by Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D.
The main issue for health consumers is how will our access to
“food supplements” be affected by CODEX regulation.
Codex alimentarius, or CODEX, (Latin for
“food code”) is empowered by the U.N.
and WHO to set food standards for international
trade in our emerging global
economy according to world trade agreements
that corporations and governments
seems so intent on pursuing. The
main issue for health consumers is how
will our access to “food supplements” be
affected by CODEX regulation. In countries
where supplements are classified as
drugs, CODEX apparently does not interfere,
which sends a strong message to
member countries to regulate their supplements
as drugs.
In countries where supplements are
still classified as food, CODEX is developing
what appears to be stringent rules
to govern the so-called safety of these
products along the guidelines used for
drugs. Food and supplement quality and
purity are legitimate avenues for governments
to pursue. However, setting limits
on the amount of supplements that an
individual consumer can purchase and
availability of supplements is another
matter entirely.
CODEX, which began in 1961, is already
middle-aged. Specifically, at a FAO (Food
and Agriculture Organization) Conference
a resolution was passed to create an
international food standards program.
The following year they requested WHO
(World Health Organization) to endorse
a joint FAO/WHO food standards program.
In 1963 the World Health
Assembly of WHO approved the establishment
of the Joint FAO/WHO Food
Standards Programme and adopted
CODEX.
FAO’S mission: “Achieving food security
for all is at the heart of FAO’S efforts—to make sure people have regular access
to enough high quality food to lead
active, healthy lives. FAO’S mandate is to
raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural
productivity, better the lives of rural
populations and contribute to the growth
of the world economy.” FAO is governed
by 188 member countries and meets
every two years.
WHO was founded in 1948 to address
issues of human health. One of it’s missions
is “the attainment by all peoples of
the highest possible level of health.
Health is defined in WHO’s constitution
as a state of complete physical, mental
and social well-being and not merely the
absence of disease or in.rmity.” WHO is
also a United Nations specialized agency,
independent and linked to the U.N.
through cooperative agreements. WHO is
governed by 192 member states through
the World Health Assembly (WHA). The
U.S. and Canada are members and signed
on to abide by all the decisions that
CODEX makes and further, to ensure that
national laws don’t conflict with laws
made by the World Trade Organization.
It appears that CODEX is stepping away
from the mandates of FAO and WHO by
judging food and ultimately supplements
through the lens of harm and not the
optics of the highest possible level of
health. Food adulteration is one of their
concerns, yet instead of banning obviously
harmful food adulterants such as
aspartame, they seek to reduce specific
amounts of nutrients that are freely available
to the public.
In the U.S., supplements are designated
as food, however the FDA periodically
attempts to gain more regulatory
power in this jurisdiction. In 1994 the
Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act (DSHEA) was passed to
protect consumers’ rights to freely obtain
supplements and to read “third party” literature
about natural health products. It
was a hard won battle that rallied several
million consumers to lobby Washington
on behalf of health freedom.
In Canada, in 1997, one million
Canadians opposed the suggested classification
of supplements as drugs. The
government body, Health Canada, promised
to go back to the drawing board and
either allow supplements to remain in
the food category or create a third category
separate from both drugs and food.
In retrospect, it appears that governmental
agencies of many nations have
been on a common track to have supplements
designated as drugs. Australia,
Denmark, Germany, and now the U.K.,
have all bowed to the looming international
pressure of CODEX to designate
supplements as drugs.
We are living in strange times. As I
wrote in the totalhealth article “Death by
Medicine,” an average of 784,000 people
die annually from medical interventions.
However, many years go by when not one
person dies as a result of taking supplements.
Solid evidence supports the fact
that supplements decrease the cost of
health care and supplements are essential
for the prevention and treatment of a
host of diseases. However, we are being
drawn into (some would say, forced into)
a pharmaceutical-based interpretation of
supplements.
Many readers are familiar with supplements
and their benefits but may not
realize why modern medicine seems to
treat them so shabbily.
VITAMINS FOR DEFICIENCY
Dr. Abram Hoffer, the cofounder of
Orthomolecular Medicine with Linus
Pauling, describes two schools of thought
regarding vitamins. The vitamins-fordeficiency
model identifies vitamins as
the way to prevent frank vitamin deficiency
disease. Examples of vitamins
used to prevent deficiency diseases
include vitamin C for scurvy, thiamine
(vitamin B1) for beri beri, vitamin D for rickets and niacin (vitamin B3) for pellagra.
The discovery of vitamins has only
occurred over the past 50 years. Early
vitamin researchers argued that to prevent
frank deficiency symptoms you only
needed the above vitamins in small
amounts—which was eventually loosely
translated into the RDA (recommended
daily allowance). The RDA says nothing
about optimal dose or therapeutic dose;
it is a meager amount that can stave off
deficiency.
This type of thinking about vitamin
usage dictates that since vitamins are
needed only in small amounts to prevent
deficiency, therefore large doses of vitamins
are contraindicated and may be
dangerous. The operative word here is
“may.” Dr. Hoffer remarks that vitamins
are not dangerous and that “the evidence
for this is nonexistent”. Dr. Hoffer confirms that, unfortunately, the vitamin-asprevention
paradigm is the one accepted
by almost every nutritionist, physician,
hospital, government agency and food
board in the Western world.
VITAMINS-AS-TREATMENT
A blending of scientific research and clinical
experience goes beyond the prevention
of deficiency states and identifies
vitamins as therapeutic for a large
number of conditions. Optimum doses
are used that vary from small to large but
are usually above the RDA.
Vitamins as treatment include niacin
for treating hyperlipidemia; the B vitamins
for homocystinuria; vitamin E for
heart disease; niacinamide for arthritis;
vitamin C for infection, intestinal polyps
and the common cold; and a combination
of nutrients for schizophrenia and
manic depression. However, because the
paradigm of vitamins-as-prevention is
still “in power,” any use of vitamins
beyond small doses is ridiculed.
Vitamins and minerals are cofactors
in thousands of metabolic functions in
the body. Even though the vast majority
of doctors and dietitians claim that we
can obtain all our vitamin needs from our
diet—that is decidedly not the case.
Vitamin studies always show a deficiency
in a high proportion of the population.
Therefore, we presently have a situation
in our society where we have a deficiency
of vitamins and also a need for vitamins
on a therapeutic level. If, however, CODEX
continues to listen to the prevailing
vitamins-for-deficiency lobby, judging
vitamins as dangerous and only safe in
RDA dosages, we will be less able to treat
the current epidemic of chronic vitamin
deficiency diseases.
The agenda of CODEX, on the surface,
is said to be about protecting people
from the dangers of supplements.
However, it is quite apparent to
those who have been following CODEX
and attending their meetings such as
Diane M. Miller, J.D. (www.nationalhealthfreedom.org), in the U.S. and Trueman Tuck (www.friendsoffreedom.com)
in Canada, that the CODEX agenda for food supplements is that of the pharmaceutical companies.
Big Pharma has had a monopoly in
medicine for many long decades. Many
people are becoming aware of the dangers
of modern medicine as documented
in my article, “Death by Medicine.” Big
Pharma, however, does not want to lose
its lucrative monopoly and is lobbying
governments and CODEX for restrictive
legislation on the supplement industry
and simultaneously, systematically and
silently buying up supplement companies
to control the market.
I see this happening first hand in
Canada. When I practiced in Toronto
from 1979–1992, I witnessed the birth
and rise of the traditional health movement
in Canada. I still know some of the
owners of supplement companies, big
and small. The sad fact is that small companies
are being forced out of business—or forced to sell to companies
with deep pockets, who are usually
fronting for pharmaceutical companies.
Being “regulated” by the government
means paying a fee of about $300 per
product per year to register the product
with the government. The larger supplement
companies, whether independently
owned or Big Pharma holdings, can afford these registration fees and are “all about business” and “less about wellness” and the public welfare. They are probably happy to see their smaller competitors driven out of business as they follow the business trend toward monopoly.
It’s a sad fact that government seems
to be controlled by “big business” and
has adopted the attitude of “legislating
and legalizing corporate greed.” In order
to keep supplements on the shelf and not
just available by prescription, at 100
times the cost, is to join organizations
that are fighting for your health freedom.
I work with Friends of Freedom, Canada
and am the president of Friends of
Freedom, International. Visit our Web
site at www.friendsoffreedom.com and
add your name to the hundreds of thousands
of people who want free access to
supplements and choice in health care.
The “bean counters” that have commoditized
our lives keep records on every
commercial transaction in the world.
Signing up as a member of Friends of
Freedom helps swell our numbers and,
therefore, our ability to act for you, the
health consumer.
Note: This is the first in a series of articles
about CODEX and the world health
freedom movement. I look forward to
sharing with you our report on the Bonn,
Germany CODEX meeting November 1-5,
2004. At that meeting Friends of
Freedom and Friends of Freedom,
International will be holding a FREEDEX
Alimentarius session prior to the CODEX
meetings. The purpose of FREEDEX is to
allow discussion of CODEX issues that are
outside the very strict wording of legislation
that member nations are forced to
agree upon. We are seeking funding to
invite smaller member nations to the
FREEDEX and CODEX table so their voice
can be heard.
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. is a totalhealth associate editor.
|
|
