Day One – Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Day Two

Day Three

Day Five: Codex Tries to Marginalize Natural Solutions…

The apple suggests wholesome food. Nothing could be further from the truth. As if to underscore the destruction of the world’s food supply, the 33rd Meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, July 5-9, 2010 (Geneva, Switzerland) approved a standard for apples which permits not more than 5% of the apples to be composed of FEEDING INSECTS!

When India and other countries protested that this unprecedented approval of filth as “food” would lead to poor quality and inedible food being dumped in the poorest nations, the Secretariat clarified that this standard permits FEEDING insects, not PEST insects. Despite the strong protest expressed by numerous countries, large and small, the US, EU, Argentina, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand, the countries least likely to wind up with these insects on their dinner plates, bulled their approval through with the complicity of the Codex Commission Chairperson, the US’s Karen Hullebeck.

Everything else done by this Codex session continues to degrade the world’s food supply despite the continuing, but continually ignored, protests of the developing world.

Have An Apple, My Brown-Skinned Friend!

Dr. Rima

Should the US government remain in Codex or should the real interests of Americans and other health conscious people be represented by NGOs like Natural Solutions Foundation?

[3:40:04 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: I am at Codex, which is, I suppose, good. If the US weren’t here, would Americans and the rest of the world be better off? Maybe.

[5:50:45 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: Ralph, what does the “expression of a reservation” mean, exactly, here at Codex?

[5:56:26 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: Here are my notes as the meeting starts: Third draft standard from India complaining about feeding insects allowed in apples is totally unacceptable… may lead to dumping of poor quality fruit in developing world.

This would approve insects getting into food which means insects in countries. If approved by WHO, could not object!

Chair of Committee on Fresh Fruits and Veggies, Mexico, all groups and concern by India, Thailand and Thailand. Technical documents were presented but the only ones who voiced never said they were opposed to it. Thailand has same objections.

10% if apples can be effected to make it unsuitable for human consumption.

This is the first time that such a standard is being considered?

Secretariat: presence of feeding pest is not the same as contamination pest. They do not pose a risk to human or plant health. [REL – huh?]

Columbia: Although we are not here to have academic debate, we would like to express concern. In addition to live pests (not quarantine pests) we would like them in the standard, If this were approved, we want to note that this is the first time that a pest was ever included in a standard!

China: Chinese delegation supports interventions by Thailand, Philippines and Malaysia.

Malaysia: shares the concerns expressed by China.

CR: Thank you very much

Egypt supports that.

US: appreciates consensus. [REL – I kid you not! Delegate said that!]

Egypt: It is enzyme statements. Pest infested fruit will be dumped on poor countries.

Tanzania, India, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Thailand, Columbia, Malaysia oppose.

Mexico, US, Canada, Chile, Brazil rise to support– to honor the work of the committee.

Chair: as we understand the comments that have been made, which are variations on a theme, we want to ask the commission that a provision applied to an earlier text and previously proposed by Thailand could be added to this text as a footnote with the provision that it be considered.

Proposal: Add to standard footnote: re pest issues: “This provision applied without prejudice to the applicable plant protection rules.”

Columbia: Thank you, madam chair: despite the footnote provision, Columbia wishes to express its reservations.

Thailand: can accept adoption with our reservations, hoping that the market can be as good as the apple on the flag!

India accepts the provision suggested by Thailand, and regarding tolerances, please accept our reservations.

Chair: will record reservations of Columbia, Thailand and India and adopt this footnote.

Egypt: we support the comments by India and Thailand and approve your proposal. We request that our reservations are included in report and we support proposal.

Maylaisia supports proposal, but want our reservation included.

Tanzania, we support your proposal but want to record our proposal.

[6:08:30 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: Another one: Committee on Food Hygiene: on Leafy veggies, including leafy herbs, step 5/8

Argentina: would like to include parasites in introduction and take out paragraph that mentions pre-cut.

Columbia: Editorial observations, but over and above that, would like to voice reservations over tests in humans when it comes to organic fertilizers because that is what is covered. We recognize risks with control to human pathogens.

US: Chair of committee on Food hygiene: His comments on how to proceed. It is not specific to human feces, but the term used is human waste.

Parasite is giradia lamblia, but the intervention concerning a change of the scope of the document to restrict to pre-cut cannot be done.

Columbia: We are not sure if we leave human waste in if we are leaving it implicit that this would include feces. Our fundamental observations is whether it includes human faces are used.

Chair: I would like to conclude that we have agreement with the text. Columbia, can you accept making a reservation?

Columbia: I would like to leave the reservation with the implication that human waste includes human feces.

Standard adopted.

[9:50:19 AM] Ralph Fucetola: “expression of a reservation” appears to mean that if you didn’t express your objections at a Codex committee meeting, you can’t bring those objections to the commission!

[9:51:26 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: But if it is approved at the Commission, what good does that do?

[9:52:00 AM] Ralph Fucetola: This provision applied without prejudice to the applicable plant protection rules — This is an acceptance of the Codex Two Step, as we’ve always said!

[9:53:17 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: That is interesting!

Chair: I would like to conclude that we have agreement with the text. Columbia, can you accept making a reservation? [REL – Once more, an implicit Two Step!]

[10:02:01 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: The Ractopamine fight continues: Ractopamine is a dangerous drug used ONLY to make animals grow fast. They have been fighting over it for a long time. China (largest producer and consumer of pig) says that it should be banned. The US never wants dangerous toxins banned!

Rwanda: Ractopamine levels: ADI levels for acceptable levels. Only the lungs pose an issue. This is a specific matter for China.

MRLs [REL – “Minimum Risk Level”] residue levels in the lungs are for study at another time. Kidneys and liver levels are OK.

Nepal: Nepal supports Ractopamine standard.

Japan: MRLs exist for Ractopamine based on ADI. Discussion made so far.

Jecfa examined levels in kidney and lung, found that estimated daily intake is higher than ADI. Lung had highest concentration, therefore lung shoud be the target tissue.

When residue level in target tissue is higher than ADL. China imported 100 tons (?) of animal offal last year from US.

Chinese delegation is against adoption of RACX and we hope that you will reject this standard.

Zambia “I think we have to look at the issues of food safety here” Zambia wishes to have this standard adopted.

Mexico would like to have maximum amounts approved.

India: We see major gap in the analysis. I do not know how you can take a holistic view of the body when you have no data. I do not think we can approve this standard.

JECFA showed that ractopamine was quite toxic. Based on the data provided including the information from China, from the China. Different offal tissues were used,. Very few people reported that they consumed lung tissue.

This is a matter for national issues, not international adoption of standards. [REL – again, the recognition of member state sovereignty]

Chair: This level has been finalized and we are NOT going to revisit

Uganda has a pig population of about 3 million. We recommend and support adoption of levels for Ractopamine.

France is not getting translation.

EU AGAINST THE USE OF DRUGS ON HEALTHY ANIMALS BASED SOLELY ON AN ECONOMIC REASON.

We have a second series of arguments based on science. There is a serious problem with things like BSE from the 1990s. There are a series of doubts which remain.

Excellence, transparency and independence are the most important issues here. We are in a setting where there is undermined credibility of Codex. Should be referred to JECFA

Canada: JECFA’s report was conducted at the last CAC. The conclusion of this report led to these levels. Canada sees no reason to hold this standard at Step 8. Despite the report by JECFA, we are sensitive to the issues proposed by China: the standards discussed by JECFA should be adopted for the tissues studied, but that these tissues do not include lung.

Norway opposed adoption based on human and animal health. Veterinary drugs should only be used to treat diseases. It is not necessary or acceptable to cause abnormal growth using Ractopamine. There are still so many uncertainties about health so we think that all necessary studies must be done before Codex adopts these standards.

We think that the CC on Veterinary Residues should look at this further.

Tonga: we should approve the standard, but with the proviso that we can open it again.

Saudi Arabia: we have much trust in all the procedures that are carried out by the Codex. Since JECFA has taken upp all necessary procedures, we support the adoption of this standard but this does not prevent us from taking it up again on the basis of new information. (THEY HAVE NO PIGS! – KILL THE INFIDELS!)
Singapore: we respect JECFA adn China. JECFA did not take all tissues into consideration. Exposure through the consumption of offals cannot be ruled out. Draft recommendation for kidneys, livers, lungs, should be deferred.

South Africa: I recall our meeting in 2008 when this matter was put forward. On account of new information we agreed to defer, we did the same last year. One of the questions this debate brings forward is whether we rely on scientific information received from JECFA.

Science is never static, but that should not detract us based on a body of evidence based on this information and we should adopt it, but we should not be shy to call into questions our decision based on new information. We support the approval of the MRLs.

Chair: we have been discussing this issue now for about an hour. We could continue to hear interventions and that would take some time. It is always worth listening to each other but I would like to ask you to consider whether, given what you have heard, with a number of countries speaking in adoption, some countries speaking out in a combination of partial adoption and other countries opposing, it would seem to be difficult to say that there is consensus. I cannot see, based on what I have heard so far, that we are likely to find one in this room. So what I would suggest to you, and ask if you can agree to this proposal , is that given the degree of interest and involvement that there appears to be a will to continue to look for a solution, but given that we cannot do it in plenary, but could we agree to taking no more interventions today, but to work together to try to find a solution to satisfy the concerns of those who oppose them which serves the needs of Codex and moves it forward.

Those interested parties should work with each other, talk with each other and try to come to an agreement and report to this body at 4 PM tomorrow. Keep in mind we have only 3 working days.

We clearly do n ot want to wait until the last moment to take this up.

Brazil: we understand that this has been extensively studied by JECFA. Canada has proposed a solution for those countries who want it approved and for China which has objections.

Chair: I thank you Brazil, but I do not think that Canada’s suggestion will satisfy. As soon as Canada proposed it, another country opposed. Thank you for trying, Brazil.

Does anyone oppose? I see no flags.

Switzerland, are you opposing? We are not opposing, we are just wondering about the feasibility since most of us will be here in plenary and then come back to plenary with a solution.

We realize that the issues at hand are quite complex and we really doubt that we will be able to come up with a solution by 4 pm.

Chair: you have observed what I have noted: the work before us is difficult but we have no ability to succeed if we do not try.

[10:39:31 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: Ractopamine is a serious drug with downstream metabolites which are VERY toxic when the animal which has consumed it is, in turn, consumed. But it brings animals to market weight fast. Note Norway’s objections.

[11:51:29 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: Ralph, this from Report of the 64th Session of the Executive Committee of the CAC, Geneva, June 29-July2, 2010

[11:52:17 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: “Applications from International Non-Governmental Organizations for Observer Status In Codex (agenda Item 6(115). The Executive Committee was invited, in accordance with Rule IX.6 of the Rulse of Procedure, to provide advice regarding the applications for observer status of international non-governmental organizations having neither status with FAO nor official relations with WHO.

116. The Secretariat introduced the item and said that the Codex Secretariat and the Legal Advisers of the FAO and WHO had checked the three applications contained in the working documents and found them complete and receivable.

117. The Executive Committee agreed to recommend to the Directors-General of FAO and WHO to grant observer status to AACC international, the European Food and Feed cultures Association (EFFCA) and the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS).

[11:56:18 AM] Rima Laibow, MD: Organic aquaculture will be labeled by CCFL. [REL – More M’n’M diplomacy from the USA!]