Daily CODEX Update
Rome, Italy
July 11, 2005
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Disseminating incorrect information is as old as human communication. Agencies and individuals do it for reasons they know and reasons they do not know. Sometimes we can distinguish between misinformation (incorrect but not meant to mislead) and disinformation (incorrect and intended to mislead). CODEX is rife with both and, as is often the case, sometimes it is hard to be sure which is which. But there is one CODEX area where the distinction, while interesting, is not even relevant: the information focusing on FTAA/CAFTA as the CODEX problem is wrong, just plain dead wrong.
Don’t get me wrong: I believe that CAFTA and FTAA are really, really bad for the US and the other countries being globalized. They are good for the multinational corporations and there will be a piñata of goodies showering on the people who help them gain control of global markets and global means of production if CAFTA and FTAA pass while the rest of us will suffer badly for a very long time. I would like FTAA and CAFTA to disappear and never present their ugly, greedy selves to us again since I believe they will harm both humans and the environment in dreadful ways. I am equally opposed to the national ID card passed by Congress recently (“Real ID”) because I believe it is bad for America and bad for liberty. But just as CODEX is not the Real ID card, so CODEX is neither CAFTA nor FTAA and stopping any or all of the three dead in their tracks, while a really good idea, will have no impact whatsoever on CODEX, none whatsoever. CAFTA/FTAA are nothing more than symptoms of globalization. Trying to stop CODEX by blocking them is like trying to remove a hornet’s nest by treating the hornet sting victim with medication to ease their pain. It reduces the pain for the moment, but leaves the problem free to develop unchecked.
FTAA and CAFTA are really bad ideas for US interests. But all the recent focus in them as related to the CODEX issue because they contain CODEX language is either an error in the understanding of the real nature of the CODEX problem or, worse yet, intentional disinformation to drain off energy and political force from opposition to CODEX ALIMENTARIUS. FTAA and CAFTA are totally irrelevant to the CODEX issue. I will repeat that for those of you who have been having your ears filled with the opposite position. If FTAA and CAFTA disappear tomorrow (which they should, to my thinking), we still have a major problem until CODEX is solved. CODEX is the problem and will be until CODEX’s devastatingly anti-health, pro-illness policies, positions and strategies are controlled and changed. I believe we can both control and change them and will write about that later in this blog, but this is a really important issue which must be addressed head on.
Some people in the CODEX arena are now focusing on FTAA and CAFTA and saying that it is a waste of time to focus in CODEX because FTAA and CAFTA contain CODEX language in their text. These forces are either using mis- or dis- information by misleading people to think that because these trade agreements contain CODEX language they somehow are a significant part of the Codex problem. Simple logic makes it clear that they are derivative problems, not the problem itself. They are symptoms of the problem, not its cause and not the problem itself.
They contain CODEX language because they are international agreements which must conform to the requirements and agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Since the US is a party to the WTO and so are all of the nations which would participate in FTAA and CAFTA, OF COURSE they contain language which is consistent with CODEX and all of the other agreements. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement is a part of the WTO agreements and so is the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. Every international agreement we enter into will contain language which reflects them. But the trade agreements can only implement what the original agreements require or permit. Why would anyone putting together a WTO-based agreement not put language in which makes the agreement consistent with them and therefore legal in each country and permissible in the WTO?
Here is the real story: If FTAA and CAFTA comply with CODEX language and CODEX has been changed from its pro-illness, pro-corporate greed contents there is no CODEX-related problem. If they are defeated and CODEX is still pro-illness and pro-greed, then we still have the CODEX problem just as we did before all that energy was drained off from the CODEX battle by mis – or dis—information.
Why anyone would focus on FTAA and CAFTA as if they were the problem and not the symptom is beyond me if they are genuinely concerned with solving the problem unless they have been mislead. If they are focusing on it to divert political attention and effort, we are dealing with disinformation and that’s pretty ugly.
In any event, whatever the reason, focusing on FTAA and CAFTA instead of CODEX is absolutely as wrong-headed as the “reasoning” by which conventional medicine reaches its conclusions. In fact, it is allopathic reasoning: focusing on the symptom and confusing its suppression with the cure of the disease itself!
Allopathic medicine focuses on symptoms, not causes. Allopathic medicine, while useful in many situations (such as trauma), reasons that by using toxic and dangerous means to suppress the symptoms of a disease, it has dealt with the problem in a satisfying and meaningful way. Diverting energy to FTAA and CAFTA that should go toward defeating CODEX may be well intentioned (or not, of course) but is naive and inefficient. Dealing with them as if they are the same thing takes energy vitally needed at this crucial juncture and dissipates it on another fight. CODEX itself is the root of the problem. CODEX language in FTAA/CAFTA is a symptom, nothing more.
But then, I am a physician who treats the underlying causes of a condition, not its symptoms. People very often get well when we work together even where conventional medicine (and less profound “alternative” approaches) has failed them. Conventional medicine reasons, for example, “You are a perfectly healthy woman, Mrs. Jones, except that you have breast cancer. Let’s make it go away and everything will be fine.” while Advanced Medicine (which is what I practice) says, “Your basic condition is immune compromise. Your immune system has been overwhelmed and the result is breast cancer, Mrs. Jones. Our task is to support your immune system so it can deal with the problem and make sure that any underlying causes are corrected. When that happens, you will be fine.”
So, there are those making the argument that if we make FTAA and CAFTA go away, we will be just fine. But if we don’t attend to the basic CODEX cancer, we will not be fine, because once ratified, CODEX is part of our world unless we can eliminate it in other ways. And now, because of the events that took place in two surprise moves by the WHO and FOA at CODEX last week, we can protect health freedom from CODEX!
There is no doubt in my mind that until this last week, the pro-health war we set out to win against the pro-illness, industrial forces who control CODEX (I call them, the “Bigs”) was an enormous undertaking which would require a series of mistakes on the part of the Bigs and strokes of good luck or divine intervention on our side (depending on how you look at things) for us to win and secure our fundamental rights to eternal health freedom.
The “Bigs” (that is, Big Pharma, Big AgraBiz, Big Chema, Big Biotechna and Big Medica) were set to win big via CODEX. Here is where they were headed:
It’s a long and deadly list but it was perfectly OK with the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission (CAC) up until health freedom stood up and took control of the proceedings in the form of the very unhappy FAO and WHO representatives who spoke on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons last week and tilted the terrain in favor of health (people and planet), not corporate greed.
I have written in these Daily Blog Updates about what happened when the Under Secretary of Food Safety for the World Health Organization (WHO) noted with disgust that CODEX had made no contribution to health in its more than 40 years of existence (which was ignored in autocratic fashion by the Chairman of CAC).
I have also told you how the joint WHO/FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) Consultant’s Report and its 20 formal recommendations were briefly discussed on Wednesday afternoon and how the CAC Chairman refused to allow discussion of Recommendation No. 18 (which noted that CAC needed to determine whether it does or does not have a relationship with nutrition and what that relationship should be if it does have one). Think about that: the parents (WHO and FAO) tell the child, CAC, that it has a pretty poor report card and the CAC “disses” Mom and Dad and goes on about its business thinking there will be no consequences.
Wrong!
I have also kept you up to date about how WHO and FAO chose to respond by ordering the CAC to implement their health-oriented “Global Strategy” and demanded that CAC make a contribution to global health either by reformatting the 2 committees which have a logical connection to nutrition (including the one chaired by the anti-nutrition Dr. Rolf Grossklaus) or creating a new structure, a Task Force on Nutrition.
Could our side want much more of an opportunity handed to it on a silver organizational platter?
Here is our task, now that we have been given this gift: We need to become the go-to people who help the folks who make our international policy become heroes by providing them with the best possible scientific and clinical documentation of the importance of pro-health options (including the nutritional and environmental literature and clinical arts) so that they can support CODEX policies which make positive health impacts.
We are already working with other organizations to pool our resources and our abilities to do just that nationally and internationally. FTAA? CAFTA? Symptoms, not diseases, results, not causes.
Mis information or dis information (or something else), the Natural Solutions Foundation advises every person who values the market economy to oppose FTAA and CAFTA. But make sure to preserve your energy, focus, attention and involvement for dealing with a current and immediate threat called CODEX. With your input and action, CODEX now can be changed from a global disaster to a global opportunity to bring American values like the DSHEA style classification of nutrients and herbs as foods allowing people to make their own health choices and other pro-health positions to the world. Focus on FTAA and CAFTA and our failure is assured since they are hemispheric while CODEX is global. The WHO and FAO are not setting policy for FTAA or CAFTA but they are setting health-focused requirements for CODEX which will determine the provisions of CODEX in FTAA and CAFTA.
Go to the Six Easy Steps and let Congress know that you value our health freedoms and want CODEX to support health and US law. Take the other steps, too, and tell everyone you know how important to winning this battle it is for them to join in now! Put a link to our site on your emails and site and spread the word (you can use our marketing material)!
Listen to our internet Radio Show, FREE U.S./FREE US! live from Rome this Wednesday, July 13, 2005 on www.FICAA.com at 7-8 PM Eastern. And stay tuned for tomorrow’s blog update.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
P.S. Please support the Natural Solutions Foundation with your donations.
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.
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