PRESS RELEASE
CODEX MEETING IN GERMANY BEGINS
AMID DISPUTES OVER NUTRIENT REFERENCE
VALUES FOR CONSUMERS AROUND THE WORLD
November 1, 2009
The US-based National Health Federation (NHF), the World’s oldest international health-freedom organization, yesterday began a week of meetings at the 31st session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) in Dusseldorf, Germany. Expected to be attended by hundreds of delegates, observers, and advisors, representing numerous member countries and international organizations, the Committee, sponsored by the Food & Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization, and hosted by the German government, is part of the World’s highest international body setting global standards and guidelines on nutrition.
With consumer members all over the World, and an international board of governors and advisory board, the NHF is unique as being the only consumer health-freedom organization in the World to enjoy official observer delegate status at Codex. The NHF therefore has the opportunity to make representations on behalf of natural health interests all over the World, which are presently being threatened by over-regulation stimulated by spurious science, misinformed media attacks, misguided regulators, and corporate pressure from large food and pharmaceutical concerns.
Working Group Chairwoman Dr. Allison Yates
shown on screenin Robert Schumann Hall,
Museum Kunst Palast, Dusseldorf, Germany,
October 31, 2009
The regular session of CCNFSDU begins on Monday morning, November 2nd; however, the Physical Working Group on the Development of NRVs Associated with Increased or Decreased Risk of Non-Communicable Diseases (an offspring of CCNSFDU) held its one-day session on Saturday, October 31st, with the NHF’s president Scott Tips in attendance. The NHF had already submitted its written comments on NRVs for the Working Group and Committee’s consideration last September (to be found HERE).
As Scott Tips noted after the Saturday meeting, “The purpose of this Working Group was to develop in advance of the general meeting some of the principles, concepts, and wording to be used in the creation of Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) affecting non-communicable diseases. The meeting got off to an ironic start when the U.S. delegate Barbara Schneeman proposed adding into NRV language wording that would make sure the NRVs did not exceed an acceptable ‘Upper Limit.’ Twice, the European Commission delegate, Basil Mathioudakis, correctly questioned the need for this. In turn, I also spoke out three times emphatically against the appropriateness of such language, supporting the EC’s challenge and also telling the Group that it was mystifying that the USA could even take this position given that it is contrary to US law. Australia weakly tried to support the US position by claiming that such language with these upper limits would ‘give an extra degree of comfort.’ The Canadian delegate supported Australia, with the Chair strangely noting that Australia had answered the EC’s question, while I again intervened to state in no uncertain terms that, no, the question had not been answered and that an ‘extra degree of comfort’ was nothing more than unnecessary suffocation. The Council for Responsible Nutrition’s John Hathcock supported the NHF and EC position by stating such language would be ‘redundant’ in any event. The meeting moved on without clear adoption of the wording, leaving it to the CCNFSDU to decide.”
The meeting then continued with its consideration of other language dealing with chronic and non-communicable diseases and with some of NHF’s proposed wording being accepted, but did not heat up again until the issue of establishing NRVs for saturated fats arose. Malaysia, protective of its special table-oil industry with vegetable-sourced saturated fats that are metabolized differently in the body than those from animals, spoke out most aggressively against establishing NRVs for saturated fats. The Malaysian delegate then quoted from the NHF written document on the subject to support its position (“. . . given an adequately-nutritional-dense diet, saturated fats are not typically a health problem in that cholesterol is not a major cause of heart disease, rather it is calcification of the arteries. Establishing an NRV-NCD for saturated fat would mislead the consumer away from the true cause of heart disease.”). The NHF then spoke up in support of this position, later elaborating further when disagreeing with the WHO representative’s out-dated statement that “There is convincing evidence that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats reduces heart disease.”
“But the biggest fight of all,” said Scott Tips, “was over the selection of data sources for NRVs, with the WHO wanting to protect its monopoly as being the sole source of acceptable data for establishing NRVs (as well as other scientific ‘facts’). This is a principle that is anathema to the NHF, which is absolutely opposed to coercive monopolistic practices, especially by governmental or international bodies. There are ample other sources of data out there in the World and there is no need to limit Codex to just relying upon WHO for its data. Yet, after the original proposed WHO/Codex wording was placed upon the screen for all to read establishing just that monopolistic principle no one opposed it until I spoke up in opposition and suggested alternative wording to completely eliminate the WHO monopoly of information. The US representative then suggested compromise wording that favored the NHF position, while the EC’s follow-on suggested wording trimmed the monopoly down even further in favor of the NHF position. This wording was on the way to acceptance until Canada leaped in with its own additional wording that somewhat watered down NHF’s wording (which would allow Codex to consider other sources of scientific information than just WHO’s and FAO’s) by stating that such other sources can be used only where ‘there is substantial new evidence that has been evaluated through systematic review.’”
“The problem,” Mr. Tips continued, “is that, unlike a decade ago, WHO and FAO will preselect their ‘expert’ panels and stuff them with a narrow group of experts already predestined to make the very finding that FAO or WHO wants. The result is anything but scientific. Yet, that is exactly the kind of ‘scientific’ data that the WHO representative wants to shove down the throats of every Codex Committee. ‘Garbage in, garbage out’ is a saying they either don’t know or, worse, do know and want to make use of.”
The Working Group meeting ended at 6:00 pm that evening with its work to go on to the regular session of the Committee itself for the Committee’s own review and debate. The Federation, more vocal than all of the other INGOs combined at yesterday’s meeting, will redouble its efforts at the general session on all of these points and more.
********************
For further information on Codex, please visit the NHF website (Codex) HERE
NHF Codex Book - Order Now
NHF Codex Overview (May be used as an article or printed as a handout to educate on Codex) -
********************
As the oldest and best-respected health-freedom group on Capitol Hill, the NHF continues to be the credible source of objective assessment of, and proactive actions on, Congressional legislation and FDA matters that have material impact upon our freedom-of-health choices and access to dietary supplements and nutritional foods.
********************
National Health Federation: Established in 1955, the National Health Federation is a consumer-education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy food, take supplements and use alternative therapies without unnecessary government restrictions. The NHF is the only such organization with recognized observer-delegate status at Codex meetings. www.thenhf.com
********************
P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, CA 91017 USA ~ 1 (626) 357-2181 ~ Fax 1 (626) 303-0642
Website: www.thenhf.com E-mail: contact-us@thenhf.com
|
NEW