Guest guest Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 http://www.pridesenior.org/Networker/Winter_2003/codex.asp CODEX ALIMENTARIUS: THE SHADOW LENGTHENS By Patricia Nell Warren The media are raising little or no alarm about the long shadow that U.N.'s Codex Alimentarius (Food Law) will cast across our lives. This surprises me. The Codex threatens to limit access to the vitamins and health supplements so vital to many people with HIV, whether they do conventional drug treatment or not. More to the point, for Pride Seniors Network, vitamins and health supplements are seen as essential and affordable ingredients in personal healthcare programs by many senior Americans, both on the preventive and curative front. What is the Codex Alimentarius, that it carries a name with a Roman imperial history? During the Roman Empire, organized bodies of law like the Codex Justinianus were created by various emperors. Down through Western history, the word " codex " has continued to imply any grand scheme to impose law and regulation on a broad scale. So it's no accident that this new food law, established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations -- the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) -- carries that ancient title. For several decades, the 165-nation Codex Commission -- headed by a six-member Secretariat -- has been quietly meeting in FAO headquarters in Rome to set standards for everything from DDT use to fighting mad cow disease. The Codex has strong ties with the World Trade Organization and multinational corporations. There may be as many as twenty Codex Committee meetings in a year. In July 2001, for example, the Commission met in Geneva to discuss safety of GMOs and approve guidelines for organic livestock. The Commission describes itself as implementing " the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. The Codex Alimentarius... is a collection of internationally adopted food standards presented in a uniform manner. " Sounds like a good thing, right? Who would object to clean food for the globe? International trade has meant that all kinds of dangerous organisms are being spread thousands of miles around the globe in food. The emergence of genetically modified foods, the over-use of hormones and antibiotics in food animals, the presence of industrial toxins in irrigation water and soil -- all have stirred hair-raising consumer questions. But the Codex Alimentarius is one of those swords that cuts both ways. According to <Organic Consumers Newsletter>: " Codex decisions are made by the few, for the few. The public is not invited, and often non-governmental organizations are not permitted to observe. Under the World Trade Organization rules, Codex decisions override national and local decisions. So if, for example, Codex decided that no dose limits are required for irradiated food, the USA would not be able to stop the importation of foods irradiated at doses higher than the doses approved by the FDA. " Starting in the 1980s, Big Pharma began to cast covetous looks at the growing international market for alternative and preventive medicine and healthcare, which ranges from commercial vitamins and health supplements to organically grown herb teas. In many developing countries, people stayed loyal to ancient types of folk medicine, and many such national products -- like traditional Chinese herbs -- began to be widely exported. In industrialized countries, many people were losing faith in conventional Western medicine and veering to folk or alternative medicine. Growing numbers of older people used vitamins and supplements. In the U.S., the FDA tried to regulate vitamins and supplements as foods or prescription medicines. FDA argued that there were instances of dishonest advertising, substandard manufacture, improper use, and other dangers to consumers. For seniors, questions and controversy do abound on some fronts. What is the best ratio of calcium to magnesium in supplements? What is the minimum calcium needed, as well as the proper ratio of calcium and protein, in order to prevent osteoporosis? How good are the cheapest commercial-grade vitamins, compared to more expensive higher-quality vitamins? Some of these questions are still not answered definitively. As always, seniors are well advised to consult their doctor or other qualified professional before embarking on a campaign of taking vitamins, supplements, medicinal herbs. But controversy, questions and the challenge of ongoing medical knowledge should not be a reason to classify all such substances as drugs, especially since it's clear that the Codex is driven far more by market concerns than by any concern for consumer safety. Many consumers, as well as health and consumer organizations, have already fiercely opposed the FDA's move. They argued that some scientific studies show clear benefits from these substances. Just as importantly, they argued that they have a constitutional right to make unregulated decisions about healthcare. All through the 1980s, Congress sided with consumers and blocked the FDA move. Enter the Codex, with a plan cooked up by the German government and several multinational corporations. The Codex aimed to make an end run around Congress and other national legislative bodies. Currently, despite growing opposition from health groups world-wide, the Codex Commission is marching steadily towards adoption of its own strict guidelines for these substances. The Codex will (1) prohibit prohibit dissemination of health-related information concerning vitamins, amino acids, minerals and other natural products for prevention and treatment of illnesses, and (2) (b) prohibit distribution of any vitamins and other natural products that exceed the guidelines of the Codex Commission. Countries failing to comply will be punished by WTO with economic sanctions. <Consumer Health Newsletter of Canada> cautions: " The name of the game for Codex is to shift all remedies into the prescription category so they can be controlled exclusively by the medical monopoly and its bosses, the major pharmaceutical firms. The Codex proposals already exist as law in Norway and Germany, where the entire health food industry has literally been taken over by the drug companies. In these countries, vitamin C above 200 mg is illegal as is vitamin E above 45 IU, vitamin B1 over 2.4 mg and so on. " In those countries, some supplements are already being sold at hugely inflated prices. As the Codex enters EU life, its European opponents have been fighting it tooth and nail in the International Court of Justice at the Hague. So far the U.S. -- still responding to pressures from consumers -- has voted against Codex takeover within our borders. However, the FDA appears to pay only lip service to the wishes of so many citizens, and is quietly moving ahead to " harmonize " U.S. law and the U.S. marketplace with the Codex. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is possibly easing the way for Codex by funding studies that supposedly " investigate " the safety and effectiveness of targeted substances that have been in the news -- like glucosamine/chondroitin sulfare, natural ephedra, St. John's wort, etc. I share with many seniors a personal interest in glucosamine/chondroitin sulfare because I think it has helped me recover from joint problems caused by Lyme disease. One wonders if such studies will conveniently come up with " results " that discredit natural herbs, vitamins and supplements, in order to justify outlawing them or regulating them as drugs. Why am I suspicious? Because, according to New England Journal of Medicine, so much medical research today is freighted with conflict of interest. The financial disclosures that are now routine in some major scientific publications reveal all too many funding ties between researchers and the pharmaceutical industry -- raising the question of whether the reported results are skewed to benefit the funders. A case in point is St. John's wort, used for centuries to treat mild depression and popular today with some seniors as a herbal anti-depressant. One recent Duke University study, funded by the NIH and reported in JAMA, alleges that St. John's wort is not very effective in treating depression, compared to Zoloft. I was not surprised to learn that Pfizer was involved in the study -- the control group were Zoloft users. If that isn't conflict of interest, I don't know what is. Zoloft, an antidepressant made by Pfizer, competes with St. John's wort for a market share -- the natural herb gets a reported $210 million in sales annually. No wonder Big Pharma wants total control of the health market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.