Codex Committee: “You Can’t Tell People that Food Prevents Disease!”
December 11, 2012
Not even nutrient-related disease! Our executive director’s
gripping report from the front lines.
As we discussed last week, ANH-USA represented US consumers
at the international Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for
Special Dietary Uses, which met last week in Germany. Our
executive director, Gretchen DuBeau, reports that the committee
made a number of decisions that may well affect natural health
in the US.
Here in the US, we have been debating various issues concerning
natural health: Will we retain access to a wide variety of
dietary supplements in high-nutrient-level dosages? Will we be
able to access nutritious, healthy foods, or will selection and
quality diminish because of industry or government control? Will
we finally achieve mandatory labeling for GMOs? We naturally
think that, if we are able to convince our policymakers, our
rights will be protected. But we could be wrong. We have to keep
a close eye on what happens overseas too.
Codex, which was established by the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), is creating international guidelines for member nations
to follow. And while these guidelines are supposed to be
voluntary, it is conceivable that our country’s food policies
could be overridden by international trade law. At the very
least, the wrong international guidelines won’t make it easier
to keep the right ones here.
One of the most significant outcomes from this meeting would
have the effect of squelching free speech even further. In
relation to principles underlying food fortification for the
prevention of diet-related illness, the committee members
emphasized that language indicating that food prevents disease
is forbidden and they are opposed to claims that may
“mislead”—even if the claim is true. Happily, the US delegation
disagreed, and said that while the US has similar policies about
food claims, by definition the nutrients in food prevent
nutrient-related diseases! The Botswana delegation agreed with
us, pointing out that iodine prevents goiter, so therefore
nutrients do prevent disease, yet Botswana nevertheless
reinforced the ban.
This is at the heart of ANH’s work. We are here to educate
consumers about the role that food, supplements (including
nutraceuticals), and lifestyle play in optimizing health. And
now we are seeing the beginning of international policy
preventing health claims related to natural health products and
foods. It’s difficult to educate consumers when international
leaders are forbidding the discussion!
In another extremely troubling decision, the Codex Committee
adopted extremely low Nutrient Reference Values for labeling
purposes—that is, the intake levels of essential nutrients
deemed adequate to meet most people’s minimal nutritional needs.
They are roughly equivalent to our “Recommended Dietary
Allowances,” in that RDAs indicate the daily dietary intake
level of a nutrient considered sufficient by the Food and
Nutrition Board to meet the requirements of 97.5% of healthy
individuals in each life-stage and gender group. These new NRVs
are far too low to be effective at preventing disease, according
to most natural health experts, with even higher nutrient values
needed to optimize health—though it was stressed that the actual
values weren’t important because they are “just for labeling
purposes.”
The committee also adopted single values—what some supposed
“average healthy person” might need. And of course that doesn’t
work! Children, young people, men, women (with different needs
if pregnant), the elderly, and people with a multitude of
nutrient deficiencies or excesses, food sensitivities, dietary
needs, and illnesses—each would need a very different dosage. So
we would advocate a range of values, which can take into account
bioindividuality—the “systems biology” approach that considers
the great variability in individuals’ genetic backgrounds.
Also under discussion were NRVs associated with reduced
incidence of non-communicable diet-related diseases, or
NRVs-NCD. Regarding those, the committee said, “Governments are
encouraged to use the NRVs-NCD, or alternatively, consider the
suitability of the general principles below, including the level
of evidence required… in establishing their own reference values
for labeling purposes for nutrients associated with diet-related
non-communicable diseases.” In other words: member countries
should adopt these standards precisely, or at least follow our
guidelines if you need to tweak them to your needs.
Did you see that phrase, “including the level of evidence
required”? At least here we find an upside: the committee
proposed a broader scientific standard than the one it had been
using previously. Instead of the “gold standard” of
random-controlled trials (RCTs), both WHO and FAO now use
something called
the GRADE
system, which takes into consideration all levels of
evidence, including clinical, giving more weight to evidence
that is more conclusive. And Codex is inclined to agree with
this broader standard. This is extremely positive, as natural
health products rarely have patent protection and therefore
cannot afford hundreds of millions of dollars for RCTs, but may
have an abundance of clinical evidence.
Of course, everyone’s big question is harmonization on
supplements—that is, whether the US will accept the limits Codex
creates for supplements (in terms of dosages and product
availability). Unfortunately, there’s no easy answer to that
one. The US delegation made it clear that our country intends to
stay flexible—to create our own standards and use our own
science, indicating no intention to harmonize at this time.
Legally, we are not bound to harmonize. But we are subject to
World Trade Organization (WTO) sanctions should conflicting
national policy creates trade disputes.
This is unlikely to be an issue, but
there have already been conflicts. For example, in 1985 the
European Union enacted a ban on the production and importation
of meat derived from animals treated with growth-promoting
hormones. In 1989, the EU banned the import of US beef produced
with growth-promoting hormones, dramatically reducing beef
exports to the EU. In 1996, the US claimed that the EU ban
adversely affected trade and because their standards exceeded
those set by Codex, the WTO should intervene. It did, and a WTO
panel ruled in the US’s favor, allowing the US to begin
collecting tariffs on $116.8 million worth of imports from the
EU—the amount that it lost each year due to the ban.
In other words, while a country may not be obligated to adopt a
Codex standard into domestic law, international trade pressures,
especially from powerful countries, could create pressure to do
so. This is a particular threat when it comes to dietary
supplements. Although the US may be able to maintain access to
high level nutrients in its supplements, much of the rest of the
world will not. And the weight of a standard accepted by 185
countries is almost certain to give determined anti-supplement
legislators like Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Congressman
Henry Waxman (D-CA) reasons, at some point, to introduce a new
bill to harmonize.
Of further concern is the fact that Codex is creating principles
for food fortification—adding
folic acid or
calcium to food—which, as we’ve reported, can in some cases
be dangerous. For example, it is dangerous to fortify with
calcium without any of the essential co-factors. In addition,
this is a band-aid approach to treating nutrient deficiencies
instead of focusing on the real problem. We need to address
farming practices that are destroying the nutrient content of
soil and leading to less nutritious food.
What about GMOs (genetically modified organisms)? Europe is not
friendly to GMO, so could we gain some ground there? If this
meeting is any indication, the answer is likely to be No. The
issue of banning GMOs in children’s cereals was quickly
dismissed because of a “lack of science” supporting the claim
that GMOs are dangerous. We noted that there were dozens of
“experts” in the room ready to support GMO.
Here again we have the international trade dispute problem to
consider: If state bills requiring GMO labeling were to pass,
and it eventually became federal law, and Codex prohibited such
labeling, there would absolutely be a WTO dispute and the
international standard would be hard to beat.
This meeting revealed the usual problem of the infiltration of
special interests. This threatens to outweigh what appears to be
positive intent on the part of many participating in the
process. The underlying—and most relevant—question is, “Who
benefits from harmonized standards on everything from infant
formula to fortification of foods?” Answer: the largest
companies in the world. Their interests are represented here,
but the consumers of the world are not. The tagline on many
Codex documents is “safe, good food for everyone,” but the point
that was stressed over and over again at this meeting is that
“we are here to facilitate trade.”
As Codex continues through its creation and approval process, it
is taking on a life of its own that, despite the current intent
of the US to maintain independence, may meet us at our front
door and demand entrance.
http://www.anh-usa.org/codex-committee/
http://www.anh-usa.org/codex-committee/
The Alliance for Natural Health USA
1350 Connecticut Ave NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
Ph: 800.230.2762
www.anh-usa.org