CODEX Update
July 6, 2005
Rome, Italy

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
The Natural Solutions Foundation, sponsor of HealthFreedomUSA.org

It’s hot and stuffy in the large meeting room of the FAO Building (Food and Agriculture Organization) and the seats for the public have so little leg room that an average size person sitting there for a whole day endures physical discomfort nearly equal to the intellectual discomfort created by what is going on.

Since I wrote my last blog update yesterday at noon, here is what has happened in the CODEX chamber during the deliberations of “the world’s most important food standards body”:

1. The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission (CAC) Chairman notified the CODEX body of the serious lack of finances available to the CAC and noted that the nearly $6M US supplied by the FAO was matched by less than $2M from the World Health Organization (WHO) and noted that this put significant pressure on the CAC to carry out its work. He appealed to Committees and other CODEX structures to use the wide range of scientific resources available to them only sparingly since they consume resources quickly. Interestingly, CAC defends its actions with its mantra that CODEX is “Science Based” so this restriction has a direct bearing on the ability of its work to be, in fact, “Science Based”

2. The WHO Under Secretary for Food Safety addressed the Chairman’s remarks by noting that the way to get money was not “to gripe about it here in the meeting” but to pressure the WTO member nations to demand more money for CODEX. She shared the fact that the amount of money allotted by the WTO in their annual budget amounted to about 2% of the total WHO budget. Then the Undersecretary went on to note that the WHO was not particularly convinced that CODEX was making much of a contribution to world health and unless and until that were true, it would not be easy for CODEX to get much more money out of the WHO.

As interesting as this was to hear, it gets much more interesting below. Keep reading!

3. When CAC resumed this morning, the first substantive discussion successfully avoided an attempt to define consensus. CAC operates on consensus and only when all attempts fail to reach consensus (or when a member calls the question and demands a vote) is actual voting used. Voting, in CODEX land, is seen as destructive to the process. (Of course, I thought that democracy involved voting and then going along with what the winner wants. Just goes to show you what I don’t know!) In fact, later in the day when Singapore did just that, demanded a vote, immense pressure was used to urge him to change his mind.

Now, in CODEX land, everything possible is decided by consensus: theoretically everyone agrees to whatever and we are just a happy family. Oddly enough, given the loosey-goosey nature of its decision-making, the other part of the CODEX mantra, besides “CODEX is science-based” is that it is “rule based”. But it is an odd rule base which does not define what serves for rules in CODEX.

In the wonderful and wacky world of CODEX, consensus has at least 3 meanings. In my world, it means everyone is comfortable enough with a particular choice that they are willing to go along with it. In CODEX land it can mean that everyone has been heard (once) or that there is no sustained opposition. Or it means something else entirely, depending upon the needs of the moment. Of course, since the chair has to push the button to turn on your mike or otherwise recognize you, if he/she does not do that, there is consensus because you were not heard from in the example in which everyone does what they are told and you never get to speak.

So, after a lot of fancy footwork and avoidance of the delegations which wanted to define CODEX since CODEX runs on consensus and there was a series of strongly non-consensual issues coming up, the Chairman managed to get himself a victory by skillfully avoiding the issue of of consensus (which could throw a monkey wrench in the works if people knew what it was and could thus judge for themselves if there were a consensus or not!)

4. In 2002 the WHO and FAO apparently decided that they were spending a very large amount of money to support CODEX and they were not at all sure that they were getting much for their money and were not convinced that CODEX was doing much for world health. So they commissioned a study by a group of consultants and the consultants came up with 20 recommendations. Here is No. 18:

The [CODEX ALIMENTARIUS] Commission should consider carefully whether nutrition should play a role in CODEX, and if so, what that role should be.

Take a moment to go back and re-read that recommendation. The world’s leading food standard setting body, charged with the full food safety and food regulatory responsibility of the world is asked by a group of consultants nearly 40 years after its founding, if it has any relationship to nutrition and, if it does, to please figure out what it might be.

Fair takes away my breath, that one!

Now, in CODEX land, countries make their remarks on paper and at the time of the meeting. Here is what the Republic of Korea has to say to this recommendation:

“The Republic of Korea believes that the report underestimated the role of Nutrition by focusing its role on nutrition labeling and foods for special dietary use. We would like to stress that Nutrition works are important in CODEX in relation to the protection of Consumer’s health and all of these works are not related to either labeling or foods for special dietary use… Therefore we assert that both CCNFSDU (The only CODEX Committee dealing with nutrition and the one where the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline was passed without dissent yesterday) and CCFL (the CODEX Committee on food labeling) stand together in CODEX and each committee had better carry out its role and works continuously. Bet we believe that it is necessary to clarify demarcation of Nutrition work between CCNFSDU and CCFL before new work will start.”

Another show stopper. Food, nutrition, food, nutrition. Hmmmmm. Do you think they might have some relationship? Maybe we need a scientific commission to study the proposition, as several countries suggested.

After lunch, CAC devoted its attention to, as Monty Python says, “Something completely different!!”

When CAC reconvened, it was time for the Great Parmesan Debate, Take 5 (or 6, perhaps). Here’s the deal: The Vitamin and Mineral Guideline passed without a whimper (well, China did say that nutrition should be left to nations based on diet and need and a Non Governmental Organization spokesperson pointed out procedural violations to the body ruled by science (forget individual biological variation and need) and rule (forget procedural irregularities). But parmesan cheese, now THERE is something really important!

The Great Parmesan Debate has been going on for more than 5 years. The problem? Italy owns the term (“Intellectual Property” ) and if someone else, say Bolivia, makes Parmesan and calls it that, then the consumer will not be protected. I kid you not!

On this issue of monumental significance, the entire body was in an uproar for hours and hours. The European Community would not allow the name to be used but would allow the “Extra Hard Grating Cheese” standard to go ahead. No go. We want “Parmesan!” You can’t have it! It’s mine! and on and on and on.

Finally, Singapore had had enough and called the vote. Stillness descended and since it was Singapore’s procedural right to have the vote today, the Chairman asked if Singapore would allow the definition of today to extend until tomorrow so the various sides could try again to reach consensus (still undefined) and avoid a “destructive” vote. Destructive vote? Didn’t we learn that voting is part of democracy? Wrong Civics Class, I guess.

And so to consensus and perhaps to bed.

What does all this mean? It means the bureaucrats running this process for their countries have been hoodwinked. It means that they are being herded down paths that lead straight to food disaster and they do not know it.

Why do I say they do not know it? Remember, the mantra is “Science based, Rule based”. And CODEX needs to think about whether it has a relationship to nutrition.

Stir that in with the bias of the committee which has been doing all the heavy lifting around so-called “nutrition” and you realize that the delegates have been sold a bill of goods by being told that “Risk Assessment” can be used to determine appropriate nutritional levels. It is “science”, after all. So it must be “OK” to use it.

Well, one of the things I have been doing is creating rapid relationships with delegates and pointing out to them what Risk Assessment means to their people. Their eyes widen in genuine horror and, when they get it, they really get it.

One of the other things I realize is that CODEX is a vulnerable institution. We will pursue that awareness but you can understand that I would rather not say much about that at this point.

What can you do? Simple, use our online tools to WRITE TO CONGRESS AND TELL CONGRESS THAT YOU WANT YOUR HEALTH FREEDOMS PROTECTED! If you have already used the form letter we provided, change it and send another version of the same message. And carry out the other 5 action steps, too.

We can win this one but only if you and everyone you know takes the task of telling Congress (and signing the Citizen’s Petition) very, very seriously. Grass roots will keep CODEX from our lives. It is not too late. For the sake of everyone you love, act now. Oh, yes, you’ll have more to do as the battle progresses, but we need you right now to simply take action to flood Congress with the message that CODEX ALIMENTARIUS is an usurpation of our individual liberties! Congress will be coming back into session next week. Let’s send them a summer surprise: activated constituents!

Yours in health and freedom,

Rima E. Laibow, MD

P.S. Help keep HealthFreedomUSA.org running with your donations. Your donations are our only source of funding.