Bauman College Programs

Author Topic: Codex  (Read 35862 times)

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Codex
« on: February 07, 2008, 09:34:46 AM »
Have you heard of Codex?  It is something that you will want to be aware of, if you value freedom to purchase vitamins (such as vitamin C), and want to ensure a clean, unadulterated food system (ex. be able to purchase meat that has not been irradiated). 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

The problem with this is that currently the supplement industry as we know it is under attack.  The worldwide food and supplement standards are currently being created by big industry who want to standardize the delivery of nutrients around the globe.  In their vision, there will no longer be a choice by an individual to ingest increased amounts of nutrients. The standards for nutrient delivery by Codex measures is frighteningly low.  They are set at a level similar to the RDA level of vitamins, which for vitamin C, for example, is ridiculously low.   

I know it can seem a bit daunting. There is so much information that is coming through. But the fact of the matter is that 80% of natural supplements have already been wiped off the shelves in Australia.  In Canada, a proposal in June 2008 proposes to abolish access to Vitamin C.  Read about that Here.  This is no light matter.  Imagine what your life would be like without access to vitamin C, olive leaf extract, zinc, and all of the other tools you are using to keep your health up to date, not to mention specialized remedies and formulas.  The future scenario that may loom, is a prescription for Centrum from your primary care practitioner...if you can convince them that you need it.

Also, the whole thing is tied to global trade agreements. So if your country doesn't "play the game", they are penalized.

There is so much to say about what Codex is.  Health Freedom is doing an excellent job distilling the info and travelling around the globe to be vigilant in the effort to make sure that Codex evolves, leaving our health priorities intact.  So read about it from the folks who are on the front line:

Visit the Natural Solutions Foundation, for all things Codex.  On the homepage, you will also find action steps:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/

Check out the "Codex Crash Course" link on the left of the homepage to get up-to-date, if you still haven't heard of this.

Here is the blog site from Rima Laibow, she is on the fore front literally of the fight against Codex and pending regulations that will limit access to not only supplements and herbs, but also unadulterated food sources:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=514

You can also donate to these folks who are on the front line in working to protect your access to supplements.

See attached for a good Codex Handout, courtesy of the National Health Federation.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2009, 02:47:57 PM by Marlina E »
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline NattaliaC

  • Alumni
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: The Codex Blog
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2008, 10:00:25 PM »
This was a good site.  I am so glad there are people out there fighting for our rights.  I signed the Petition myself and signed up for the newsletter.  After reading this article and watching the video "The Future of Food" recently,  I have become so much more concerned about what is happening to the food in this country.  It is startling how much most people, that aren't in the nutrition field, don't know about what's going on.  They don't have the information or the truth.  I can get so worked up about this.  I know something has to be done.  For now, I'll do my part by telling everyone I know.
Thanks
Nattalia

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Re: The Codex Blog
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2008, 12:03:24 PM »
Watch the YouTube video of Rima explaining Codex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrF9KjlGsc

It is five parts, be sure to watch them all.  This was a talk that was recorded at the NANP yearly event, a few years ago.

It is scary....but Rima is DOING it, really has made this her issue and focus. I encourage anyone who is interested to support her cause.  She is truly a warrior on our behalf.
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline NattaliaC

  • Alumni
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
Re: The Codex Blog
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2008, 09:58:27 PM »
Thank you Marlina for telling me about Dr. Rima Laibow's talk about Codex.  It was very informative.  I listened to all five of the blogs (if that's what you call them).  It's enough to make your stomach turn.  She is a fantastic speaker who really knows that she is talking about.  I immediately went to her webside: HealthFreedomusa.org and signed the Petition and I will be telling everyone I know about it.  And in my current business as cosmetologist I see alot of people.  I'm sure that most of them know nothing about what is happening. So, I will definitely be giving out the above mentioned website to everyone I come in contact with.   I hope that the students of Bauman College get on the website and do the same thing.  It seems we don't have much time, only until 12/31/09, to take action.  I hope that lots more people get on board with this.  I do not want to see organic food become extinct.
Thanks
Nattalia   

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Re: The Codex Blog
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2008, 11:00:37 AM »
I just noticed that the original link from this thread goes to the one blog entry that I originally posted.  You can read other blog content from Rima by linking from the right of the page.

In addition, there is good and brief Codex info at the following link from Dr. Mercola:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx?source=nl
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Re: Codex
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2008, 10:04:41 AM »
July 1, 2008

DR. LAIBOW AND GEN. STUBBLEBINE SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER AT CODEX COMMISSION IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND.

Our intrepid trustees are the Health Freedom Public Observers at the annual Codex Commission meeting.

See Dr. Laibow's 18 minute report on the opening session...

Hear her expose the "Bigs" agenda, from the balcony overlooking the "hall of power."

You need to see these two short videos to understand how the US FDA uses Codex to further its control agenda here in the United States, and throughout the world.

The Videos are here:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=720

Is Codex changing its rules to attempt to counteract the successes of the Natural Solutions Foundation Codex 2 Step?
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline LindaN

  • Alumni
  • ***
  • Posts: 10
Re: Codex
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2008, 04:58:42 PM »
Marlina, thank you so much for all of the valuable information you have provided on this extremely important topic.  Here is a sample letter that can be modified and sent to a local newspaper expressing opposition to enactment of the Codex standards. 

Editor
Tri-Valley Herald
4770 Willow Road
Pleasanton, CA

Dear Editor,

   I am writing to express my concern over upcoming global implementation of the Codex Alimentarius food standards, and to ask that you publish this letter to warn consumers of the adverse effect these standards have on our health and well-being.

   Although the Codex standards are promoted as “consumer protection”, in reality they take away our right to choose health options such as therapeutically effective dietary supplements, unadulterated foods with low pesticide and toxic residue, and other natural treatments.   

By using a risk assessment that classifies nutrients as toxins, the Codex standards can ban high potency and clinically effective vitamins and minerals.  (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org. “About Codex Alimentarius:  the 5-Minute Tour”.  Natural Solutions Foundation 2008.)  The Codex standards also mandate use of synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics to treat food animals, allows unlabeled use of Genetically Modified Organisms in our food, degrades organic standards, and raises permissible levels for pesticides and other toxins in farming. (http//www.healthfreedomusa.org.  “CODEX Will Destroy Our Nutritional Supplements And Organic Foods!” Laibow, Rima, M.D.)

The Codex standards are designed to protect the Big Pharmacy interests by eliminating natural health products and treatments.  This will negatively impact the Wellness Industry and take away the consumer’s freedom to choose health products and natural medicine treatments.  People will be forced to turn to physicians and pharmaceuticals for treatment rather than natural health care practitioners and nutritional consultants who promote treatment and prevention of disease by the use of safe nutritional medicine.

I urge everyone to contact their local politicians to express their opposition to the global implementation of the Codex standards and allege their support for the nutritional wellness industry and nutritional medicine.  Our health depends on it. 

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Re: Codex
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2009, 09:46:44 AM »
The latest on Codex from Rima Laibow:

So, is Codex Still a Threat to Dietary Supplements?
We get letters every day asking if again if the UN agency, Codex Alimentarius (the world food code), ever was really a threat to dietary supplements, it is a threat now and is there as deadline after which Codex would prevent us from buying supplements? Short answer, "YES! Despite what disinformation agents and the uninformed have to say about the topic.  Longer answer, read what Ralph Fucetola, our Council and Trustee, has to say:

...if you look up the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline, adopted by Codex in 2005, it begins, "Most people who have access to a balanced diet can usually obtain all the nutrients they require from their normal diet. Because foods contain many substances that promote health, people should therefore be encouraged to select a balanced diet from food before considering any vitamin and mineral supplement"

The VMG is at: www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10206/cxg_055e.pdf

When you read the VMG carefully, the prejudices against supplements stated in the very first sentence above are reinforced by a general attitude that treats food supplements as though they were industrial toxins (while elsewhere Codex allows all sorts of real industrial toxins in the food supply).

Codex guidelines are not "law" but they are "presumptive evidence" in WTO disputes. So it is the World Trade Organization that enforces Codex. For Codex to have domestic impact, local law has to be amended to meet the Codex guidelines. In the US, DSHEA still protects us from the full impact of Codex, though the new administration seems to be moving in the direction of "HARMonizing" our laws with Codex, which as long been FDA policy.

I've discussed how countries can opt out of Codex in a YouTube video called the "Codex Two Step" - see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QNg3MD6BxM&

In connection with the "Codex Two Step" Natural Solutions Foundation sponsored our own "nutrient friendly" version of the VMG for countries to adopt, which would not restrict supplementation:

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/action/step3/Revised_VMG.pdf
If you'd like more information on the Codex Two Step Process, designed to allow countries to deviate toward health and away from Codex, order the Codex eBook here(http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=220).

So while at present there is no specific deadline date when Codex will take away our right to access high quality, high potency nutrition, the inexorable pressure continues through Codex, through the North American Union cooperation agreements among US, Mexico and Canada, and through a number of other threats. In Europe, the Codex compliant European Food Supplements Directive (EFSD) will end its derogations, or exceptions, on December 31, 2009.  At that time, it is very doubtful that a single over the counter, high potency supplement will remain legally available in Europe.  While not Codex per se, this is what Codex compliance with the VMG will bring.
The US FDA stated in the Federal Register on October 11, 1994 that it would comply with International food standards [Codex].
 
The Threat Marches On
At the end of 2006 the threat was the FDA's anti-CAM draft guidance document that Dr. Ron Paul called "an abuse of FDA power..." We beat this back (it has still not been finalized by FDA) with hundreds of thousands of comments posted on the FDA site before it crashed.

In 2007 the threat was Sen. Kennedy's FDA enabling act, to which was added a "savings clause" protecting DSHEA (dietary supplement) products; we worked to keep that savings language in the final act, when it looked like it might be lost in the congressional conference committee.

Last year, 2008, FDA asked for "comments" on whether that savings clause really restricted their enhanced authority to ban interstate shipments of nutrients, proving the wisdom of persevering -- had we not fought hard to keep the language in the Act, FDA would be moving even faster against nutrition.
During the same year other FDA initiatives threatened further "HARMonization" while the EPA moved toward banning Nano Silver products.
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Re: Codex
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2009, 12:34:13 PM »
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline Tim Frederick

  • Alumni
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • Natural Chef Meals
Re: Codex
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2009, 02:14:33 PM »
Hi All,

This is a very important radio interview I came across on Codex.  The interview is with Scott Tips of the National Health Federation.  They are the oldest HEALTH FREEDOM organization.

Tim F



Radio Interview:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/03mar/RICR-090315.php

National Health Federation Website:

http://www.thenhf.com/
Anti GMO Activist, Artisan Gluten-Free Chef.

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Re: Codex
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2009, 02:05:10 PM »
This is fascinating (in a horrific kind of way). 

PRESS RELEASE: ROTTERDAM - THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON CONTAINMANTS IN FOODS MEETING –

MUM’S THE WORD


 
By Scott C. Tips, NHF President

March 30, 2009
     
             The 3rd Session of the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) began its week-long meeting at the Beurs - World Trade Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands on Monday morning, March 23, 2009. Although the weather was despicable, with rain and heavy winds, the National Health Federation (NHF) delegate, Scott Tips, was able to easily attend this meeting chaired by first-time Chairman Mr. Martijn Weijtens (of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality).  This particular meeting was important because “acceptable” levels of contaminants of acrylamide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), aflatoxins, and melamine, among others, were being discussed and developed.

             The NHF is the only Codex-accredited health-freedom organization with the right to attend Codex committee meetings such as this one. In fact, although the NHF has for years been attending many other Codex committee and commission meetings - in Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Switzerland, Norway, China, Thailand, and most recently South Africa - this CCCF meeting was the first for us.

             As with the other Codex committees, the CCCF attendees consisted of various member-country delegations and a dozen INGOs (International Non-Governmental Organizations).  The NHF was the only consumer organization in attendance, with all of the other INGOs representing special trade interests. The rest of the room was filled with government officials and bureaucratic functionaries.  This Committee, a relatively recent split off from the former combined Committee on Contaminants and Food Additives, was the smallest of the committees attended by the NHF.

    Acrylamide, PAH, and Aflatoxins

             In contrast with certain other committees that breed harsh dispute, this Committee was as tame and well-mannered as a pack of Cub Scouts drugged to the teeth on IV-dripped Prozac.  Both of the two separate standards being set for acrylamide and PAH in foods sailed smoothly through the Committee, which agreed to forward them to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at the final Step 8.

             The CCCF’s review and discussion of the standard for aflatoxins was a little more lively and included some actual back-and-forth discussion of the topic.  In the end, the Committee accepted Brazil’s proposal to return the Proposed Draft Maximum Levels to Step 2/3 for redrafting.  But even this standard is not a controversial one.

    Melamine

             The drama did not really begin until the Canadian delegate read his country’s report on establishing maximum levels for melamine in food and feed.  The Committee document drafted by Canada proposed maximum levels of melamine in food and feed of 2.5 parts per million (ppm) and in infant formula of 1 ppm.

             Melamine is a chemical compound that is used industrially in the production of, among other things, laminates, glues, dinnerware, adhesives, molding compounds, coatings, and flame retardants.  There are no approved direct food uses for melamine, but melamine is illegally added to artificially increase the protein content of food products.  Because it is high in nitrogen and cheap, melamine is a low-cost way to artificially bump up the “protein” content for standard commercial tests.  Other contamination comes from indirect sources, such a food contact with melamine-containing packaging.

             In 2007, melamine was found in pet feed exported from China to the United States, which feed unfortunately caused the death of a large number of dogs and cats due to kidney failure.  Following this incident in 2007, several food agencies and authorities began performing preliminary risk assessments of melamine.

             Then, with nearly 40,000 cases of kidney stones in infants (with three deaths and nearly 13,000 hospitalized) from consumption of melamine-contaminated powdered infant formula in China alone as late as September 2008, and with other melamine contamination having been found in liquid milk, frozen yogurt desserts, and coffee drinks, the alarm was raised – melamine is dangerous and to be avoided.

             As a result, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published an interim safety/risk assessment on melamine and structural analogues, setting a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.63 mg per kg of body weight per day for melamine.  At almost the same time, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a provisional statement and recommended to apply a TDI of 0.5 mg per kg of body weight per day as tolerable intake value for melamine.  Under Commission Decision 2008/757/EC, member States of the European Union are required to ensure that all composite products containing at least 15 % of milk product, originating from China, are systematically tested before import into the Community and that all such products which are shown to contain melamine in excess of 2.5 mg/kg are immediately destroyed.  (See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:273:0018:0020:EN:PDF.)

             The Canadian food-and-drug agency, Health Canada, declared an even stricter limit of 0.35 mg.  Not to be outdone, the World Health Organization’s Food Safety Director estimated that the amount of melamine a person could stand per day without incurring a bigger health risk, the "tolerable daily intake" (TDI), was 0.2 mg per kg of body mass.  (See Lara Endreszl, 10 December 2008, "Safe Melamine Levels Named by World Health Organization", Health News; see also B Puschner, and PA Pesavento, “Assessment of melamine and cyanuric acid toxicity in Cats,” J. Vet. Diagnostic Investigation, Vol. 19, No. 6, 616-624 (2007) at http://jvdi.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/6/616.)

    Back to CCCF

             So it was that with these issues in mind, the NHF raised its nameplate at the CCCF meeting to speak out and oppose the 2.5 ppm upper limit on melamine contamination proposed by the Codex draft paper.  At the very least the limit should be no more than 1 ppm, we argued before the Committee.  And, preferably, there should be no detectable amounts at all.

             Yet when the CCCF Report was prepared and then reviewed for approval by the Committee on Friday, the last day of this session’s meeting, no sign could be seen of the NHF’s comment in the Report.  Of course, NHF asked that its comments be reflected in the Report as a simple, one-sentence statement; only to then set off – surprisingly – the most contentious exchange of the entire meeting!

             The European Commission strongly opposed showing NHF’s comments in the Report, stating there was no need for the sentence.  Canada and Japan both joined in the censorship move – much to their countries’ discredit and dishonor – and argued that NHF could submit written comments later.  The NHF shot back, asking the Committee and its delegations what it was afraid of and pointing out that the Report should reflect what happened at the meeting.  This caused another stir, with much consultation amongst persons at the head table and negative head-shaking by Codex Secretariat Verna Carolissen-Mackay.  In the end, the Chairman politely but firmly refused to allow NHF’s remarks to be noted in the record, but promised that the next session would allow those comments to be recorded (if once again made).

    Typical Non-Transparency and Double-Standards

             Perhaps unused to controversy or contradiction, the CCCF reacted in knee-jerk fashion to NHF’s comments and, alarmingly, even to the mere mention of them.  It is apparent that this Committee – like so many of the other Codex committees – plans to implement as Codex standards those standards already adopted by the European Union.  Lap dogs were never this obedient.

             The National Health Federation plans to oppose these ironically high limits on melamine contaminants.  It is ironic because while touting consumer “safety” as its reason for imposing strict maximum upper levels on natural and healthy dietary food supplements in one Codex committee, the European Commission conveniently looks the other way when consumer safety is at risk by a man-made contaminant such as melamine.  Unfortunately, though, it is an irony that kills.  And until the European Union/European Commission begins to truly represent the interests of its member countries and citizens, many more will suffer and die.

    For further information on Codex, please visit the NHF website (Codex):
    http://www.thenhf.com/codex.html
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Re: Codex
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2009, 10:52:47 AM »
PRESS RELEASE

CODEX COMMITTEE CONTINUES WORK ON GM LABELING

May 7, 2009
   

    Calgary

             The 37th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) just today finished its work considering various food-labeling issues, including the most contentious one – the Labeling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification / Genetic Engineering. Meeting in Calgary, Canada this week, and with the Committee Report still to be prepared on Friday, the Committee sailed through most of its Agenda items with hardly a harsh word or divide – until it came to the GM labeling issue.

             The new Chairman, Mr. Paul Mayers, has replaced the former CCFL Chairwoman of many years, Dr. Anne MacKenzie, and has used his diplomacy and melodic voice to soothe the feelings of various delegations. Yet, the lines between the two camps were too entrenched for even his skills to resolve. As Agenda Item No. 6, the GM labeling issue arose for discussion near the end of this morning’s Wednesday session and, after a lunch break, continued on for nearly four hours of see-saw argument, often tinged with emotion and repeated requests for the floor.

             Once again, the food-exporting countries of Canada, the United States, Argentina, New Zealand, and Australia comprised the “consumer is too stupid to understand” camp that wishes to see the GM-food labeling disappear into a black hole. Driven completely by commercial concerns, the U.S. and its sidekicks argued that many years have seen a lack of consensus within the Committee, so the work on GM-food labeling should be discarded and the Committee should focus instead on the WHO Global Strategy, another CCFL concern. Of course, the lack of consensus was caused entirely by these countries’ delegations, especially the United States and Canada, blithely disregarding the clear-cut wishes of its own citizens for GM ingredients to be declared on food labels.

             In the other camp, arguing in favor of GM-food labeling so that the consumer can make an informed choice, were and are the European Union, Brazil, the African countries, Saint Lucia, and all of the International NonGovernmental Organizations (INGOs) representing consumers (such as the National Health Federation, Consumers International, Infant Baby Formula Action Network, the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations, and the 49th Parallel International Consortium). The only INGOs not supporting such labeling were two industry trade groups with clear interests in GM foods.

             The focus of the Committee swirled around existing language that would have leaned towards GM labeling, with an alternate that was meek in comparison. After it became clear that the Committee would not agree on the wording, Brazil directed CCFL to its written compromise proposal, which drew most countries support – except for the recalcitrant “the consumer is too stupid” camp.

             Incredibly, the United States argued in its written submission that labeling food as GM derived would be in violation of Codex Guidelines that state “foods shall not be described or presented in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive, or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect.” It offered its own version of the wording, which said, “This document is not intended to suggest or imply that GM/GE foods are in any way different from other foods simply due to their method of production.”

             Although this wording was strongly opposed by the pro-labeling camp and more preference was expressed for the Brazilian proposal, somehow the Chairman ditched the Brazilian proposal and allowed this specific U.S. wording to make its way into the document being reviewed. The Canadian delegation used this opportunity once again to encourage CCFL to discontinue its work on this matter, saying “Leave this to the free market.”

             The National Health Federation (NHF) hotly challenged this action. Taking the floor nine times during the course of the debate, the NHF’s delegate, Scott Tips, told the Committee during one such intervention that, “Consumers want this labeling of GM foods. Let’s be honest, the food exporting countries – mostly in the Western Hemisphere – want to push their own commercial interests by selling their GM crops. They know that they cannot sell these GM crops unless they keep consumers ignorant. Let the consumers make the choice in a free market, but give them the information so that they can decide. Canada has said ‘leave this to the free market’ and yet Health Canada has attacked those companies in Canada that try to sell products labeled ‘GM Free”! Our Canadian members are upset over this. In fact, there will be a consumer-led campaign to force the American and Canadian delegations to conform their positions to their citizens’ wishes. There will be consensus in the near future as a result.”

    Calgary

             The representative from the 49th Parallel INGO supported the NHF’s comments and added that, “If, as the United States has claimed, there is no difference between GM foods and non-GM foods, then why do companies rush to the Patent Office to patent their special GM foods?”

             With the Committee still considering the U.S.-slanted wording, though, the Chairman hatched the idea to discard all extra wording and add in two small words. The EC and the NHF spoke out against this idea, with the NHF particularly opposing it as a violation of the rules of the Codex Procedural Manual that require Recommendations and Guidelines to have a stated Purpose and Scope. This caused a stall in the proceedings as the Codex Secretariat and Chairman searched through the Manual and consulted with one another for a response. The Secretariat then took the floor to say that this would not be a hindrance. Nevertheless, the Chairman’s idea quickly lost steam and fizzled out.

             Yet, the Committee still worked on the U.S.-slanted wording, adding in various words and phrases with much discussion. Just before the afternoon break, the NHF delegate challenged the Committee to discard that wording and return to the original wording or at least the Brazilian proposal favored by more delegations. During the break, the NHF delegate discussed with various delegations NHF’s disappointment with the trend towards accepting this GM-friendly language.

             When the Committee reconvened, Ireland proposed wording saying “Any information or pictorial device may be displayed in GM/GE labeling provided that it is not in conflict with Codex requirements on labeling nor would mislead or deceive the consumer in any way whatsoever in respect of the labeling of foods derived from GM/GE.” This position was supported by the European Community.

             Both Canada and Argentina opposed this wording, with Argentina pointing out that foods labeled under Codex Guidelines already were forbidden from misleading or deceiving the consumer. The NHF leaped upon this comment to get the Committee to agree to delete the last part of the Irish proposal beginning with “nor would mislead or deceive . . . .” NHF argued that some delegations, such as the United States, already felt that GM labeling was inherently misleading, as evidenced by the U.S.’s own written comments. (See sixth paragraph of this release, above.) This deletion was challenged later by some delegations such as the United States, but the Chairman upheld the deletion.

             After even further discussion, though, the Chairman launched a missile into the meeting when he ab initio proposed that since there was no consensus on the wording, the Committee take a pause of three sessions (i.e., three years) to consider alternatives and then resume discussing the matter in three-years’ time. The delegations of Austria and Saint Lucia immediately challenged this idea, but it seemed as if it might take hold, with the Canadian delegate gushingly stating, “You are so wise to do this.”

             Fortunately, firm and well-stated opposition by member-country delegations such as Kenya, Denmark, and the European Community caused the Chairman to drop his suggestion. (The Chairman could not even get to the NHF’s and other INGOs’ opposition given the strong country-member response.) So, despite last-minute efforts by the United States and New Zealand to revive the “pause” idea, it died a quick death, although its suggestion by the Chairman held the Committee in suspense for what seemed like a long time.

             In the end, the Chairman stated that the work on this matter was important and must be continued. He returned this Draft Recommendation on GM-food labeling back to Step 3 for further comments and discussions at next year’s CCFL meeting, which is to be held in Quebec City, Canada on a date to be determined.

     
    For further information on Codex, please visit the NHF website (Codex):
    http://www.thenhf.com/codex.html
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
Re: Codex
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2009, 10:38:33 AM »
Reports from 32nd Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, Italy

#1 - Pig in a Poke and Poking the Pig
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=3007

#2 - We're Here for Your Health Freedom so They Attack Us
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=3015

#3 - Bureaucrats and Lobbyists Feast in Rome
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=3023

#4 - Dupes, Demons and Dogs in the Manger
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=3029
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

Offline Tim Frederick

  • Alumni
  • ***
  • Posts: 17
    • Natural Chef Meals
Re: Codex
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2010, 08:52:30 AM »
 GOOD NEWS AT CODEX THIS WEEK

 

By Scott Tips
Codex Delegate for the National Health Federation

May 6, 2010

 

 


Quebec City Convention Centre
CCFL Meeting held here May 3-7, 2010

 

         While you may be hearing “woe is me” information about the recent Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) meeting being held at the Quebec City Convention Centre here in Quebec City, Canada this week, the truth is actually quite different.  Far from being a situation where the anti-genetically-modified (GM) food labeling forces (i.e., pro-GM foods) are advancing, they are in headlong retreat!

         And if we may say so, we should know because the National Health Federation has been in the thick of the fight on this issue, even in the special, closed Codex meetings, which we can attend due to our special accredited status with Codex.  Our outspoken, strong stance that GM foods should be labeled as such so that the consumer can make an informed purchase must be hitting some raw nerves since I had a number of delegates scream at me during yesterday’s breakout session.

         But bottom-line: We are winning.  It may seem glacially slow, even imperceptible to an outside observer; but NHF can tell you that the movement is steadily in our favor and direction.  Just consider this:

         1.  The Other Side is Falling Apart.  The coalition of forces wanting to hide the fact that they are selling GM foods is in disarray and falling apart.  The Codex delegations of Australia and New Zealand – quite vocal at past Committee meetings in opposing GM-food labeling – were completely quiet at this week’s session of CCFL, with one exception:  Australia actually spoke out briefly but clearly in favor of a “modern biotechnology” definition that the pro-GM food-labeling forces favored!  That was a switch.

         And, Canada, which in the past had been joined at the hip with the United States and Mexico, in opposing GM-food labeling, is now starting to drift apart and chart its own separate path on the issue.  In fact, the coalition of the unwilling could not even properly coordinate and orchestrate their formerly-strong opposition, as they had so carefully done in the past.

         Next year, the coalition of the unwilling will be even further disunited, especially after we re-double our efforts to rein in the American and Canadian delegates from disregarding the will of their own citizens, who are solidly in favor of GM-food disclosure.

         2.  They Did Not Succeed In Stopping Consideration of the GM Label.  The anti-GM label forces have wanted this Committee to stop all consideration of this agenda item.  Yet, this week, the pro-GM-food labeling forces beat back the latest (and weakest) attempt to stop the consideration process and also stopped the anti-GM label force’s effort to insert misleading language about the “safety” of GM foods into the GM-food labeling disclosure.  While the GM-food labeling did not advance, the wording sought by the pro-label forces was substantially preserved, intact, to be revisited at next year’s meeting.  This may not seem significant, but when you consider that the GM-food proponents have been trying to kill this provision for years, it is a victory to survive so that when the moment is right (as we feel it will be next year), we can then take the matter forward along the road to completion.

         3.  The Players.  The “good guys” are those who want the consumer to be informed, that is, to have the choice when shopping to know when he or she is buying GM foods.  These good guys are the European Union (which has taken a consistently strong stand in favor of GM labeling under the capable direction of Jerome Lepeintre), Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, Morocco, Kenya, Cameroun, Ghana, Mali, the Republic of Korea, supported by the INGO delegations of Consumers International (Dr. Michael Hansen), International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) (Elisabeth Sterken), and of course the National Health Federation.

On the other hand, speaking against the rights of the consumer to be informed were the delegations of the United States (led by Dr. Barbara Schneeman), Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, and two industry INGOs known as the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers (ICGMA).  To their credit, Australia and New Zealand were AWOL from this coalition.  South Africa made one intervention on the subject matter but no one we spoke with could tell whether it was for or against labeling as it was not well presented.

         Conclusion

         Not counting the private session where we spoke out often, the NHF took the floor to speak to the full Committee some 7 to 8 times on this topic, at one point even telling the Committee that “it was a curious situation when the delegate for the European Union spoke more on behalf of American and Canadian consumers than either the American or the Canadian delegates who had no authority to speak on behalf of their citizens since opinion polls showed a vast majority of Americans and Canadians supported the labeling of GM foods.”

         And near the end, NHF was able to help stiffen the resolve of several country delegations to reject the false “compromises” offered by the anti-GM labeling forces.

         So, while the battle continues, make no mistake, the momentum is in our favor.  Believe not the naysayers.

 

Please send this e-mail to everyone on your list so that they may know the truth about Codex events.
Anti GMO Activist, Artisan Gluten-Free Chef.

Offline Marlina E

  • Associate Director
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1810
    • Bauman College Online
BA Environmental Studies UCSB
Nutrition Consultant

 


anything