Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS: THE SHADOW LENGTHENS

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...