Codex Working Group on Labeling of Pre-Packaged Foods
Ottawa, Ontario

Labeling of pre-packaged food may not sound very sexy, but it is of extreme importance to consumer decision making and to the economics of Big Agribiz/Big Food. Less food in the food being sold, more permissible deception, more fillers, additives and contaminants means more money for low integrity food producers. Consumers’ interests were not very well served today at the first of two Working Groups.

There is certain sameness to all of Codex meetings: they are all long, exceedingly detail oriented and, if you are not watching the political, economic and corporate scenery very, very closely, mind-numbingly dull. Time after time, while the minute details receive excruciating attention, examination and discussion, the provisions which could actually protect people, exclusively referred to as “consumers” on Planet Codex, are left for last, and, fascinatingly, time after time get taken up with [literally] seconds to go before the end of the meeting. Oops! No time to discuss them. Translators have to leave. SO sorry!

Today’s Working Group was an excellent example of this industry-friendly, consumer-unfriendly process. We started the day with a report for consideration on the Quantitative Ingredient Disclosure (QUID) labeling of pre-packaged foods. QUID labeling means that foods have to declare what percentage of what food they are made with so consumers have more information and more choice about what they buy.

Who is the leader in the Codex anti effective QUID movement? The US, of course. My observation was that the representatives of the US beverage, grocery manufacturers and frozen food industries appeared pretty happy with the way their helpful regulatory friend, the FDA, handled the whole thing. The FDA’s Dr. Barbara Schneeman was, is serving, as she so often does, as the US Delegate to this session.

The US has been quite strongly opposed to QUID but other countries, like the EU, Norway, Switzerland, are very fond of QUID labeling which helps consumers. If, for example, you want to buy salmon rolls stuffed with scallops you would find out from a QUID label that one brand contains 8% scallops in the stuffing while another brand contains 16% scallops. You could then decide whether the extra money for the second brand was worth it to you.

It is not hard to figure out that manufacturers do not want the responsibility, the expense or the revelation of how little real food they put into pre packaged foods.
There were two sections in the document (a draft amendment to another document) under discussion today which were, in fact, quite protective and helpful to consumers. When the one day workshop convened this morning to work on the draft amendment before sending it back to the full Codex Committee on Food Labeling for consideration next week the Chairman of the Working Group had prepared a proposed amended draft report for the Working Group to consider based on the submitted country and organization comments. In that document the two really helpful items were struck out without discussion or debate.

An NGO (Non Governmental Organization) called “IACFO” or International Association of Consumer Food Organizations, pointed out that the majority of comments from nations and organizations were positive about these two items and questioned why they were struck out of the report. The Chairman said that there would be plenty of time to discuss them. IACFO returned to this comment again and again. The Chair’s response was the same each time: there will be plenty of time for full discussion.

Well, I am sure you have guessed the end of the story. As the meeting was adjourning and the translators had to leave, there were about 2 minutes available for discussion of the two consumer-friendly items which the Chair had slated for elimination. No effective discussion was possible, obviously.

Same song, different verse. That is how it is done at Codex. Consumer-friendly items get short shrift but the “democratic fantasy” of full discussion and decision by consensus is maintained. The big win for consumers today was that the NGO succeeded in keeping the items alive so that they might, just might, get a full discussion in another forum, some other time.

One more thing about QUID: there was a rather ferocious debate in which the concept of having to indicate the amount of food in the name of the food was beaten down. For example, the amount of corn in corn flakes or rye in rye bread does not have to be “QUIDed”. Nor does the amount of sugar added. Nor does any food additive or contaminant require QUIDing. Nor the amount of radiation the food has received. What gets QUIDed in international trade will be those ingredients which give the food its special characteristic or commercial value. That does NOT include the foods that, to my mind, the consumer actually buys the food for and believes he/she is buying. Nor does it include the food or non food items (e.g., water, fillers, un-named ingredients) which manufacturers add without mentioning them.

In short, QUID, a potentially useful system to alert and inform consumers about their food stuffs, has been watered down by the resistance of the US and its friends to favor the commercial interests of the food industry, leaving the consumer literally in the dark. Norway, Ghana and a few other nations, along with IACFO did their best but the weight of the US was behind this outcome and so the results were predictable.

Tomorrow the Working Group will focus on Organic Standards. The Natural Solutions Foundation has prepared a formal submission on the topic which we have made available both to the United States Government in time for their pre-CCFL (Codex Committee on Food Labeling) meeting on April 10, 2007 and to various health friendly nations. You will find it in its entirety in the blog post called “Codex Organic Standards Comments by Natural Solutions Foundation”

Stay tuned for a day by day report on the CCFL meeting this week. We’re here for you!

And remember to spread the word on the urgent need to submit public comments during the extended comment period on the dangerous (but often soft-pedaled) FDA Guidance on CAM (which either means “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” or “Complementary and Alternative Modalities” – the difference is huge!) We’ve got 166,704 comments in already. If each person motivates 10 others, we will have enough to stem the tide of this dangerous attempt to eliminate all natural procedures, practices and products.

Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org