# Codex



## Jenivere (Aug 4, 2003)

I received an e-mail a few days ago and I've been doing some searches. Most of what I found is dated 2003 but I found some more recent stuff.

The e-mail included some text from this linkhttp://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=6876621&content_dir=ua_congressorg .

"Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June
of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will over ride U.S. laws.
The U.S. President and congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was
signed. Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions. CODEX drastically restricts
vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. CODEX met secretly in November,
2004 and finalized "Step 8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June, 2005.

The CODE includes:

(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.

(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a "drug" requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned, terminating health stores as we now know them.

(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.

(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX testing and approval."

There are several links in this article you can follow and of course you can google the bills numbers. Has anyone else heard of this? This is my first time reading about it and I'm curious about the opinions of others.


----------



## InfoisPower (Nov 21, 2001)

I've heard of and posted on this topic a couple of times. There isn't much interest on the boards about it. Curious to me considering so many here use vitamin supplementation and alternative therapies. What will everyone do when vitamin supplements beyond the RDA limits need a prescription?


----------



## DesireeH (Mar 22, 2003)

OMG! That is ridiculous! I hadnt heard anything about it either (that I remember!).

This part really makes me angry

Quote:

and must be produced by drug companies.
:vomit


----------



## Rainbow Brite (Nov 2, 2004)

I think that is a horrible idea!

Maybe post in Health, that will generat a lot of attention. This is my first time on this Activism board.


----------



## fluffernutter (Dec 8, 2002)

That's a really scary though! Yikes.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I personally think that if it passes - it won't last long. Can you imagine having to ask your doc for a vit c prescription?? Every month? Can you imagine your doc being happy about that? The minimum RDA of Vit c is ONLY enough to prevent scurvy....and all my docs have told me when I am sick to take it in minimum increments of 1000mg - welll over the 60 mg the RDA suggests. How much extra work is that going to create and bog down an already slow and inefficient health care system. And not to mention insurance companies - they get off good by not having to cover vitamin supplements....And I think that if they all of a sudden stop covering over half of what is prescribed people are gonna be a little peeved.

It scares me to think that someone would try this - but I think that a lot of people are not gonna let this one fly.


----------



## Aquaduct (Nov 27, 2003)

Yes, it seems to radical for them to get away with. Tooo many people will just thumb their noses at such laws.


----------



## InfoisPower (Nov 21, 2001)

From: http://www.glycommunity.com/iahf/

URGENT GLOBAL HEALTH FREEDOM ALERT!!!

Alliance for Natural Health TO BE IN COURT JANUARY 25th, 2005
NEEDS IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE!!!

PLEASE HELP Folks! This is the 11th hour of a desperate global struggle for health freedom. Pharma Interests dominating the vitamin trade associations world-wide are keeping their memberships in the dark on this issue by telling them what they want to hear (that its a non issue). We need your help to awaken everyone with the TRUTH!!

More at: http://www.iahf.com/index3.html

email newsletter list: http://www.iahf.com/


----------



## Mommymama (Aug 23, 2002)

Here's the latest on CODEX ALIMENTARIS. Incredibly, starting this year, in phases, CODEX will do these things:

* Prohibit the use of any natural substance to prevent, treat or cure disease.
* Obliterate organics.
* Legalize genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
* Raise allowable pesticides, toxin and drug levels in foods devastatingly high.
* Mandate antibiotics and hormones in the food of all animals.
* Prohibit virtually all traditional medicines and herbs.
* Slash allowable supplements to a handful of ultra low-dose, synthetic vitamins and minerals.

Apparently, this is no hoax and there's a lot of misinformation on the Internet about what CODEX will do. The following article on Dr. Mercola's site shows how you can act to stop CODEX:

http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/14/codex.htm
Apparently if you FAX a letter to your congressperson it counts as 13,000 emails! So you can go to the Natural Solutions Foundation website and download sample letters and get the FAX numbers of your congresspeople:

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.htm


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

There's a discussion about this over in Vaccinations--along with some real questions about how accurate claims like Mercola's are. I asked if anyone here had actually looked at the Codex documents and proposals to see if, indeed, it's as bad as some of the web info says it is, but so far, no one seems to have actual first-hand interpretation....


----------



## Aquaduct (Nov 27, 2003)

The Devil is in the details. Never trust Big Business.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Aquaduct*
The Devil is in the details. Never trust Big Business.

Of course, Big Business is also involved in the sale of organic products, vitamins, supplements, etc. So it would be contrary to *their* economic interests, as well, if all the Codex really resulted in what some activists claim it will. Billions of $ of corporate profits are at stake, as well. Food for thought...


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

I just got an email about this today.

Quote:

Banning Vitamin Sales Worldwide
by Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.

[Note: The following article makes clear how seriously
close we are
to losing our freedom to choose and use nutritional
supplements to
ensure and improve our health. Please forward it to
your own email
lists and encourage those you send it to to take part
in the steps
Dr. Heath outlines below.]

Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other
supplements may
end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S.
supplements will be
defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization
(WTO) and the
World Health Organization (WHO). The Codex
Alimentarius (Food Code)
is setting the supplement standards for all countries
in the WTO.
They will be enforced by the WTO and will override
U.S. laws. The
U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over
when the WTO
Treaty was signed. Violations are punished by WTO
trade sanctions.
CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs
and other
supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and
finalized "Step
8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June,
2005.

The Food Code includes:

(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or
therapeutic use.

(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is
a "drug"
requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug
companies.
Over
5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned,
terminating
health stores as we now know them.

(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.

(4) New supplements are banned unless given very
expensive CODEX
testing and approval.

CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among other
countries,
where
zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea
(an ancient
immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both
examples are
now
allowed by prescription only). They are now "drugs".
Vitamin C above
200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg-all
are banned
over-
the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine,
lysine, carnitine,
etc. - essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids
(omegas 3, 6,
9, etc.), or other essential supplements, such as
DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10,
MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed.

The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They
are made by a
few
people meeting in sec/ret (see web sites below), not
necessarily
scientists. In 1993, the FDA and drug corporations
tried to put all
supplements under restriction and prescription. But
over 4 million
Americans told Congress and the President to protect
their freedom
of
choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed
in 1994,
which
does so. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the
World Trade
Organization.

Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What
the drug
corporations have failed to do through Congress they
have gotten by
sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent
media. What can
be done at this late hour?

(1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform
yourselves by
visiting the following websites:
http://www.ahha.org,
http://www.iahf.com,
and http://www.alliance-natural-health.org.

(2) Oppose bills S.722 and H.R.3377. These support the
CODEX
restrictions with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.

(3) Support H. R.1146 which would restore the
sovereignty of the
U.S.
Constitution over CODEX, etc.

(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and

Representatives (They got us into this!) ASAP.

(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that
can get their
members to inform the government.

(6) Send donations, however small, to the British
Alliance for
Natural Health (see web site above). This organization
is
challenging
the CODEX directives in World Court and needs help
financially,
having carried the fight effectively for everyone.
CODEX and the FDA
wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the
same way they
do
prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three
medical
scientists
was reported in the Journal of the American Medical
Association,
April15,1998; Vol. 279, No. 15, p. 1200 "Incidence of
Adverse Drug
Reactions (ADR's) was found to be extremely high."
Covering 30 years
(1966 to1996) it was found that in the U.S. an average
of 106,000
hospitalized patients per year (290 per day!) die from
ADR's and
2,200,000 need more hospitalization for recovery.
These were FDA
approved drugs, properly administered by competent
professionals in
hospitals--none were considered malpractice. This is
the number four
cause of death in the U.S. When combined, these
account for 7% of
all
hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11
attack every ten
days. There are very few fatalities from supplements
or the news
would be on every front page. There is no need for
more FDA control
of supplements than is already in place, which is
substantial.
Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why
doesn't the FDA
better control and restrict the extremely dangerous
pharmaceutical
drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major
airline crash
per day?

Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.1145 Marine Drive, Bellingham,
--- End forwarded message ---
which was followed by another email:

Quote:

This one has been around for a while now.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/vitamins.asp
So, the question is, is it real or rumor?


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CryPixie83*
So, the question is, is it real or rumor?

I think that the best first step to figuring that out is going to the official Coex website (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp) and trying to make sense of the documents there.


----------



## Aquaduct (Nov 27, 2003)

Well, as it happens Kaydee, Big Business is involved in industries like vitamin supplements. I have heard the figure of 70% of vitamin supply is now controlled by the big Corporations, usually pharmaceutical companies. Solgar for instance has just been bought up. Codex from what I hear is going to make it a lot harder for the smaller businesses to stay in the game, naturally leaving the game to the corporate owned suppliers. Now they are so big they can easily sustain being penalised by codex, and anyway the whole idea would be to bring vitamin sales down, thus bringing on less wellness, less choice, and eventually less competition for their far more lucrative markets in pharmaceuticals. That would be the plan.

What we all have to realise is this very basic point. A patented product ie. a man-made product which a company has the intellectual property rights to, and thus is the only legal manufacturer and supplier for several decades, is far far better at making money for vested interests than something like vitamin C which cannot be patented because it is natural, and has been around for a long time (since life began almost.) The former means the company has a monopoly on supply of the product in question; the latter means there will be a lot of competition as other businesses get in on the act, and this drives down prices, and therefore profits get cut.

That is the bottom line. Understand this, and you will start to grasp why Big Pharma doesn't want to make supplying vitamins and minerals it's main interest, even though it would be a lot better for the health of everyone. It is the nature of capitalism, the profit-motive, acquisitiveness, whatever you want to call it. Personally I call it greedy and selfish.


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

it is a myth. check out snopes.com for info.


----------



## Mommymama (Aug 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
it is a myth. check out snopes.com for info.









It it NOT a hoax!

"Who is Behind Codex?

The pharmaceutical, chemical and agribusiness corporations stand to make huge amounts of money from CODEX. Well-funded, massive disinformation campaigns, half-truth, half-lie ?spin? websites like www.snopes.com, as well as infiltration and control of trade organizations supposedly designed to protect the health food and supplement industries, are all smoke-and-mirror tactics of these three ?Big? interests."

Remainder at:

http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/14/codex.htm


----------



## CryPixie83 (Jan 27, 2004)

That's pretty scary.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

I'd say Mercola "spins" his topics, too.

Again--anyone read the actual Codex documents?


----------



## Want2MakeAChange (Jun 22, 2005)

This is serious. I have heard a lot about it.







: Please write to congress.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

What exactly are people saying in their letters to Congress?

What kind of responses are you getting?


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/vitamins.asp

Quote:

However, what it seeks and what it can do are very different things. It has no power to force its will on any nation. Codex standards are voluntary, which means if the U.S. doesn't adopt them, they will not govern the regulation of vitamins, minerals, or dietary supplements in the USA.

Quote:

In November 2004, the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) reached agreement on the definitions and regulatory guidelines for the worldwide use of vitamins and minerals in food supplements and will present its "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements" to the Codex annual meeting in Rome in July 2005 for formal approval. Once approved, countries are expected to consider these new guidelines in developing or modifying their national food laws.
Snope has no reason to spread false information or "spin".


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy*
Snope has no reason to spread false information or "spin".

That's part of why I am so curious to hear what kinds of responses people are getting when they write their congresspeople.


----------



## InfoisPower (Nov 21, 2001)

Bulleting from Mercola today.
"Promote health choice worldwide. Tell the U.S. Codex delegation and Congress to make our law, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the international standard for dietary supplement trade."

Sign letter here:
http://www.healthactioncenter.org/ac...p=2&item=26659


----------



## etoilech (Mar 25, 2004)

"CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among other
countries,
where
zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea
(an ancient
immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both
examples are
now
allowed by prescription only). They are now "drugs".
Vitamin C above
200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg-all
are banned
over-
the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine,
lysine, carnitine,
etc. - essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids
(omegas 3, 6,
9, etc.), or other essential supplements, such as
DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10,
MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed."

This is crap. We live an hour from Germany and you can buy vitamin/supplements for much cheaper than that there. I bought 500g Vit c for about 10 USD last week. I also bought a whole bottle of Echinecha (sp?) for about 8 USD.

Olivia


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *etoilech*
This is crap. We live an hour from Germany and you can buy vitamin/supplements for much cheaper than that there. I bought 500g Vit c for about 10 USD last week. I also bought a whole bottle of Echinecha (sp?) for about 8 USD.

That's exactly why I am so dubious about these "red alerts" that Mercola et al keep sending out--their "facts" seem to be, well, not so factual. It makes me wonder if *anyone*--activist, MDC-er, or elected official--has actually waded through the Codex documents!


----------



## etoilech (Mar 25, 2004)

To be honest, I relly don't know whether this CODEX stuff is true, but it seems REALLY alarmist. I can't seem to find ANY documents regarding this from a reliable source.

Some supplements are outlawed or available only by perscription here in Switzerland (Melatonin is one that comes to mind) b/c taken without proper counselling (homopath, medical dr., herbalist) they are dangerous. Just b/c it's natural doesn't mean it's automatically *safe*.

Olivia


----------



## dingogirl (Sep 9, 2002)

i received this today. not sure what to make of it.

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Monday, July 4th, 2005

"Big Pharma" won a major victory in Rome, Italy today. Vitamins and minerals, for over-the-counter sale will be phased out, almost completely, in every country on Planet Earth. The "German Model" of health care will now be the law of the land - in every land.

Below is a press release from Diane ****** JD of the National Health Freedom Coalition, detailing the action. Diane is in Rome at the meeting.

Press Release - National Health Freedom Coalition: Codex Full Commission adopts Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements in final form July 4, 2005, Rome Italy. by Diane ****** JD.

Minutes ago the full Commission of Codex Alimentarius adopted in final form, the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. This adoption is the Step 8 adoption, the final stage of adoption for the international Codex guidelines. The Codex Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements guidelines are now official and no longer in draft form.

The Commission, attended by over 85 of the 171 Codex countries, adopted the guidelines by consensus method. There was brief discussion before adoption taking in comments from a small number of countries and two NGOs.

To read the whole article, click on the URL below:

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinion...rldwide....htm


----------



## dingogirl (Sep 9, 2002)

here's some additional information on Codex-an interview with Dr. Carolyn Dean.

http://www.autismone.com/radio/default.cfm?archive=32


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Does anybody have a link to the text of the purported CODEX standard? I'm reading the CODEX official website, but they don't have any standards more recent than 2003. What I'm finding there is, honestly, rather innocuous. But, it's not the most recent stuff.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson*
Does anybody have a link to the text of the purported CODEX standard? I'm reading the CODEX official website, but they don't have any standards more recent than 2003. What I'm finding there is, honestly, rather innocuous. But, it's not the most recent stuff.


There isn't just one standard; there are a multitude of standards.

Here is the complete list of standards: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web...ist.do?lang=en

Their dates of adoption range from 1966-2004. (It says 2001 at the top of the page, but if you scroll down the list, the dates actually go up to 2004).

There are also standards that are in the process of being adopted. I don't know where to find those.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Yes, that is the webpage I referenced above. I went through those standards, and did not find one that referred to vitamins and supplements. Furthermore, if this one was just adopted, as is implied by the articles saying it was approved yesterday, then it wouldn't be on that site yet because it only has standards through 2004. (On my first perusal of the site, I didn't notice the ones from '04, which is why I said '03 in my previous post.) What I was asking for is a link to a copy of the new standard referring to vitamins and supplements that is the one being debated in this thread. I don't think that standards adopted in 1966 for gouda cheese are going to help us understand this issue any better...


----------



## dingogirl (Sep 9, 2002)

CAFTA (Codex) is in political trouble in the House. The Hispanic Caucus
recently came out against it, saying that its bad for central America
AND for the USA. Its pretty hard for Bush to do spin against the
stats from the FAILED NAFTA Agreement- our trade deficit is up to
$617 Billion, but beyond that, the jobs that initially went do Mexico
have since all gone to even CHEAPER sources of third world labor in
China, and elsewhere- and the same thing would happen in Central
America.

The Washington Post is calling this "too close to call" and says
CAFTA could come down to ONE SINGLE VOTE in the House. So our calls
and emails actually MATTER, and it REALLY helps when we get face to
face meetings as I did yesterday and as some of you have also been
getting with your congressmen. Tomorrow would be your last chance to
meet with them in person before they return, and you should make the
effort. In any case, please DO take the ACTION recommended below:

On the HEALTH FREEDOM/ CAFTA FRONT:

Yesterday I drove down to Bellingham WA and attended a Town Mtg run
by my congressman, Rick Larsen. He already opposes CAFTA, but I'm
hoping he might make a floor statement against it on the House floor
which airs our concerns as dietary supplement consumers given the
danger posed by the SPS language lurking within it.

All its going to take is one or more Congressmen to air our concern
from the House floor to put them ALL on notice that if they vote for
CAFTA they'll be touching the THIRD RAIL and committing political
SUICIDE by angering millions of vitamin consumers who wield huge
impact at the ballot box.

I told Larsen we were working hard to interest congressmen De Fazio
and Paul to issue a "Dear Colleague" letter and to make floor
statements to insure that members of the House realize that millions
of vitamin consumers who flooded congress in '94 during the campaign
to pass DSHEA will not tolerate CAFTA or anyone who votes for it.

I made him aware that Section 6 of CAFTA would require the USA to
form a Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures Committee for the purpose of
insuring that we entered into a constant process of harmonizing our
laws under the terms of the SPS Agreement in the WTO.

I told him that Article 3 of the WTO's SPS Agreement requires us to
harmonize our food safety laws (read DSHEA) to Codex standards. It
states "To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a
basis as possible, Members SHALL base their food safety measures on
international standards, guidelines or recommendations." (Codex sets
the standards for food safety, including vitamins and minerals.)

I handed him information that I'd previously sent to his aide and
concluded by brief conversation after this Town Meeting by urging him
to watch Kevin ******'s documentary "We Become Silent" at
http://www.welltv.com and by handing him material to read on the
plane on his way back to DC.

Several other people on the IAHF list also had meetings with their
congressmen during the July 4th recess and some of you may be able to
get a meeting tomorrow in your congressman's district office in your
home state or you may already have lined one up. If so, I hope this
helps.

Its important to realize that when congress reconvenes next monday
(July 11th) they might not go straight to the House Floor on CAFTA,
Bush could take a few days because he's desperate to line up more
votes- but it will probably happen next week sometime. We have to
keep calling (via Capital Switchboard 202-225-3121) and have to keep
sending the following form letter in, right up til they vote, and
please snowball this alert!!

To email this to your congressman, please go to:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

CAFTA BAD FOR DIETARY SUPPLEMENT CONSUMERS-
SPS LANGUAGE BURIED IN IT
THREATENS HARMONIZATION TO CODEX

Dear Congressman______________________

In 1994 vitamin consumers generated the largest volume of mail to
Congress on any issue in the HISTORY of Congress when we passed the
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

Today, CAFTA threatens to undo all of our hard work, and to set the
USA up for harmonization to an excessively restrictive global trade
guideline for vitamins and minerals just finalized on July 4th 2005
at the 28 General Session of the UN's Codex Alimentarius Commission.

The seeds of our health freedom destruction are sewn inside Section 6
of CAFTA where members are forced to form a Sanitary-Phytosanitary
Measures (SPS) Committee for the purpose of insuring ONGOING
HARMONIZATION of our laws under the terms of the SPS Agreement in the
WTO Trade Agreement. (See
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements...l/CAFTA/CAFTA-
DR_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html

If you examine Article 3 of the WTO's SPS Agreement you will read the
following words: "To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on
as wide a basis as possible, members SHALL base their food safety
measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations."

(Codex sets the international standard for food safety, and they
intend to fill in the blanks on allowed potencies at levels even
LOWER than RDAs- see http://www.alliance-natural-
health.org/_docs/ANHWebsiteDoc_145.doc

Vitamin consumers drove many congressmen out of office who failed to
vote for DSHEA in '94.
Any member of Congress who fails to heed our concerns about CAFTA and
votes for this unconstitutional trade agreement anyway, despite how
it sets us up for harmonization to Codex, and despite its continuing
the failed policies of NAFTA which gave us our present $617 Billion
trade deficit risks being driven from office. IAHF will be posting a
list of any member of Congress who ignores our concerns. We urge you
to watch Kevin ******'s excellent documentary on this issue at
http://www.welltv.com

Signed____________________
Address____________________________

--

For Health Freedom,
John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
556 Boundary Bay Road
Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA
http://www.iahf.com
[email protected]
800-333-2553 N.America
360-945-0352 World


----------



## dingogirl (Sep 9, 2002)

Senate gives Bush win on CAFTA

House vote on trade agreement appears too close to call

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fresh off a victory in the Senate, the Bush
administration turned to the House in the drive to conclude a free trade
agreement it says will promote democracy in Central America while opening
new markets to American businesses.

The House vote, expected in July, on the Central America Free Trade
Agreement is certain to be close, but supporters expressed new confidence
Thursday after a 54-45 vote in the Senate...

The bill is S. 1307.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson*
What I was asking for is a link to a copy of the new standard referring to vitamins and supplements that is the one being debated in this thread. I don't think that standards adopted in 1966 for gouda cheese are going to help us understand this issue any better...

Since I didn't get any response to my earlier query (similar to yours) for more firsthand information, and since I find the official site to be a real labyrinth







, I am going to just guess that the standard(s) in question are probably the ones that refer to food additives and/or nutritional labeling and/or special dietary uses, since those are areas in which terms can be broadly interpreted. But I, too, am hoping that someone more familiar with the actual standard(s) pipes up. No luck so far, though....

A look at the agenda for the current meeting (on http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web...ts.jsp?lang=en) didn't really help shed light on things for me, either. Maybe it will make more sense to you.


----------



## dingogirl (Sep 9, 2002)

this is not good news for parents of autistic children who are using supplements to help their children get well.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Aha! I think I found the pertinant information. I'll keep looking to see if I find any more. Here's what I found so far. I must say, while I'm wary of any regulation, this doesn't look as gloom and doom as people are saying it is.

From Appendix II of the ALINORM 05/28/26, the REPORT OF THE 26th SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION AND FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY USES:

Quote:

DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR VITAMIN AND MINERAL FOOD SUPPLEMENTS
(At Step 8 of the Procedure)
PREAMBLE
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. In cases where the intake from the diet is insufficient or where consumers consider their diet requires supplementation, vitamin and mineral food supplements serve to supplement the daily diet.
1. SCOPE
1.1 These guidelines apply to vitamin and mineral food supplements intended for use in supplementing the daily diet with vitamins and/or minerals.
1.2 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.
1.3 These Guidelines apply in those jurisdictions where products defined in 2.1 are regulated as foods.
1.4 Foods for special dietary uses as defined in the General Standard for the Labelling of and Claims for Prepackaged Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CODEX STAN 146-1985) are not covered by these Guidelines.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Vitamin and mineral food supplements for the purpose of these guidelines derive their nutritional relevance primarily from the minerals and/or vitamins they contain. Vitamin and mineral food supplements are sources in concentrated forms of those nutrients alone or in combinations, marketed in forms such as capsules, tablets, powders, solutions etc., that are designed to be taken in measured small-unit quantities1 but are not in a conventional food form and whose purpose is to supplement the intake of vitamins and/or
minerals from the normal diet.
3. COMPOSITION
3.1 Selection of vitamins and minerals
3.1.1 Vitamin and mineral food supplements should contain vitamins/provitamins and minerals whose nutritional value for human beings has been proven by scientific data and whose status as vitamins and minerals is recognised by FAO and WHO.
3.1.2 The sources of vitamins and minerals may be either natural or synthetic and their selection should be based on considerations such as safety and bioavailability. In addition, purity criteria should take into account FAO/WHO standards, or if FAO/WHO standards are not available, international Pharmacopoeias or recognized international standards. In the absence of criteria from these sources, national legislation may be used.
3.1.3 Vitamin and mineral food supplements may contain all vitamins and minerals that comply with the criteria in 3.1.1, a single vitamin and/or mineral or an appropriate combination of vitamins and/or minerals.1 This refers to the physical forms of the vitamin and mineral food supplements not to the potency of the supplements.
ALINORM 05/28/26 page 43
3.2 Contents of vitamins and minerals
3.2.1 The minimum level of each vitamin and/or mineral contained in a vitamin and mineral food supplement per daily portion of consumption as suggested by the manufacturer should be 15% of the recommended daily intake as determined by FAO/WHO.
3.2.2 Maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in vitamin and mineral food supplements per daily portion of consumption as recommended by the manufacturer shall be set, taking the following criteria into account:
(a) upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals established by scientific risk assessment based on generally accepted scientific data, taking into consideration, as appropriate, the varying degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups;
(b) the daily intake of vitamins and minerals from other dietary sources.
When the maximum levels are set, due account may be taken of the reference intake values of vitamins and minerals for the population. This provision should not lead to setting of maximum levels that are solely
based on recommended nutrient intakes (e. g. Population Reference Intake or Recommended Daily Allowance values).
4. PACKAGING
4.1 The product shall be packed in containers which will safeguard the hygienic and other qualities of the food.
4.2 The containers, including packaging material, shall be made only of substances which are safe and suitable for their intended use. Where the Codex Alimentarius Commission has established a standard for any such substance used as packaging material, that standard shall apply.
5. LABELLING
5.1 Vitamin and mineral food supplements should be labelled according to the Codex Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (Codex-Stan 1-1985, Rev. 1-1991) as well as according to the General Guidelines on Claims (CAC/GL 1-1979).
5.2 The name of the product shall be "food supplement" with an indication of the category(ies) of nutrients or of the individual vitamin(s) and/or mineral(s) contained in the product as the case may be.
5.3 The amount of the vitamins and minerals present in the product should be declared in the labelling in numerical form. The units to be used should be units of weight consistent with the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CAC/GL 2-1985 (Rev.1 - 1993).
5.4 The amounts of the vitamins and minerals declared should be those per portion of the product as recommended for daily consumption and if different, the amount per unit for single use may also be given.
5.5 Information on vitamins and minerals should also be expressed as a percentage of the nutrient reference values mentioned, as the case may be, in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling.
5.6 The label should indicate how the product should be used (quantity, frequency, special conditions).
5.7 The label shall contain advice to the consumer not to exceed the maximum one-day amount.
5.8 The label should not state or imply that supplements can be used for the replacement of meals or a varied diet.
5.9 The label shall contain a statement that the product should be stored out of reach of young children.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson*
Aha! I think I found the pertinant information. I'll keep looking to see if I find any more. Here's what I found so far. I must say, while I'm wary of any regulation, this doesn't look as gloom and doom as people are saying it is.

Is this on the official site? Do you have a link? TIA!


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

Just FYI, these boards received about 10 spams of that same email wording in forums like Finding Your Tribe and a few others that were totally unrelated. Whoever is spreading this message is using spam as a means to spread it, which raises red flags for me.

BTW please review the copyright rules for this board, as you are not allowed to paste the text of an email into a post.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaydee*
Is this on the official site? Do you have a link? TIA!

Kaydee, I found it on the page that you linked:
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web...ts.jsp?lang=en

You're right about the official webpage being cavernous... I hadn't found that page myself when looking previously. Anyway, it was in one of the documents listed there, the one labeled:

Quote:

ALINORM 05/28/26
Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
Session 26


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson*
Kaydee, I found it on the page that you linked:
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web...ts.jsp?lang=en


Heh.







:

Thanks!


----------



## Pam_and_Abigail (Dec 2, 2002)

so it's true then?


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pam_and_Abigail*
so it's true then?

Kinda depends on what you mean by "this."

Is it true there is a Codex? Yes--but that was never in question. The Codex has been in existence for decades. I don't see anything wrong, in theory, with having global quality standards for food products & labeling, which is essentially what most of the standards are. I think the concern is about the potential reach of some of the new, proposed standards. Is it true that the new standards will do what some fear they will do (drastically restrict access to herbs and vitamins? Debatable--and not at all clear at this point. Personally, I think it is something to keep a close eye on, but I believe many of the claims are overblown.


----------



## InfoisPower (Nov 21, 2001)

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/art...urce=PA%20Feed

Controversial new European laws which could outlaw thousands of vitamin and mineral supplements were upheld by European Court judges.

The European Court of Justice rejected British health food industry claims that the proposed Food Supplements Directive, coming into force on August 1, breaches EU rules.


----------



## dingogirl (Sep 9, 2002)

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst071805.htm


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

Anyone know anything new about this? I've read the snopes website and normally I find the site to be pretty straightforward and informative - I send my grandpa there every time he emails me some new, crazy email story. But in this case, I'm wondering if maybe they're a bit off. I mean, if the information on the Codex website even mentions vitamins and minerals, classifying them as "supplements", which it does, then already snopes is wrong. And, as already quoted, the documents say:

_Maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in vitamin and mineral food supplements per daily portion of consumption as recommended by the manufacturer shall be set_

It does also say that the maximum amounts should not be based on recommended daily intakes, but rather on upper safe levels that have been scientifically determined and the average daily intake of vitamins for the population. (I'm paraphrasing.) However, by requiring companies to provide scientific testing to prove the amounts of a vitamin that are safe, they're putting a huge financial burden on manufacturers and prices *would* increase because of that, although how much is really up in the air.

Does anyone have any newer information on this?


----------



## Goddess3_2005 (Oct 20, 2004)

I have heard its going to happen, but I will ask my dad (doctor) if he has heard anything else about it. I would'nt beleive everything you hear on snopes.


----------



## kaydee (Aug 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Richelle*

It does also say that the maximum amounts should not be based on recommended daily intakes, but rather on upper safe levels that have been scientifically determined and the average daily intake of vitamins for the population. (I'm paraphrasing.) However, by requiring companies to provide scientific testing to prove the amounts of a vitamin that are safe, they're putting a huge financial burden on manufacturers and prices *would* increase because of that, although how much is really up in the air.

Does anyone have any newer information on this?

No newer information, but does it actually say that the companies would need to provide the upper limit safety information? My understanding is that upper safe limits are already established and accepted for many substances....


----------

