutical_indust\

ry.htm

Clearly, therefore, now more than ever we must remain vigilant, as the most

potentially damaging aspects of the CCNFSDU's attacks on natural healthcare and

health freedom are still to come. "

" The FAO/WHO Nutrient Risk Assessment Project has thus far been conducted

with a disturbing lack of transparency and accountability, and, as such, the

fears of many observers - that the project could eventually result in maximum

levels being set for vitamin and mineral supplements that are little better

than,

and in some cases identical to, the RDAs

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/12/15/an_open_challenge_to_the_ridicu\

lous_dietary_allowance_rda.htm -

would currently appear to be entirely justified "

Here is a perfect running example of how most regulations, and laws for that

matter, are made. With all the stake holders (vested interests) literally

controlling the show.

" the National Health Federation (NHF) http://www.thenhf.com/ was the only

non-governmental delegation representing the interests of health freedom at this

meeting. "

A powerless token representation for the effected/exploited group is allowed

to attend under the pretense of protecting the constituents.

These shenanigans will have to be dealt with via the courts, the only

language these scoundrels understand it seems. We need to build a cost recovery

system as part of the sale of supplements to maintain our defences for the long

haul.

See: STATEMENT OF CLAIM extracted from Canadian Court Case against Health

Protection Branch (HPB).

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/07/22/access_to_medical_treatment_act\

_amta.htm

Even then and victory is not certain by any means as courts too can be

influenced with money.

Think in the final analysis we all must work to remove the hand of the

regulators on all products that are less toxic than say some commonly accepted

poison like aspirin. Then use it as reference for the regulation our nutritional

based products and with the onus on the regulator to prove harm.

See: ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT ACT (AMTA)

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/07/22/access_to_medical_treatment_act\

_amta.htm

A fall back plan is to simply break on mass the " illegal laws "

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/03/09/illegal_medical_system_made_leg\

al.htm that

they make to protect their cronies.

Gupta

http://tinyurl.com/8zgj6

------------------------

The Worst Is Still To Come (Original is here)

By

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex-worst.htm

November 2005 saw the 27th meeting of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and

Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) take place in Bonn, Germany. The

Committee, one of 27 currently active Codex committees, has been meeting in

Germany

since its inception in 1966, and was responsible for the drafting of the

controversial Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10206/cxg_055e.pdf .

However, and as this

article will show, the most potentially damaging aspects of the Committee's

attacks on natural healthcare and health freedom are still to come.

The 2005 meeting of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special

Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) took place from 21-25 November, in Bonn, Germany, and was

attended by 315 delegates representing 68 countries and 33 international

organizations.

Any doubts as to whether or not Codex is concerned about its loss of trust

and respect amongst consumers were immediately dispelled by the Committee's

infamous Chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, who opened the meeting by stating that

the

Committee had to improve its public relations image. However, any hopes that

Codex might be about to change course proved to be wide of the mark when he

went on to announce that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO) http://www.fao.org/ , one of the two Codex parent bodies, would

be filming this year's meeting, and explained that as a part of the film the

FAO filmmakers would be interviewing some of the delegates. Clearly therefore we

can expect to see a particularly propaganda-laden film becoming available for

viewing on the Codex Alimentarius website http://www.c

odexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp in due course, complete with Codex

delegates talking

gushingly and disingenuously about 'protecting' consumers.

In addition, Dr. Grossklaus revealed that next year's CCNFSDU meeting will be

taking place not in Germany, but in Thailand. Perhaps not surprisingly,

therefore, some delegates subsequently speculated, privately, that this change

in

venue might in part be due to the adverse publicity that has been generated by

the work of the Committee in recent years and that by holding their next

meeting in Thailand, away from the public gaze, the Committee might be hoping to

avoid further damaging scrutiny of its work.

Four items on the Committee's agenda this year were of particular importance

to the future of natural healthcare and health freedom.

Proposals for Additional or Revised Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for

labeling purposes

The proposal to consider additional or revised nutrient reference values

(NRVs) for labeling purposes was originally made at the November 2003 meeting of

the Committee http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/34/al04_26e.pdf

, and this year the Codex delegates were considering a discussion paper

prepared by a working group under the coordination of South Africa.

NRVs can essentially be thought of as a way of describing the nutritional

requirements of the average person. Naturally however this concept presents an

immediate problem, because, given that each of us is genetically unique, can it

really be said that there is such a thing as an 'average' person? Moreover, in

considering 'requirements' the fundamental question then arises as to whether

one is talking about the nutritional requirements for ordinary health, or

those for optimum health. As always, of course, the pro-pharmaceutical lobby can

easily be distinguished in these discussions by virtue of their pressing for

the NRVs to be set at, or near to, RDA

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/12/15/an_open_challenge_to_the_ridicu\

lous_dietary_allowance_rda.htm

levels.

The setting of the NRVs at realistic levels would be an important step

towards the liberation of human health and the global recognition that dietary

supplements are required for the optimum functioning of the human body. No small

wonder then that the pro-pharmaceutical lobby is so vigorously opposed to the

NRVs being raised to levels that can only be obtained via supplementation, as

the concept of optimum health is inimical to the 'business with disease'

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/pharmaceutical_indust\

ry.h

tm .

Fortunately however the discussion paper prepared by South Africa showed

clear evidence of support for the argument that the NRVs should reflect the most

recent scientific research, in order to promote optimum health and reduce the

risk of disease in the majority of people. Predictably, therefore, there was a

good deal of controversy over this during the meeting, and the Committee's

Chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, even went so far as to interrupt South Africa

during their presentation, asking them to hurry up and finish.

Later on in the discussion, in a particularly partisan intervention, Dr.

Grossklaus instructed the Committee that this was not about providing consumers

with optimum nutrition, but about not misleading them and setting nutrient

reference values for foods for global trade purposes. Nevertheless, and as the

National Health Federation (NHF) http://www.thenhf.com/ delegation then quite

logically pointed out, if the mandate of the Committee was really to avoid

misleading consumers then there is most definitely a need to discuss optimum

nutrition levels. Significantly however, NHF was the only non-governmental

delegation representing the interests of health freedom at this meeting.

Towards the end of this discussion a representative of the FAO announced that

along with the World Health Organization (WHO) http://www.who.int/en/ they

were about to hold a meeting in Florence, Italy, with the goal of reaching

agreement on principles and guidelines that will lead to " evidence-based dietary

standards " .  As a part of this work FAO/WHO will apparently be discussing the

possibility of setting up an expert consultation to establish new NRVs.

Clearly then, it would appear that the eventual setting of the NRVs will now

be strongly influenced by FAO and WHO; two organizations with even less

accountability to consumers than Codex itself.

Draft Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims

The outcome of the Codex discussions regarding the Draft Recommendations on

the Scientific Basis of Health Claims are absolutely crucial to the future of

natural healthcare and health freedom, because, in order for chronic disease to

become largely a thing of the past, dietary supplement manufacturers need to

be able to provide truthful and non-misleading information about their

products. Naturally therefore the pro-pharmaceutical lobby is becoming

increasingly

desperate to prevent the communication of lifesaving natural health

information, as once this becomes sufficiently widespread it will essentially

spell the

beginning of the end for the 'business with disease'.

Nevertheless, and for the second year running, there was only a very limited

opportunity for the Committee to consider the Recommendations at this year's

meeting. Issues discussed during the short debate that did take place included

authorization procedures for health claims, the scientific substantiation of

health claims, and disease risk reduction claims.  There was no in-depth

examination of these topics however, and the Committee agreed that this work

would

be continued over the next year by a working group under the coordination of

France.

Crucially however the European Union (EU) is currently expected to adopt a

very restrictive Regulation on Nutrition and Health Claims in mid-2006. As such

it seems very likely that the EU will be pushing for the Draft Recommendations

on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims to be given a much higher priority

at next years CCNFSDU meeting in Thailand, at which point we can expect it to

begin pressing for the Recommendations to be drafted in such a way as to

reflect what will then be EU law. Given the degree to which the European Union

has

already been able to shape the development of the Guidelines for Vitamin and

Mineral Food Supplements

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10206/cxg_055e.pdf to match

its highly restrictive EU Food Supplements

Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-le

x/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en00510057.pdf , the extent to which it

will be able to do likewise with the

Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims should not therefore be

underestimated.

In this respect it is particularly worth bearing in mind the now infamous

statement of the European Commission delegate at the 2003 meeting of the

Committee http://www.thenhf.com/codex_08.htm , that health claims for vitamin

and

mineral supplements should be prohibited. Given that the Committee's Chairman,

Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, stated at the same meeting that drugs are to mitigate and

prevent diseases, and that the role of food supplements is to support the

diet, the type of world that both the European Union and Codex envisage is now

becoming increasingly apparent.

Discussion Paper on Risk Analysis

This discussion paper was prepared by a working group coordinated by

Australia. The eventual outcome of this work has enormous relevance to the

future

development of the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, as the

Guidelines state that the upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals in

supplements will be established by scientific risk assessment.

Notably therefore, when this agenda item was discussed at last year's meeting

the Committee indicated that it would be dealing with the " over dosage of

nutrients. " http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/627/al28_26e.pdf

The content of this year's discussion paper continues in much the same vein,

making it abundantly clear that the Committee is intending to treat vitamins and

minerals as dangerous chemicals, as opposed to essential dietary elements.

Until such time as this approach changes, therefore, our health and freedoms

will continue to be at risk.

The good news however is that due to a shortage of time there was very little

discussion on this agenda item this year. Ominously, however, the Committee's

Chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, stated that this work was of enormous

importance, and that it should be given the highest priority. As such it appears

likely that substantially more discussion time will be given over to this issue

at

next year's meeting of the Committee, in Thailand.

In addition however, it was also announced during the meeting that the final

report from the FAO/WHO Nutrient Risk Assessment Project

http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientraproject/en/ is currently being

prepared, and that

this should be available during or before early 2006. Moreover, the report will

then be discussed at next year's meeting of the Committee. As such it seems

likely that FAO/WHO will now be very influential upon not only the development

of the NRVs, but also the setting of the upper safe levels for the Guidelines

for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.

The FAO/WHO Nutrient Risk Assessment Project has thus far been conducted with

a disturbing lack of transparency and accountability, and, as such, the fears

of many observers - that the project could eventually result in maximum

levels being set for vitamin and mineral supplements that are little better

than,

and in some cases identical to, the RDAs - would currently appear to be

entirely justified.

WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health

The WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/strategy_english_web.pd\

f was

endorsed by the World Health Assembly in May 2004

http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA57/A57_R17-en.pdf , and recognizes

that a few largely preventable

risk factors account for most of the world's disease burden. Describing how

cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancers and obesity-related conditions now

account for some 60% of global deaths and almost half (47%) of the global burden

of

disease, the Strategy explains how healthier diet, nutrition and physical

activity can help to prevent and control these illnesses.

At the July 2005 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission

http://ftp.fao.org/codex/alinorm05/al28_41e.pdf , in Rome, it was decided that

the

potential areas for action by Codex in relation to the implementation of the

Global

Strategy were mainly relevant to the work of the Codex Committee on Food

Labelling (CCFL) and the CCNFSDU; and that WHO, in cooperation with FAO, would

produce a document for consideration by these committees, including specific

proposals for new work.

Discussions on this agenda item had originally been scheduled to take place

very early on in this year's CCNFSDU meeting, under agenda item 2. However, the

Committee decided instead to move this debate to the very end of the last day

of its meeting, and as a result there was only a very limited amount of time

available to discuss the matter.

During the short discussion that did take place WHO presented a new two-page

proposal document for the Committee's consideration. Unfortunately, however,

the vast majority of delegations had not even seen the document because its

presence had not been previously announced and the WHO had apparently run out of

copies to distribute. After a short debate therefore the Codex Secretariat

stated that the Committee should report to the Codex Alimentarius Commission

that

there had been insufficient time to fully address the proposal, and it was

decided that Codex delegations could submit comments upon the proposal to

FAO/WHO by email. Nevertheless, it seemed clear that the lack of proper

discussion

time for this issue was totally intentional, rather than merely accidental.

Conclusion

As can be seen, the work of the CCNFSDU remains a significant danger to the

future of natural healthcare and health freedom.

Specifically, the pro-pharmaceutical lobby want to see the NRVs to be set at,

or near to, RDA levels, thus weakening the arguments in favour of dietary

supplements; the Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims to as

far as possible prevent the communication of lifesaving information by dietary

supplement manufacturers; the Discussion Paper on Risk Analysis to be

developed in such a way as to ensure that the upper safe levels of vitamins and

minerals are set as low as possible; and the implementation of the WHO Global

Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health to be delayed for as long as

possible

and to not interfere with the multi-trillion dollar 'business with disease'.

Clearly, therefore, now more than ever we must remain vigilant, as the most

potentially damaging aspects of the CCNFSDU's attacks on natural healthcare and

health freedom are still to come.