|
|
"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141155987.522350.114300@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich wrote:
>
> This is indeed an important issue. So important I thought we should
> give it wider coverage. Many people have no awareness of the Codex
> Alimentarius (which is not complete, by the way) whatsoever. Here are
> some of my thoughts on it.
>
> The Codex is an intrusion into the rights of individuals who wish to
> access nutritional supplements without unncessary regulation.
Regulation of supplements is just as necesssary as regulation of milk or
asparagus or cooked cured ham. I know you think that supplement
manufacturers are immune to the profit-driven corruption that you ascribe to
the pharmaceutical companies, but that's just wishful thinking. If the
current batch of Spirulina has a high bacteria count, or the coral calcium
that has been mined and processed contains lead, well, who's to know? Let's
sell it anyway.
> It is a
> greed-driven effort to manage markets, restrain competitive threats to
> drug makers, and prevent access to more effective food supplements.
So are you claiming that is the purpose of CODEX?
> We
> do not need regulation of naturally-occuring vitamins and minerals, or
> other nutrients.
Yes, alas, we do. "Naturally-occuring" vitamin and mineral products vary as
much in quality and are as prone to adulteration, contamination, unhygienic
handling, improper labeling, and inadequate packaging as do
naturally-occuring canned salmon and olive oils.
> We do need regulation of product labeling, and
> effective agency oversight exists already to protect consumers from
> inappropriate or fraudulent marketing claims.
The 160 nations participating in the Codex Commission all have their own
agencies with their own standards. An agreement on those standards benefits
all.
>
> The language in this Codex material also includes a blurring of
> distinctions between use of synthetic and natural vitamins in terms of
> their scientifically supported use in treating human diseases.
Reread section 1.1 above entitled "Scope." "These guidelines apply to
vitamin and mineral food supplements intended for use in supplementing the
daily diet with vitamins and/or minerals." They do NOT apply to products
intended for the treatment of disease, but only to those intended to
supplement the diet. Products intended for the treatment of disease are
drugs, and should be regulated as such.
> Despite
> numerous studies implicating synthetic vitamins (drugs) in elevated
> disease risk or ineffective treatment, these self-appointed governing
> bodies (read: industry-backed political parasites) wish to lump all
> nutrient-related supplements together and regulate them as if they are
> *all* drugs. This has nothing to do with public health, otherwise the
> drug makers themselves would have no markets into which they could
> legally sell their own products.
CODEX is not in the business of regulating drugs, it sets standards for
FOODS.
>
> The legal action of ANH in the EU court has been a huge factor (and
> continues to be) in preventing more restrictive language from entering
> the rulemaking supporting Codex thus far. This has resulted in
> frustration for those supporting a "black box" approach for assessing
> which nutrients make it to the so-called "positive list." The ANH is
> doing an incredible job standing up for consumer rights on this issue,
> but they continue to need public donations for this crucial legal and
> scientific battle. Trivializing this issue by referring to opponents
> of the Codex as "conspiracy" theorists is insulting to consumers who
> have learned that multi-national conglomerates must be held accountable
> for price fixing, anti-trust behaviour, unethical marketing, corrupt
> political lobbying, and outright fraud.
CODEX has absolutely nothing to do with price fixing. "Anti-trust" is a good
thing, and I think the opposite what you meant to say, but CODEX is not
involved in that, either. It is dificult to apply "corrupt political
lobbying" to the delegates of 160 nations. That leaves only unethical
marketing and outright fraud, both of which CODEX exists to prevent.
> The drug makers are working
> hard to protect their interests, spending more money to lobby the
> legislature than any other industry, while receiving no effective
> regulatory oversight from their pet, the FDA.
That's speculation on your part, and the relationships of the pharmaceutical
companies to the legislature and the FDA has nothing to do with the CODEX,
anyway.
>
> There is also a problem with the following quote from the Codex
> guideline:
>
> "Maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in vitamin and mineral food
> supplements per daily portion of consumption as recommended by the
> manufacturer shall be set, taking the
> following criteria into account: (a) upper safe levels of vitamins and
> minerals established by scientific risk assessment based on generally
> accepted scientific data, taking into consideration, as appropriate,
> the varying degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups..."
>
> This is the "open door" to arbritary rule-making that ANH is trying to
> close before it leads to assessments of "unsafe" vitamin levels based
> on science of questionable origin.
What "questionable origin"? Do you mean the science is questionable if it
does not support YOUR notions about nutrition and health? The scientific
determination of the amounts of the various vitamins and minerals necessary
to the maintenance of heath is straight forward and well established.
Products containing much higher levels of various vitamins and minerals and
intended for treatment of disease are, once again, drugs, and fall outside
the purview of CODEX.
> We have seen our resident pharma
> bloggers here every day promoting "generally accepted scientific" views
> that are neither generally accepted, nor scientific. These "ideas,"
> however, have become part of the public domain because industry has
> spent untold millions putting them there. This is commonly referred to
> as "mindshare." It's just as important as branding. And while junk
> science is no substitute for the truth, the repetition of a lie can be
> used to substitute for real science. It happens every day.
Spare us the "pharma blogger" paranoia. We've heard it all before, ad
nauseum.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
|
|