TOO FUNNY! You remember that the discussion on the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health (GS) was cut short by Dr. Grossklaus because the interpreters had to leave immediately upon reaching the minute when the session was to end? Well, we are sitting in the final session of this year’s Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) meeting reviewing the Draft Report word by word to come up with the final report. We have, predictably, run out of time. The Chairman, Dr. Mosha (the same person who made sure to note to the entire CAC that we were NOT admitted to Codex Observer status yesterday) noted that we were out of time when the Secretary told him so and the Translators Team Leader also did. He then asked if the translators would bear with him and extend their work time. The Team Leader said, “Of course we would, Mr. Chairman!” and the meeting continued.
By the way, I got an email from a supportive reader who said that she thought that we had actually been excluded from last year’s meeting. Actually, we are here as Public Observers (without the right to speak) but with the right to lobby national Delegates (which we do very actively, you may be sure). If we were a Codex Observer organization, we would have the right to speak on an issue after the countries were finished BUT would be prohibited from lobbying countries.
We will certainly be here next year. After all, the battle rages and we are nowhere near done.
Gotta run!
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Day 25: July 6, 2006
Today was another special day for the Natural Solutions Foundation. Dr. Mosha, the Chair of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, apparently violated CAC procedure to go back and revisit a section of the report of the most recent Codex Alimentarius Executive Committee which took place just before the current CAC meeting. Now, ordinarily, procedural rules are absolutely sacrosanct. They are observed scrupulously (unless of course they are inconvenient, as for example, when the Chair of a Committee or the CAC itself tells a member nation which has called for a vote “Codex does not vote anymore” although the procedural manual says “…each member of the Commission shall have one vote.” (CAC Procedural Manual, Rules of procedure, Rule VII, 1., page 12) and “…any Member of the Commission may request a roll-call vote, in which case the vote of each Member shall be recorded” (CAC Procedural Manual, Rules of procedure, Rule VII, 4., page 12).
In Codex, when an agenda item is complete, it is completed. So it was a huge surprise and, in its way, a rather significant honor or sorts when, have finished the entire work of the CAC meeting today, Dr. Claude Mosha, the CAC Chair, made an exception for us, the Natural Solutions Foundation.
Although the adoption of the report of the Codex Executive Committee (June 28-July 1, 2006) had taken place on the very first day of the CAC meeting, Dr. Mosha though that the status of the Natural Solutions Foundation was so important that he asked the CAC Members, as the last item of business, just before the close of this year’s CAC, to turn back to the report of the Executive Committee, Alinorm 06/29/3A, to regard together Item 109. It reads, in full,
109. The Executive Committee recommended to the Directors-General of FAO and WHO to reject the application for observer status from the Natural Solutions Foundation on the ground that the applicant did not meet the requirement of section 3 (e) of the Principles. Moreover one Member pointed out that the organization did not fulfill other criteria set out in section 3 of the Principles, especially with regard to the confidentiality of members.”
How nice of him! Yes, Section 3 (e) says that an organization has to have been functioning internationally for at least 3 years and we have not and yes, we refused to reveal the names of our “members” because we are not a membership organization and the identities of our donors are confidential. But the Procedural Manual also says, “The Directors-General of FAO and WHO may, upon the advice of the Executive Committee, grant observer status to Organizations not meeting this requirement if it is clear from their application that they would make a significant contribution to advancing the purposes of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.” (CAC Procedural Manual, Guidelines of IGO Cooperation, 3., page 36).
We are flattered that Dr. Moshe took such pains to mention us and look forward to developments under his second term of CAC Chairmanship (to which he was elected without opposition yesterday.) I wonder if his special mention of the Natural Solutions Foundation had anything at all to do with the press release we put out yesterday mentioning another special event which he orchestrated by stopping one of our sponsored Delegates from attending the CAC: Codex Chairman Seeks to Thwart Natural Solutions Foundation Pro-Health Codex Initiative (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/7/prweb406560.htm) .
Perhaps, or perhaps not. We will probably never know.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
“What good is a man’s knowledge unless it prompts him to prevent the pain of others as if it were his own pain?”
Thirukural (Verse 513)
This quote was sent to us by the Indian Professor we are going to visit in when we leave Geneva following the Codex meeting which ends tomorrow. We will be talking to the media and to various professional groups and will keep you posted. But the quote is wonderful so I wanted to share it with you.
Quick but important note: end of the day, Delegates are scurrying away and one says, “I have to go because I don’t want to be late for the US Cocktail Party.” So I walked over to Dr. Scarbrough, the US Delegate and Codex Contact Point and said, “Hi, Dr. Scarbrough. I am surprised you did not invite us to the party. Don’t you love us anymore?” He gave me a rather flat look (perhaps it was just 3 days of gruelling work). Anyway, he fished out an invitation and handed it to me. I thanked him and we had a few moments of chit chat about what hotel theUS delegates were in and where the party was. We did not go because we had other plans for the evening. But while we were chit chatting I asked him why Dr. Schneeman had stated that the US “Could not accept ‘Optimal Health’ as a Codex goal at CCFL last May.” He said, “Well, I don’t know what you meant by your words ‘Optimal Health’ “. I pointed out that they were not my words: they were South Africa’s words and he terminated the conversation with the phrase, “Oh. Well!”
Yes, indeed, “Oh. Well!” If optimal health is not the goal of the US in Codex, it will just have to be the rallying cry of the health coalition there. Oh. Well! Indeed. The world need to be well and the Global Stratagy has a role to play in helping it to be well. Oh. Well!
Codex report (brief since following yesterday’s post you probably have a pretty clear idea of what the nitty-gritty is like!
After telling us that we would have to “race through Agenda items 8-10” so we would have time for item 11 (which contains the Global Strategy) we learned something really important:
Codex is in significant financial trouble. It does not have enough money to do everything that it needs to do. “If governments want to see the smooth operation of Codex they will have to make contributions.” Therefore (listen up: this is really important) “for the first time it is possible for parties other than governments to donate money for food safety programs to FAO” Hmmmmmmmm….. That’s an invitation for …… You fill in the blank.
“Money is required for staffing of Codex Secretariat and for other ways to implement [Codex’s] measurable, achievable goals to document for ourselves how well we are doing in doing the work to which we are all dedicated.”
Finland noted the serious problems about the availability of scientific advice for this supposedly [Science Based] standards setting body because of deep concern about Codex’s serious financial problems. The Finnish Delegate went on to say “WHO is not making enough of a financial contribution. In this regard we welcome the newly established Global Initiative on Food Safety and wait for the results.” (This is where non governmental organizations can give money!!!)
You know what? If I had a whole bunch of money I would put it into Codex and FAO ‘food safety programs’ and make quite a change in the way Codex functions.
Another interesting aspect of today’s discussion had to do with defining “consensus”. Codex consistently has refused to do that despite the fact that it claims to make its decisions on the basis of consensus, whatever that might mean. In fact, Chairmen have been heard (by us) to (inaccurately) tell Delegates who were interested in voting on something that Codex no longer votes because all decisions are made by consensus. So knowing what consensus is would seem to be pretty important, right? Right. So important that Codex makes sure that “Consensus” sits on constantly shifting sand which it can push into whatever configuration it desires. It is a well known control tactic: don’t tell people the rules and constantly refer to the fact that you are making your decisions on the basis of those rules.
Right now as I observe it, “consensus” can mean any one of 4 things:
1. We all agree with something well enough to live with it.
2. Everyone has been heard from ONE TIME. This is pretty easy to arrange as the Chair or the Secretary have control over the button that allows a Delegate to use their microphone and be heard. Only if a delegate shouts out and creates a huge fuss can they change this one.
3. There is no sustained opposition. This is easy for the Chair or the Secretary to achieve for the same reason. And only if countries are exercised enough to be very rude do they find a way over this one.
4. The Chairman declares consensus has been reached no matter what. Only a sustained and well-orchestrated outcry will overcome this one but we have seen it done.
Countries repeatedly asked for clarification which was not given.
Then it was lunch time and we made outstanding contacts with three new countries who were very, very interested in what we had to say. In fact, they each invited us to come to their capital cities to meet with their decision makers. Clearly, we will get to as many of them as we can.
Lunch: excellent contact with Benin, Uganda, brief contact with India who invited us to come visit her in New Delhi the week after next to discuss these issues further after we presented her with our materials.
Global Strategy
We had caught up with the clock so it looked like we would actually get time to discuss the Global Strategy. We made sure that 11 new countries that we had not yet had extensive discussions about this problem with received materials on their desks when they came back from lunch. Each packet contained South Africa’s 11 pro-health points and a discussion about why they represented such an important option for each country and for Codex itself and a pair of cards from the General Stubblebine and me. On the top card was written a brief message which said “The Natural Solutions Foundation hopes that you will consider supporting South Africa’s Pro-Health Global Strategy Implementation Initiative.” Every single one of those countries later sought us out and thanked us for the information and for our activities in the service of health! That made us feel pretty good!
So what happened?
Item: Implementation of the Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health.
The WHO presented information on the item and. Dennise Cochino (sp?)
repeated the history:
July 2005:
1. WHO and FAO directed Codex to implement the GS.
2. 28th CAC asked WHO and FAO to prepare a letter to facilitate GS implementation.
3. CAC further requested that such document go to CCNFSDU and CCFL and agreed to consider the suggestions of all these process parts in this session.
WHO stated “…however, we considered that the GS was a relatively new initiative and that time was needed for the member states to consider it. So the discussion paper CAC 29 LIM 6 presents the action taken so far based on the following understandings:
We thought that we had to seek information from the member states early on and wanted to build on the work already taking place within Codex and we created an electronic forum. It was established in February 2006 placing a series of questions for the members to answer before the Who/Codex membership.
All Codex National Points of Contact were informed. We accepted comments through April 27. Summary of comments all the comments and of the discussion at CCNFSDU and CCFL were submitted in the LIM document. (This document buried everything that South Africa said under a ton of bureaucratic banality so that it was literally impossible to tell what had been proposed by South Africa either on the eForum or in the CCFL meeting.)
The report went on to say “WHO and FAO would like to accept a delay in presenting the final paper but we believe that this process is very adequate and agree that WHO and FAO facilitate a circular letter and submit again to CCNFSDU and CCFL at next sessions and the results be submitted to the 30th session of CAC.”
[In other words, do nothing which is more of same until next year and for who-knows-how-many years after that. This is the same WHO, by the way that issued a Workshop on the Application of Risk Assessment to Nutrients which defines a nutrient-related adverse event as “any change in any biomarker”. As we see it, there are pro health forces in the WHO and others. This report came from the others.]
The Chair called for comments noting, “The paper and presentation are very clear… and the commission is being asked to endorse the recommendations submitted which will allow the CAC to
1. Accept a year’s delay in the process.
2. During that time, WHO and FAO will complete an “action document” and disseminate it to the member states by circular letter.
3. CCNFSDU and CCFL will discuss the GS [again – or, in the case of CCNFSDU, not] and their comments will be considered
4. Views and recommendations of this committee will be provided to next year’s CAC.
The Chair waited a moment, said, “I see no flags so the recommendations are endorsed.”
“Next item….”
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANTED, BUT IT IS GREAT NEWS NONE THE LESS: WE HAVE AN ENTIRE YEAR TO MAKE OUR PRO-HEALTH POSITION IN SUPPORT OF SOUTH AFRICA’S 11 POINTS KNOWN TO THE ENTIRE WORLD COMMUNITY. AND SO WE SHALL.
To be continued!
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Today was a thrilling day here in the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) meeting in Geneva. Several developments took place which, if properly exploited, can be of major significance for our side. For some real fun, read all the way down to the end of the post: things you will really find fascinating took place today.
The day did not start off so well, though. The first item we were hoping to see go our way was a move by the health freedom coalition nations to move the discussion of the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health (GS) up from last on the agenda to much earlier to allow significant discussion. You may remember that at Dr. Grossklaus’s Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU, Bonn, Germany) last November that item was moved by the Chairman from item No. 2 on the agenda to item No. 11, the last item. It was carefully allotted no meaningful time and therefore there was no discussion about it at that meeting.
The same tactic is being used here: although Codex is required to come up with a strategy for global implementation of the GS at this meeting (based on national comments given since the last CAC meeting (Rome, Italy, July 4-9, 2005) and the discussion that the item was supposed to receive at CCNFSDU and Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL, Ottawa, Canada May, 2006). You may recall that South Africa introduced their excellent pro health strategy consisting of 11 points for the implementation of the GS and it did receive discussion although the US spoke out against including optimal health as a goal and against banning the advertising of junk foods, known to increase life threatening diseases and death, to children. But SA fought and managed to get the 11 points back into the final records so they are on the docket for discussion.
A report made available by the World Health Organization and the FAO on the discussion so far, by the way, was handed out yesterday. SA’s excellent points were sort of in there, kind of, a little. Basically they were buried and nearly invisible so any pro health advocacy for them will have to wait until there is a discussion, IF there is a discussion, of course! We are already running at least 1 hour behind time and we have only had one day of proceedings.
No one spoke for moving the item earlier in the agenda, however, and the proposed agenda was adopted without demurral by the entire CAC.
But there was plenty of fun, none the less!
Early on, when the obligatory opening remarks were being given it was noted that “several Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have applied for observer status which shows growing interest in Codex. Codex is doing well, certainly better than in the past” and “in light of the joint WHO/FAO consultation [that’s the one presented at CAC 2005 that said ’18. Codex should determine whether it has a relationship to nutrition and, if so, what that relationship is.] Codex is becoming an organization which can continuously review and update itself”. In those same remarks, it was noted that “it is necessary to adapt the mandate of Codex to make Codex more efficient.” FAO noted with pleasure the steps which Codex has been taking to bring about improved efficiency and noted an “important reorganization” despite budget cuts within FAO. In fact, FAO noted, Codex had received a 4% increase in their allocation from FAO. It is not clear that the same was true of WHO’s response to Codex and it was WHO which last year chastised Codex so heavily for its failure to produce a benefit to human health during its existence. (That statement by Dr. Kirsten Leitner, by the way, appears to have been edited out of the audio record available on the internet of last year’s CAC meeting. Somebody REALLY didn’t like that bit, it would appear!)
Now that seems to me a really fascinating statement. I will leave it to you to ponder why the world’s food standard setting body needs to worry about its rep. Could it be that the awareness is growing among its constituents, the nations of the world, that Codex is a troubled, perhaps even an invalid, organization and process? Could it be that the damage which standards and Guidelines based on poor science and multinational corporate agendas, not health, are beginning to attract enough attention to tarnish that rep? It certainly looks like it to us as we go from country to country and make friends with the regulators and responsible persons of a wide swath of countries.
Then things got really interesting. Along the way, Dr. Claude Mosha, the CAC Chairman (yes, the very same Dr. Mosha who wrote a letter to an African National Department Head prohibiting the Codex participation of a pro health Codex Delegate under our sponsorship who is, by the way, NOT here) reporting on the deliberations and activities of the 57th Codex Alimentarius Commission Executive Committee session noted the importance of the “Use of Codex standards and texts at national and regional levels… to increase cooperation with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and increase the use of Codex standards at national levels”. Read that as “Codex is trying to compel every country in the world to adopt Codex standards and Guidelines as their national laws.”
The position of the Natural Solutions Foundation is that every Codex standard or Guideline which is based on junk science and which will degrade health through widespread and comprehensive contamination of the food supply and mandated under nutrition through the impact of the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline and the companion definition by the WHO Workshop on the Application of Risk Assessment to Nutrients of an adverse event which is defined as “any change in a bio marker”. Did you notice that it is ANY change, not just changes in the wrong direction?
In his report on the 58th Executive Committee Meeting (the EC meets twice each year), the Dr. Moshe repeated the fact that “Codex has embarked on a series of reforms based on the WHO/FAO consultation”. You may recall from our reports from last year’s CAC that there were 20 suggested reforms in that report. Our unconfirmed, but reliable, information is that the joint Consultation they are talking about originally came back suggesting that Codex be killed. Industry got into the swimming pool and the result was 20 deeply watered-down recommendations. Number 18 (referred to above) was about nutrition (the only one which dealt with it, by the way) and, as soon as it was reached, Dr. Slorach, last year’s chairman abruptly cut off discussion saying that the CAC was out of time. So what the reforms dealing with nutrition might be are unclear to us here at the Natural Solutions Foundation.
Moving right along, however, the Secretary wanted to determine if there were a quorum present to take care of a procedural item. In this fancy, state of the art Swiss conference center the only way he could do that, despite the fancy microphones, lights, translation devices, etc., was to ask the national delegations to hold up their country signs and count them. We found it interesting that there were a bunch of countries that, while present, obviously did not hear the instructions and failed to hold up their signs. When the Secretary counted, there was no quorum and the matter was deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, since not enough country flags were held up. It was noted that there were a lot of countries here at the CAC on Codex Trust Fund “scholarship” or support (the Trust Fund is designed to support bringing the developing countries to the meetings) were not present. That is apparently often the case.
Now for the really interesting part:
When the next item came up in which words were being deleted from the Codex Committee on General Principles (CCGP) regulations which clarified that Codex texts (i.e., standards and guidelines) were completely advisory what happened next might be seen as early shots in a CAC revolution.
Malaysia noted that it was not comfortable with the deletion. Singapore joined Malaysia in objecting to this change saying “Every country is supposed to go through risk assessment for appropriate levels of consideration. But CCGP is trying to force mandating of these standards and guidelines…. A Codex standard is no longer advisory.” Both made it clear that they did not want to adopt the proposed language adopted since the changes under consideration made the adoption and use of Codex texts compulsory.
To the distress of us who are here representing the Natural Solutions Foundation and health freedom advocates everywhere the United States’ Dr. Ed Scarbrough (our Codex Manager) spoke strongly for the change. Why not? The US, continually abdicating its responsibility to protect consumer health and health freedom, supporting all of the multinationals’ trade and commercial interests, once again embarrassed us and showed what its colors actually are: green, not red, white and blue. The EU, whose money may be different colors, but whose interests are just the same, followed like a baby duck after its momma duck.
But there was quite a response: the ordinarily placid, polite and calm delegates began to speak in strong terms to oppose the US and EU. Singapore and Malaysia’s strong opposition to the change were joined by
Egypt who said they “Have to register strong reservations over the amendment.” and concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
China concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Nigeria concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Bhutan concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
India concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Indonesia concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Natural Health Federation, the only other health freedom advocate organization (and an official Codex Observer) here, concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Philippines concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Sudan concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Dr. Mosha, the CAC Chairman, clearly tried to quash and quell the revolution by suggesting that the issue be sent to CCGP to deal with.
Singapore came back into the debate swinging, stating that “Codex should not transfer the review [of this matter] to another body”.
Tanzania, despite the fact that Dr. Mosha is from Tanzania and the Tanzanian representative had told us when we visited him in his own country that “Tanzania would not do anything to conflict with or embarrass the Chairman since he is from our country” apparently forgot its resolve to note “Tanzania supports Malaysia and Singapore” [!]
Comoros noted that they concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Uganda concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Iran concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Ghana concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Other than the Great Parmesan Cheese Debate which had raged for a decade until Singapore called for a vote at the 2005 CAC and the whole thing was dropped, such sustained dissent is unheard of. Country after country participated in what amounted to nearly a role call vote AGAINST the change.
Next, the Secretary of Codex was said by Dr. Mosha to “have a new idea” [sic]. He was given the floor by Dr. Mosha and said, “No sentence provides that Codex standards and related guidelines are mandatory, and this is especially true after acceptance of standards [we presume that he means after acceptance of standards by countries which adopt revised standards which differ from those of Codex — this is our position exactly, and what we have been telling countries around the world to help them focus on how to protect themselves from Codex’s damage to their people’s food and nutritional security and to their health. You can imagine how thrilled we were to hear this “clarification”!]
The Secretary went on to say “Every thing the [Codex Alimentarius] Commission is adopting is a recommendation to the governments. Everything is advisory and there should be no distinction between standards and other texts [e. g., guidelines].” He mentioned that this equivalence of standards, guidelines or other texts as a change which WHO and FAO supported and which was brought about in the last years. This is a strong endorsement of the Natural Solutions Foundation template which was developed in collaboration with the Citizens’ Codex Working Group and others. You can see how it applies by downloading the Codex eBook which elaborates the process as it applies to the restrictive and deadly Vitamin and Mineral Guideline ratified, as you know, with such strong and, to us, distressing, US jubilation one year ago today at the 2005 CAC meeting in Rome.
Now for the kicker: Dr. Mosha, the Chairman who refused to meet with us in Tanzania before the CAC because he wished to remain “neutral and not be pressured by any group [sic] on any position”, the same Dr. Mosha who bullied a National Department into not allowing our sponsorship of an experienced Codex delegate to represent his country’s health interests, that same Dr. Mosha said, “the change is adopted by consensus [!!!!] with the reservations of those countries noted who have expressed them!”
What that means is that this “neutral” Chairman sided with the US and EU despite heated, sustained and articulate opposition to it. What that tells you is that although we are beginning to have an impact, the fight for health is an uphill battle which is going to take time, resources and sustained effort. And we will be here for this battle as long as you want us to be here.
By the way, if you want to understand what Codex is really all about, and why it acts as it does, get a copy of “Nutricide: the DVD” and find out why, how, and by whom Codex was born. If you don’t already know, it will certainly attract your attention, I can promise you!
And now for the very best: While the cadmium standard for rice and mollusks was being discussed again, while the standard was being raised for this very, very dangerous heavy metal from 0.01 (a common national standard), 0.02 ppm (the current US standard) to 0.04 (an industry-friendly standard which allows industrial sludge to be used as “fertilizer” thus saving companies a great deal of money they would otherwise have to spend in expensive appropriate disposal). Last year at the CAC, Kenya and Malaysia noted how many children would die from kidney disease if the cadmium standard were doubled in their staple food, polished rice. Kenya noted that at least 65,000 children would die PER YEAR in Kenya alone if the standard were double. Well, somebody got to Kenya (can you guess whom that might have been?) and this year Kenya, sweet as butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-your-mouth, spoke in favor of 65,000 kids dying for somebody’s profit: “Kenya supports the 0.04 ppm standard.” Bye, bye kids (or perhaps that should read “Buy buy!”
Nigeria was not about taking it any longer. Nigeria, one of our friendly countries that we successfully and extensively visited during our most recent African trip, articulated what we intend to make the rallying cry of Codex countries who value health more than they value corporate interests: the Nigerian Head of Delegation said that “Codex should please consider the issues of health as opposed to the issues of trade!” YES!
Oh, yes. One more thing: In discussing the trade of radioactive food which has been contaminated by a radiation accident (or fallout from a non-accidental source): Codex proposed a table of standards for amounts of radioactive particles (“radionuclides”). The usual suspects thought that was a fine idea. Sure. You’ve got radioactive food. Just dilute it or wait a bit and then sell it internationally. Great idea. Of course, radioactivity is NOT labeled. Health? Consumer protection? Consumer choice? Fuggedaboutit!
However, Indonesia said that it was completely unacceptable to sell radioactive food. Sudan, Egypt, Singapore strongly objected.
Don’t be surprised that IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Commission, which attends Codex (think about that: why do they need to be here? Because of the mandated irradiation of internationally traded food, that’s why) said, “Mr. Chairman, we have had guidelines on radionuclide contamination of foods since 1989. Codex uses the same standards.” Somehow that was supposed to make it all OK.
Apparently it did for the Chairman who declared that that the radionuclide standard advanced by Codex was adopted noting the strong reservations of Indonesia, Singapore, Egypt and Sudan. Well, given the fact that Codex has declared itself to be advisory only, if every country in the world had advanced laboratories that they use to detect radiation in every single lot of food coming into their country, and if they have the international trade muscle to demand changes in the food shipped to them, then any country in the world can protect its people against radioactive foods. Yeah. Right. If you believe that is a meaningful solution, there is a bridge I am sure you would be interested in.
There’s a lot of work ahead of us but you can see that there is a growing body of vigorous discontent and dissent representing world-wide opinion and interests, not just the multinationals any longer!
More tomorrow. This promises to be a lively session and we will keep you closely posted. After all that’s why we are here.
By the way, if you like what we are doing, how about making a contribution on an ongoing basis to keep us doing it?
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Day 20 and 21: July 1 and 2, 2006
I have combined both days because they are pretty much the same: inside the hotel room on the internet planning our strategy for the upcoming meetings. We have produced a Codex White Paper which we will be making available after the Codex meeting concludes next week because it is a supporting strategic document for our work here during the meeting and it would be premature to release it now. One of our lawyers was willing to take the time to write a mini-brief on international requirements for national choice in electing to adopt modified Guidelines which are different from Codex’s Guidelines by a country which does not wish to see the health and nutritional security of its people degraded for someone else’s benefit.
You can see how this process works when applied to the restrictive and destructive Codex Vitamin and Mineral Guideline by downloading the highly informative Codex eBook which not only contains a pro health Revised Vitamin and Mineral Guideline side by side with the Codex one (pro health on the left hand side, pro death on the right hand side) but a legal summary of the reasons that our “Codex two step” as I call it, is protective against WTO sanctions and a model legislation which is based on the US law that treats nutrients as foods which do not require upper limits, the 1994 Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act, better known as DSHEA.
DSHEA is a unique piece of legislation since it makes the US the only country in the world which allows consumers — you and me — to access nutrients exactly as we want to and as the market allows. We can take as much of whatever nutrient or herb we want as long as we can find it.
What this grand experiment of billions and billions of doses of all kinds of nutrients and herbs means is that we now have documentation of the absence of nutrient dangers. America looses 1,500 or more people EVERY YEAR to aspirin, a supposedly “safe” over the counter (OTC) drug. We loose more than 100,000 people EVERY YEAR to properly prescribed drugs used under doctor’s supervision in hospitals (according to the Journal of the American Medical Association) and who-knows-how-many hundreds of thousands more on an outpatient basis. The estimates range up to 400,000+ or more — and those are the estimates by mainstream doctors, not people like me who do not use drugs in practice because of their dangers and the fact that there are better ways for treating just about anything that is not acute and immediately life-threatening than with drugs.
But the numbers of deaths from these multibillion doses of nutrients? Find me 100 over the past decade. Find me 10. Find me 1. In fact, even the much vaunted “ephedra deaths”, when examined by the United Stated General Accounting Office (GAO) in a 2 volume document looking at more than 160 deaths supposedly caused by that substance found that not one death could be conclusively linked to the maligned herb. Not one.
And if you want to talk about the 8 supposed kava kava liver failure deaths, I believe firmly that you will find the same pattern: any time, ANY TIME, there is a death which could be linked to a nutrient or an herb, despite the fact that other much more deadly factors are involved (like dangerous legal and illegal drugs, extreme illness, dehydration and extreme activity, etc.) the death is linked not to the reasonable risk factors but to the unreasonable one: the nutrient or herb. And the press, of course, has a field day. The same field day they routinely take whenever anyone suggests that there are dangers in nutrients and herbs. The dangers, are, of course, ill considered and unscientific, but that’s not what you hear from the pharma-fed press, of course.
In the Codex eBook you will also find a detailed and highly referenced essay on the safety and importance of nutrients in public policy and health as well as specific well-researched sections showing the excellent scientific basis of nutrition for treating (not just preventing) 3 of the major public health problems of both the developed and the developing world:
1. Wound healing and trauma (including surgical wounds)
2. Cardiovascular disease and lipid control
3. Diabetes and glucose control.
If you are looking for health information for yourself or others, or perhaps looking for scientific documentation with which to educate your allopathic doctor, this essay is a great science-based resource.
It will also give you a look at what the US will loose if the attack on DSHEA is successful and we “HARMonzie” with the disastrous Codex Vitamin and Mineral Guideline.
The Codex eBook is a template for how any Codex Guideline can be changed. The White Paper (soon to be exclusively available on the Natural Solutions Foundation website, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org) lays these principles out in detail and I know that many of you will want to read it for yourselves. Once the Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting has concluded we will mount it and let you know how to access it.
But wait: there’s more! You probably remember that the Chairman of the Codex Commission has directly attacked a part of our Codex strategy of bringing an articulate and experienced Codex Delegate to the CAC meeting under our sponsorship. Well, we got word today that another country we visited and worked with has intensively decided at their Codex Committee meeting (after we left) that they WILL support us and our strategy in the meeting.
It’s sort of like a fencing match: thrust, parry, counterthrust, parry and thrust again. The fencing ground is the planet’s food supply and nutritional security.
For those of you who have responded to our requests for financial support, thank you. For those of you who are thinking about it, right now is a great time to click and give. All support is now tax deductible so you can do well by doing good, as they say!
To those of you who enjoyed our description of our activities here in Geneva (including the menus), glad you liked hearing a bit of the human side of the battle. For those of you who did not want to hear about it, sorry about that. We try to include a bit of everything along with the war reports.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation