July 1, 2005: The Day CODEX Will Protect You From High-Dose Dietary Supplements?
CategoriesHere is a good summary of how unscientific these so called scientific bodies can be when it comes to protect their cronies. Given such huge benefits from supplements, these shenanigans should be countered and the whole sham initiative turned against the preparators.
Sadly the authorities know that such a counter initiative is difficult and costly, hence unlikely, and they will continue to blatantly abuse us. Hopefully we can prove their assumption wrong as per the following:
ANH legal brief in the European Court of Justice
Canadian Court Case against Health Protection Branch (HPB)
Please distribute the above widely so more can get involved and turn this despicable situation around.
Chris Gupta
-----------------------July 1, 2005: The Day CODEX Will Protect You From High-Dose Dietary Supplements
By Bill Sardi
11/8/2004Advances in dietary supplementation are about to take a giant step backwards. About 18 months from now the dreaded CODEX rules will go into force regarding dietary supplements. Out of ignorance, the vitamin supplement industry has completely caved in to the regulatory process, with one scientific officer for an organization that represents the vitamin supplement manufacturers saying the soon-to-be-implemented CODEX regulations are broadly welcomed. The industry has been badgered into accepting the false notion that the world must be protected from the imagined side effects of high-dose vitamins and minerals. "We are sure Codex will go through in July, 2005 and will be similar to US law. The guidelines are not perfect, but this is an excellent document that has been a long-time in coming, says John Hathcock, scientific officer for the Council for Responsible Nutrition.
Instead of deciding upon a percentage of the outdated Recommended Dietary Allowance for the upper limit of supplemental nutrients, which vitamin supplement advocates feared, now the maximum levels will be determined by scientific risk assessment. The problem is that the published science behind dietary supplement is often flawed, biased, outdated and in bad need of revision. For example, the upper limits previously proposed for vitamin C (2000 mg), vitamin D (2000 IU) and folic acid (1000 mcg), that CODEX will likely adopt, will set back recent advances in nutritional science that would otherwise significantly reduce morbidity and mortality among millions of people worldwide.
As early as 1989 health authorities questioned whether it was even possible to establish an upper limit on vitamin D intake. [J Nutrition 119:1825-8, 1989] There is simply no adequate way to establish a universal upper limit for vitamin D since people living in countries in northern latitudes produce no vitamin D in winter from sunlight exposure, as well as blacks who have immigrated to northern lands, require far more vitamin D than native Caucasians. A one-size-fits-all upper limit doesnt work. Dr. Michael Holick, an expert on vitamin D, says blacks make five to 10 times less vitamin D in their skin per minute of sun exposure than white people due to higher melanin pigmentation. Ten times more blacks are vitamin D-deficient than whites. Blacks should be protesting CODEX, but their own health leaders are confused themselves. Yet many of the major health risks for blacks, hypertension, colon, prostate and breast cancer, and immune problems, are directly related to a lack of vitamin D. [U.S. Pharmacist 10:66-72, 2004] Blacks may need 10,000 units of vitamin D per day, especially in northern climates in the winter, just to remain healthy. The maximum intake for blacks should go far beyond that mark.
Furthermore, there is no practical risk of toxicity from vitamin D supplementation. Toxicity doesnt begin till 40,000 units are consumed daily for many months. So many American consumers already shun high-dose vitamin D supplementation (2000 IU) because their doctor, pharmacist, or an outdated textbook, mistakenly advises against it. To reveal how misled health authorities are about vitamin D, a person can stand in their swim trunks in the Arizona sun at noontime in the summer for one hour and produce 10,000 units of vitamin D, five times the proposed upper limit, and never experience any side effects. But high-dose vitamin D in pill form must assuredly be toxic, say the misguided experts. [Am J Clinical Nutrition 69: 842-56, 1999; Am J Clinical Nutrition;73:288-94, 2001; Nutrition Journal. 3:8, 2004]
No more expensive urine: high-dose vitamin C
Drs. Steve Hickey and Hilary Roberts from Manchester, England, authors of ASCORBATE: The Science of Vitamin C (www.lulu.com/ascorbate), have exposed the flaws in the government-sponsored science that fallaciously claims vitamin C supplementation beyond 200 milligrams per day is worthless and becomes nothing more than expensive urine. The studies performed to establish the Recommended Dietary Allowance for vitamin C did not calculate for the half life of vitamin C, which is about 30 minutes. So tests were performed 12 hours (or 24 half-lives) after consumption and the peak concentration in the blood circulation was measured. Of course, it was an experiment designed to mislead. Drs. Hickey and Roberts are now rushing to produce another book, the "Ridiculous Daily Allowance, which will further expose the reigning counterfeit science behind vitamin C supplementation.
Virtually all healthy adults who supplement their diet with 500 milligrams of vitamin C taken 5 times a day (2500 mg total) will achieve blood levels that can significantly reduce the risk of mortality and morbidity compared to adults with low vitamin C intake. If some minimal amount of vitamin C prevents overt scurvy, then what will the maximal level of intake be for vitamin C? Will the new maximum be enough to prevent cataracts, aneurysms, blood vessel disease, gall stones? All these are maladies that can be prevented through high-dose vitamin C supplementation. Smokers, pregnant females, people taking aspirin, steroids or estrogen replacement, diabetics, growing children, nursing home patients and sun-exposed individuals need more vitamin C. Will the new CODEX maxims consider these millions of people?
Just when researchers are finding high-dose folic acid, at least 1000-5000 micrograms, may prevent Alzheimers disease, birth defects, cancer, and replace prescription antidepressant drugs, CODEX may set a flawed upper limit that will inhibit consumers from purchasing high doses.
Is CODEX that bad?
Since CODEX doesnt outlaw dietary supplements outright, it only establishes maxims on vitamins and minerals in one dose (a serving size), it doesnt appear to be too onerous. Were not taking your vitamins away, say authorities for CODEX. But now vitamin D pills may be limited to maximum 2000 IU per pill, so a black person needing to consume 10,000 IU per day would need to take 5 of these pills, at greater expense, when one 10,000 IU pill could be made available at far less cost. Under CODEX, vitamin B6 may be limited to 10 milligrams per pill (Britain adopted this maximum for vitamin B6 recently). A German study indicates 300-400 milligrams of vitamin B6 may effectively prevent high blood pressure among diabetics. CODEX might require a consumer to take 30-40 pills instead of one mega-dose pill to obtain 300-400 milligrams of vitamin B6 needed to control blood pressure.
CODEX will likely mandate the maxims be printed on labels, which will further frighten consumers away from high-dose supplements. Consumers will have to be educated to ignore the labels.
CODEX maxims on vitamins and minerals are supposed to protect the public from side effects due to over-dosage. But without CODEX there have been no reported deaths and only a small number of adverse reactions reported to poison control centers in the USA in the past few years. [Am Journal Emergency Med 20: 391-452, 2002] Who is CODEX protecting?
Anticipate an all-out barrage of misinformation in the news media on the safety of high-dose dietary supplements between now and July 1, 2005. The vitamin supplement industry will surely be on the defensive and in the past has not adequately refuted factitious arguments about mega-dose supplementation.
Copyright 2004 Bill Sardi
Bill Sardi is a consumer advocate and health journalist, writing from San Dimas, California. He has written numerous health books including THE NEW TRUTH ABOUT VITAMINS AND MINERALS (www.hereandnowbooks.com). His website is www.askbillsardi.com.
posted by Chris Gupta on Wednesday November 10 2004
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/11/10/july_1_2005_the_day_codex_will_protect_you_from_highdose_dietary_supplements.htm
Related ArticlesSaving Us From Ourselves - CODEX
This is one of the best summaries on the European Health Directive commonly known as CODEX and on how it will impact us here in North America and elsewhere. Please seriously read and take action as outlined in Dr. Wright's action plan. Canadians Can also rally in this effort through donating to and becoming members of the Friends of Freedom grassroots organization and repeatedly writing to their MPs. See Canadian... [read more]
October 19, 2004 - Chris GuptaUnderstanding The Pharmacartel Assault On Supplements
I know, I know, this is beginning to sound like a broken record, But most of the value of the information we have today and in the future will become useless if we are not able to procure the nutrients that we need to manage our own health. I implore you to at least understand the issues and act appropriately based on your own conclusions. At the moment the only... [read more]
October 22, 2004 - Chris GuptaPushing for Supplement Restrictions - Again!
..."Mounting evidence showing the numerous side effects of popular supplements and their potentially dangerous drug interactions makes it clear that now is the time for manufacturers to let consumers take the driver's seat. Here's what could be done to help consumers make more informed choices: Reclassify supplements routinely recommended by physicians. These include folic acid for pregnant women, calcium for those at risk for osteoporosis, iron for those with anemia,... [read more]
November 05, 2004 - Chris Gupta
