CODEX On-Site Report
Rules of the Game: CODEX Rules! CODEX Say “Countries May Not Look Out for Their Own interests: it undermines CODEX Credibility!”
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Rome, July 3, 2005
It is hot in Rome and General Stubblebine have now been awake for about 40 hours straight. So it was annoying, but hardly surprising, that I found it almost excruciating to keep my eyes open and my mind focused on the dry, niggling items which the US Delegation pre-CODEX meeting ground slowly over. You know how it feels when you know that you have to be sharp and your mind feels like a bowl of overcooked pasta. But I snapped out of my semolina snooze when I heard that a document to which the US Delegation was committed was being passed around when Dr. Ed Scarbrough, the US CODEX Manager, noted that this document had been agreed to at the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission pre meeting at which agenda items were adopted. Hence, this document represents part of the US’s CODEX Policy. Here it is, in full (with my emphasis added):
Rules Based Decision Making
It is critical for the integrity of CODEX that we abide by the rules and procedures we have set for ourselves.
CODEX’s primary objective is the protecting of the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade and not stopping existing trade.
To do this we must rely on sound science and objective criteria in the establishment of standards.
No member or group of members should be allowed to block the work of CODEX or the acceptance of science-based standards solely de to political/economic considerations.
If we allow this to happen, we undercut the credibility that we have worked so long and hard to establish. It is this credibility as a science based organization that led the membership of the WTO to give CODEX its special status in the realm of global trade.
Two concrete examples are before the CAC this week. First is the consideration of the CMMP proposal to begin new work in the elaboration of a new standard for Parmesan Cheese.
International trade in parmesan cheese exceeds all the criteria agreed upon by the CMMP for the elaboration of individual cheeses standards.
Parmesan cheese also meets all the criteria for new worked applicable to commodities as defined in the CODRX procedural Manual. FAO and WHO legal counsel agree that geographic indicators should not restrict CODEX decision making.
Decisions made by CODEX should follow the rules and procedures established by CODEX. In the case of parmesan cheese, these criteria clearly have been met.
Unfortunately, some CODEX members have tried to block the elaboration of this standard.
Instead, they would try to introduce new principles related to intellectual property right into the CODEX decision making process. Such considerations are not appropriate for an independent, science-based and rules-based standards organization.
Similar thinking has blocked the inclusion of a particular species of sardines in the sardine standards, despite overwhelming evidence that it should be considered as an analogous species that fits well within the existing standard.
It is unacceptable to allow the political motivations of a subset of CODEX members to block the elaboration of the standards which meet the criteria established by CODEX members.
Rather, we need to follow the rules and procedures we ourselves have established.
Otherwise, we will undercut the high level of credibility that we have earned over the years.
End
What does that all mean?
Problem 1: It means that CODEX ALIMENTARIUS is beginning throw its considerable weight around to force nations to abandon what is good for them because although what is good for CODEX may NOT good for a nation and “It is unacceptable to allow the political motivations of a subset of CODEX members to block the elaboration of the standards which meet the criteria established by CODEX members.” Unacceptable to whom?
CODEX is telling WTO member nations that is it bad form for nations to protect themselves, their industries and their own health, political and economic well being lest “we undercut the credibility that we have worked so long and hard to establish….” Oh, I get it: CODEX’s credibility is more important than jobs, industries, cultural integrity and income of people. What is wrong with this dangerous picture?
From where I sit, looking out for their own political, economic and domestic good is exactly what nations are supposed to do. If you take that away from countries, you take away their sovereign rights to govern and regulate themselves. Now why would CODEX want to forbid that? See “Who is Behind CODEX” at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org for a clear picture of why, and by whom, nation states are being urged to give up their ability to manage and protect themselves lest it undermine the credibility of CODEX [sic].
Problem 2. You will also note that early on the document states, “CODEX’s primary objective is the protecting of the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade and not stopping existing trade.”
Note that the second paragraph says, “CODEX’s primary objective is the Protecting of the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade and not stopping existing trade.” But reading through the document, CODEX’s mission is clearly stated by saying, “No member or group of members should be allowed to block the work of CODEX or the acceptance of science-based standards solely de to political/economic considerations.
If we allow this to happen, we undercut the credibility that we have worked so long and hard to establish. It is this credibility as a science based organization that led the membership of the WTO to give CODEX its special status in the realm of global trade.”
So we are not talking about consumer protection or health enhancement, we are talking about trade regulatory power through the muscle of the World Trade Organization (WTO) regardless of whether the involved countries agree that it will be acceptable to them. If a World Government body were making this declaration, it could sound no more universally compelling or self righteous than this document to which the US CODEX Manager has committed the US.
The document also makes it clear that new concepts and intellectual property rights which might arise in international or domestic trade basis (or a domestic one, for that matter) have no place in CODEX. Circumstances are not permitted to alter cases in CODEX Land.
Problem 4. Oh, yes, one other thing: the premise of the entire document (and CODEX itself) is that CODEX is based on science and so is irrefutable. Well, it is based on science, all right: JUNK SCIENCE (commonly knows by some as tobacco science. Risk Assessment science works well for toxins but had to be retooled to fit nutrients even slightly.
Risk Assessment work fine for toxins: As far as nutrients go, it has no place in their evaluation. So if the whole CODEX deal is that it must go forward because it is science feeling See Risk Assessment and Nutrients, A Toxic Brew on www.HealthFreedomUSA.org for more information.
Tomorrow we can expect the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (which is based on this junk science and nothing else) to come up for ratification. Rest assured that I will let you know what happens because I will be there.
Remember, the Natural Solutions Foundation brings you up to the minute news from the 28th CODEX ALIMENTARIS Commission meeting via
1. our Daily CODEX Update blog
2. Live broadcast July 6 and 13 on our internet radio show, FREE U.S./FREE US! 7-8 PM Eastern at www.FICAA.org.
And remember, Congressional support is building. Please visit www.HealthFreedomUSA.org/action and take the 6 easy steps (which include two urgently important letters to Congress urging them to follow US laws to keep America CODEX –FREE!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Laibow
Natural Solutions Foundation
