Codex Of Evil

What is Codex Alimentarius?
 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Latin for 'food code', is an inter-governmental body that sets guidelines and standards to ensure ‘fair trade practices’ and consumer protection in relation to the global trade of food. It was established for this purpose in 1963 so has more than 40 years’ experience controlling food in an ever-more globalized world. It has over 170 member countries within the framework of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Its primary stated purpose is “protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade.” The Commission also promotes coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations (INGO’s).

The guidelines and standards are used as a benchmark for regional/national legislation and in World Trade Orgaization (WTO) diputes. Work is conducted through nearly 30 committees, each dealing with specific areas of food, and decisions are based on consensus voting by member countries. INGO’s do not have voting rights, but may influence proceedings. Most INGO’s present at Codex meetings represent transnational corporation interests. 

Single greatest threat to our access to natural health products?  

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is responsible for establishing a system of guidelines, standards and recommendations that guides the direction of the global food supply. It aims to tell us what is safe, but in the process often uses criteria that are manipulated to support the interests of the world’s largest corporations.

Misinformation about Codex  

There is a rumour circulating that Codex will come into force on December 31st 2009. This rumour is incorrect. This date actually represents one of many implementation dates of the European Food Supplements Directive and is nothing directly to do with Codex.

The text for the Codex Guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, which has been based closely on the EU Directive—sharing some of its text verbatim—was ratified in July 2005 but is unlikely to finalised until around 2012 or 2013. It is only at this time it is likely to be used as the basis for national and regional laws in many parts of the world. To a large extent, Codex guidelines on food supplements are irrelevant to Europeans as they simply reflect the European laws on which they are based and it is the laws that ultimately affect our access to products, not the Codex guideline.

Many other guidelines and standards, for example those affecting genetically modified (GM) foods and organic foods are complete, although they tend to be subject to regular amendment.

Some of the misinformation on Codex appears to be deliberately disseminated, while other parts are unwitting reproductions of the misinformation by concerned yet naive individuals. Among the common erroneous facts are:

• All nutrients (eg. vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to ‘prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease’.

•  All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, thus removing all ‘toxic’ nutrients from food (unless consumers can source their food locally).

• Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex; it will include such ‘beneficial’ nutrients as fluoride (3.8 mg daily), sourced from industrial waste.

• All nutrients (eg. vitamins A, B, C, D, zinc and magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal in therapeutic doses under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to health, with maximum limits set at 15% of the current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). You will not be able to obtain these nutrients in therapeutic doses anywhere in the world, even with a prescription.

• It will most likely be illegal to give any advice on nutrition (including in written articles posted online and in journals as well as oral advice to a friend, a family member or anyone).

• All dairy cows on the planet are to be treated with Monsanto's genetically engineered, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

• All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.

• Use of growth hormones and antibiotics will be mandatory on all livestock, birds and aquacultured species meant for human consumption.

• The worldwide introduction of unlabelled and deadly GMOs into crops, animals, fish and plants will be mandated.

These are big claims indeed. They are also deeply worrying for anyone who cares about managing his or her health naturally, be it by consuming copious quantities of wholesome, organic whole foods or taking lashings of supplementary vitamins, minerals and herbs — or both. The problem is that these claims are not all true. Some are actually quite far off the mark, yet most contain elements of truth. 

How do governments make their decisions over how to control the world’s food supply?  

Codex is comprised of over 40 committees, task forces and expert groups which deal with nearly every facet of food production. Codex’s remit covers almost all areas of the food supply, ranging from cereals, cocoa, dairy, meat, meat hygiene, sugars and fresh fruit and vegetables to more controversial issues such as food labelling, food additives, contaminants in food, pesticide residues and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Committee meetings are hosted by particular national governments and held either in the host country or another part of the world. For example, the host government for the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) is Canada, whilst that for the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), which deals, among other things, with food supplements, infant and formulae, is Germany.
All Codex country members are permitted to attend each annual meeting or ‘session’ and the meeting is facilitated and closely managed by the Committee’s chair and secretariat that sits at the top table facing the delegates.

Behind the country delegates, which typically comprise between three and five members, are the international, non-governmental organisations (INGOs). Depending on the meeting, these might include large consumer groups such as Consumers International, but they tend to be dominated by industry interests. That tends to mean the various international associations representing the food, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

Decision-making in committee meetings is by so-called consensus among governments. INGOs are not allowed to vote, but they can certainly interject during meetings and therefore have the potential to influence decisions. 

Observations about the Codex process

Codex Alimentarius does not represent any law. It is however, the guidelines, standards and recommendations instigated by the inter-governmental organisation of Codex that has such broad ramifications on how the global food trade and food safety considerations are managed. 

Government delegations that sit in the committees and task forces of Codex are not democratically elected representatives; they are bureaucrats. One of the over-riding changes we have witnessed in recent years is the increasing influence of bureaucrats in rule making, for example, even the USA, which prides itself as a true democracy, has seen massive growth in the influence of federal agencies as compared with democratically elected Congress.  Jonathan Emord, in his book The Rise of Tyranny, estimates that as much as 75% of all laws in the USA are now created by agencies, completely bypassing the democratic process. 

While the bureaucrats in the country delegations of Codex are theoretically responsive to concerns of stakeholders and members of the public, often engaging with them via consultations, the practical reality is that the primary steer comes from major cooperations. Small businesses and individuals may even make representations in consultations to governments, but by and large their views are ignored. Decision-making at Codex occurs by consensus, each country carrying a single vote. This process is complicated by the fact that countries may assemble as trading blocks, given changes to Codex procedural rules in 2003. The European Union now acts as a trading block where a single unelected European Commission official typically represents Government representatives of the EU’s 27 Member States, alongside those Member States present  . 

Government delegations and the committee secretariat may be influenced by international non-governmental organisations (INGO’s) who participate in the Codex process where official observer status has been granted. While INGO’s purportedly reflect all interest relevant to a given committees activities (e.g. GMO’s, food additives, pesticide residues, food hygiene, etc.), the reality is that INGO influence is disproportionately in favour of trade associations representing the largest trans-national cooperations in the food sector.  While excited debates during the course of Codex meetings may often occur between various INGO’s, governments and the Secretariat, it seems much of this is for show as a demonstration of Codex’s consensus process. The reality is somewhat more stark; in most situations, the primary decisions have already been made prior to the meeting and INGO’s voicing a contrary opinion will effectively find that its views have little or no traction. 

Another interesting observation that can be drawn from Codex meetings is the extent of the influence of certain country delegations, and the lack of influence of others. For example, the case for the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) appears to be disproportionately influenced by the US, EU and Canadian government delegations with the German-controlled Secretariat chaired by Dr Rolf Grossklaus exerting the primary influence. In these meetings, it is clear that these Government delegations have conferred deeply during the months preceding the annual CCNFSDU meeting, aided by particular trade associations in order to resolve decisions in their respective favours. 

What issues does Codex exert influence over?
 

There is no doubt that Codex develops the prime system of guidance for the global food supply. Whether we’re looking at the amounts of pesticide residues or particular micro-organisms that are considered safe, the amount of gluten allowed in gluten-free foods, transport and storage systems for fresh fruit and vegetables or the safety of food additives or genetically modified (GM) crops, the particular Codex guideline or standard related to the issue is viewed as the key benchmark for international trade.

One of the trends we see, given the disproportionate influence of very large corporate concerns, is that GM foods, contaminants, additives, pesticide residues and other synthetic chemicals that many of us regard as intrinsically harmful, are pushed for all they’re worth, being deemed safe at those concentrations typically used in processed foods. On the other hand, those things we consider intrinsically beneficial, such as vitamins and minerals, are given a very tough ride. If that weren’t enough, Codex standards for healthy food production systems such as organic production systems, are being increasingly degraded in order to suit the needs and interests of the transnational corporations which are the key beneficiaries of the global food trade.

Looking through the diverse range of issues covered by Codex, it’s possible to tease out some of the issues of greatest concern to natural health. 

Important issues which Codex affects that impact our ability to manage our health naturally
 

Genetically modified (GM) food

• Driven by GM interests which argue world food requirements cannot be met without global implementation of GM
• Led by USA and Canada; EU may cave to pressure

• GM food plants being given the green light on safety

• Terminator’ seeds could be approved for international trade

• GM food animals are on the way

Organic food

• ‘Dumbing-down’ of organic standards to suit interests of large food producers

• Promotion of large-scale, high-input agriculture and international freight

• Approval of various synthetic chemical additives and ‘processing aids’ in organic foods

• No outright ban on use of irradiation post-production

• Labelling allows use of hidden, non-organic ingredients

Food additives

• Approval as safe around 300 different food additives (mainly synthetic) including aspartame, BHA, BHT, potassium bromate, tartrazine, etc.

• No consideration given to potential risks associated with long-term exposure to mixtures of additives

Pesticide residues

• Allows significant residues of over 3,275 different pesticides, including those that are suspected carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, e.g. 2,4-D, atrazine, methyl bromide

• No account taken of long-term effects of exposure to mixtures of residues in food

Food/dietary supplements

• Setting very low maximum daily doses for supplements using scientifically flawed risk assessment methods

•  Effectively establishing international borderline between foods and drugs for nutrients, forcing therapeutic nutrients into drug category

• Requirement for clinical trials to substantiate health claims; too expensive for small companies. Therefore provides passport system for big corporations and acts as obstacle to freedom of speech for smaller ones

• Setting of unnecessarily low Nutrient Reference Values which seriously understate requirements for long-term optimum health for given sub-populations, age groups and genders

When citizens express their concerns about Codex to their governments, the common response is along the lines of: “Don’t worry, Codex is a voluntary system of guidelines and standards that is not mandatory. Codex doesn’t represent the law.” The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has made its views on this clear for several years, particularly given that most American concerns about Codex have centred around its impact on the US’s fertile, dietary supplements industry.

While the FDA attempts to downgrade the significance of Codex in the creation of laws on foods and related substances, such as dietary (food) supplements, the FDA is somewhat economical with the truth. It rightly pinpoints Article 3 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as being of significance, but in my view, wrongly dismisses its crucial relevance.