Health Supreme by Sepp Hasslberger

Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media

Networking For A Better Future - News and perspectives you may not find in the media

Health Supreme

News Blog

Site Map

NewsGrabs

Economy

Environment

Epidemics

Health

Human Potential

Legislation

Pharma

Science

Society

Technology

The Media

War Crimes


Articles Archive

 

See also:

 

Communication Agents:

INACTIVE  Ivan Ingrilli
  Chris Gupta
  Tom Atlee
INACTIVE  Emma Holister
  Rinaldo Lampis
  Steve Bosserman
  CA Initiative
  CA Journal

 

Robin Good's
Web sites:

 

Other Interesting Health Sites:

 

The Individual - Human Ability:

 

Society/Politics:

 

Economy & Environment:

 

Technologies -
New Energy:

 

Physics:

 

Information:

 

The blog universe:

November 25, 2003

Codex 2003 - Grossklaus and Mathioudakis: Nutrition not relevant to Health

Categories

November 3-7, 2003, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for special dietary uses met in BONN, Germany, for their once-yearly come-together. On the agenda for discussion were, before baby foods and the description of healthy properties of food on labels, the proposed Codex Giudelines for "Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements". Such guidelines would be, once passed, the equivalent of international law to be followed in all commerce of vitamin and mineral supplements.

As I reported on 6 November, a very interesting proposal made by South Africa was, to officially acknowledge the importance of supplements to the prevention of degenerative diseases. What a pity that this was unceremoniously squashed by the German Chairman of the Committee Rolf Grossklaus and the "Observer" at Codex for the EU Commission, Basil Mathioudakis.

We now have an excellent report by Paul Taylor, who attended the discussions. Reading Paul's report, you will find out who are the people in control of the discussion that is supposed to be shaping laws we may have to follow in the future if we wish to continue to take nutritional supplements: One of them is Rolf Grossklaus, Chairman of the Committee, who often decided in a seemingly arbitrary fashion, what constituted a Committee "consensus" and what didn't. The other major player is Basil Mathioudakis, the EU "Observer", representing a solid block of nations whose officials attend the meetings but have practically lost any possibility of independent action.

You will also find out that for these two officials, nutrition has "nothing to do with prevention" and that prevention "is the province of medicine". Let us stop and think for a moment: International legislation, which will deeply affect our health choices, not to speak of the laws and health expenditures of a multitude of countries, is being formed by an obscure Committee of government bueraucrats, which in turn appears to be controlled or "steered" by a very small number of individuals who think that health and nutrition are complete strangers!

Considering the view that "nutrition has nothing to do with preventing illness", is it any wonder that health expenditures in most countries are on the rise, while health of the population seems to be at an all-time low?

Another in-depth report on the meeting has been prepared by Suzan Walter, President of the American Holistic Health Association. Suzan is very knowledgeable about the applicability of Codex Standards and Guidelines to international trade and, by extension, to national legislation on the subject of health and nutritional products. Suzan's report can be found on this page.

Dr. Ang Peng Wong from Malaysia has contributed his impressions of the Codex meeting and the discussions there. Coming from South East Asia, Dr. Wong brings us the viewpoint of the developing nations, and their specific concerns with western global trade dominance as expressed through Codex. His colorful description and his impressions can be found at the very end of this article, after Paul Taylor's report.

You may believe, after reading the various reports, that the way things are decided at this particular Codex Committee is not quite democratic, and you might not be far off the truth. But let us consider WHY this might be so.

At the meeting, some leaflets were available, one of them about consumer participation. I took one home as a trophy, and here is what it says. The headline: "CONSUMERS: Are you concerned about the quality and safety of your food?"

The leaflet goes on to state that consumers are playing "a vital role in pressuring governments to adhere to Codex standards and to anticipate emerging food safety and food quality issues. Consumers are currently involved in issues concerning BIOTECHNOLOGY and ANIMAL FEED."

Note they are not saying a thing about consumers being active in the area of FOOD SUPPLEMENTS.

The leaflet also explains how to participate in Codex activities.

"Consumer participation is an important element in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Commission recommends that consumer representatives be included on National Codex Committees, which formulate country policy and contribute to debate at international Codex meetings. In addition, international consumer groups participate actively in Codex work. If you are a member of a consumer group, put the Codex Alimentarius on the agenda of your next meeting. Your country's Codex Contact Point can tell you more about how your group can influence food standards."

Returning to the question of WHY our interests don't seem represented and decisions are made in a quite undemocratic fashion, we might have to look for the answer close to home. Maybe we have no one but ourselves to blame. Let me ask you - when was the last time you inquired with your country's health ministry about their views on high dose nutritional supplements and asked them what stance they are taking at Codex meetings on this matter?


* * * * * * * * * *

CODEX COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION AND FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY USES

Twenty-fifth Session.
Bruckenforum, Bonn, Germany, 3-7 November 2003.


A report on the Codex discussions regarding the Proposed Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements, prepared by Paul Anthony Taylor.


Monday 3rd November 2003

Agenda item 5. Proposed Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements

The Chairman opened discussions on this agenda item by saying that for a long time no progress had been made on this issue, but that people had become aware of the need to develop these proposals. He also stated that he intended to make a major breakthrough on this occasion, and suggested that the discussions should include the issue of the maximum values for nutrients.

Title

The first issue to be discussed by the Committee was that of the title of the guidelines. (Proposed Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements). Malaysia proposed to delete the word “food” from the title, and South Africa supported them on this. The EC (European Commission) Observer (Mr. Basil Mathioudakis) did not agree to this however, saying that it was not acceptable. The general pattern of the debate began to become apparent from this point onwards, as the Chairman stated that he did not share the concerns of Malaysia and South Africa, and said that we could leave the title as it is. In effect (and not for the last time in these meetings) the Chairman was no longer acting as a moderator, but as a judge. With regard to this point, it is notable that the text of the Draft Report that was issued on the Friday stated the following:

After an exchange of views it was however agreed to retain the current title.

As will be seen later, this was by no means the only instance where the Draft Report did not reflect what had actually happened.


Preamble

The debate then passed quickly on to the text of the preamble. South Africa read out their proposed alterations, which included wording to the effect that people should “be encouraged to select a healthy diet and supplement this diet with those nutrients for which the intake from the diet is insufficient to meet the requirements necessary for the prevention of chronic diseases and/or for the promotion of health beyond the demands of preventing micronutrient deficiencies.” The National Health Federation supported this, saying that this text merely states what we know to be true.

The EC Observer however said that food and the prevention of diseases do not go together. He was supported by the Chairman in this, who said that drugs are to mitigate and prevent diseases, and that the role of food supplements is to support the diet.

CRN talked about the classic nutritional diseases, the nutrient responsive diseases, and nutrients used as drugs, and said that this sort of categorisation should be the way forward. The EC Observer, however, said that health claims for vitamin and mineral supplements should be prohibited. The Chairman pointed out that the situation in the United States was different, and that the Codex Committee has a certain conflict regarding this issue. Medical supervision is important in this field, he said, and we should not talk about the prevention of diseases. The National Health Federation refuted the Chairman’s statement however.

Tunisia said that most people who have access to a balanced diet get sufficient nutrients, and that people should be encouraged to aim for a balanced diet. The Chairman then intervened in the discussion, saying that he wanted to stick to the preamble as it is, as the Codex Committee had been discussing this issue for years. Yet again then, rather than acting as a moderator the Chairman was playing the role of judge, and the discussions moved, or rather, were forced, onto the next paragraph of the Guidelines.

Interestingly however, the Draft Report described this intervention as follows:

After some discussion, the Committee agreed to retain the current text as it resulted from considerable discussion and consensus at the last session.

Once again, it would appear that the Draft Report did not accurately reflect what had actually happened.

Scope

South Africa read out their proposed alterations to this paragraph, and said that the sentence “It is left to national authorities to decide whether vitamin and mineral supplements are drugs or foods” should be deleted. They argued that this sentence creates a potential barrier to trade, and that the Codex mandate is to remove existing barriers to trade and to harmonise legislation globally. South Africa were supported by the USA, who said that Codex guidelines only apply to foods and that it is not necessary to reiterate this. After some discussion the Committee eventually agreed to delete this sentence.

During the discussions on Scope, the Chairman inferred that the EU wanted to leave the door open for the Draft Guidelines on Vitamins and Minerals to be extended to other nutrients. The EC Observer replied by saying that they did not want this, but that if the Scope was defined too rigidly some products might be taken out of the Guidelines by the addition of other nutrients, thus claiming that they were not vitamin and mineral supplements. As a result of this, the Committee added the following sentence to the Guidelines:

Food Supplements containing vitamins and/or minerals as well as other ingredients should also be in conformity with the specific rules on vitamins and minerals laid down in these Guidelines.