Before we get started, have you been using www.GoodSearch for your internet searches? Use this link and make this your home page. You’ll be using a great search engine (powered by Yahoo) and getting us a penny every time you search! Here’s the link: http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=817759
Dispatch from the trenches.
I am sitting in the Codex meeting right now. There is an oops: the other side is not giving up so easily (they never do). The fluoride battle for infant formula for ordinary use has been won BUT the war for safe and pure foods re: fluoride is not over yet.
Yesterday’s battle was won, with the help of the documentation we provided to South Africa (SA) in favor of infant formula but the fluoride standard for foods for special infant formulas and foods for young children was on the docket for today. These standards (which cover items which can be added to foods for sick infants, infants with special needs and young children) came up for discussion and South Africa almost managed, without opposition from anyone, to have both potassium fluoride and calcium fluoride deleted. Think again! Despite the fact that the discussion had been concluded, the EU came back to fluoride later. Ordinarily, Dr. Grossklaus does not allow anyone to revisit issues. His consistency is not in evidence, however, when the EU or US wants something. Right now the EU wants to keep fluoride in the list of permitted items (in this case, toxins) for kids that have special needs. In other words, the EU wants to leave these toxins in for especially vulnerable kids and so does the US. Australia joined in to support the US and EU.
So our victory is significant and, at the same time, marred by the need to continue the battle. Fluoride is still a toxin, even if the child has been weaned or has celiac disease or whatever. You can see from that how important eternal vigilance, the appropriate marshalling and deployment of our resources is to this battle. Here’s what’s going on in the Codex chamber right now:
SA is saying that fluoride is not essential for human nutrition. The US weighs in supporting the EU “based on the use of these compounds in special medical circumstances”. A health group supports SA and notes that water can be cleansed to remove fluoride. Australia supports EC also noting that Sodium fluoride is not up for debate and therefore potassium and calcium fluoride should be allowed. Dr. Grossklaus, the chairman, decides that they should be allowed but SA comes back and says that SA wants it noted in the final report that their objection to the use of fluoride continues. The Chairman declared the issue settled and quickly moved on.
The cool thing? More and more countries are getting the message: Codex texts are NOT mandatory. Countries which do not like what Codex has decided MAY, if they so uncomfortable with Codex policies (1. adopt a better guideline or standard based on better science and 2. then enact it as your country’s law) is becoming more and more relevant as countries realize that they have these options. The times really are a’changin’.
Antioxidants are now under consideration for addition to foods for children and infants, which would have been a new section in the standards. That is not a big deal. New sections are easily added. US and EU opposed adding either antioxidants or a new section. SA favored retaining the category for further discussion (“keep it in square brackets”). Dr. Grossklaus asked if any one supported South Africa or if it were a “personal opinion”. Since no one else spoke for it, the category disappeared. Are antioxidants useful for babies and children? Absolutely. Does Codex endorse their use? Not now: the US and EU ganged up on that option for our children’s well-being.
Remember: Codex serves the illness industry. We are fighting for Codex to act in the service of health or, if that cannot be achieved, for Codex to be left behind while countries create their own health standards and trade with others who value health as well.
Oh, yes, one other thing: on Sunday 29, 2006,October, before the actual beginning of the Codex meeting proper here in Thailand, there was a meeting that takes place on a regular basis at Codex meetings. The US, EU, Australia and Canada met to make sure that their positions were in line. It’s not too hard to draw the appropriate conclusions from that particular bit of information.
Next on the agenda (although there are quite a number of items before it, such as the amount of gum Arabic which can be added to food — should it be 100 mg/kg as previously allowed or 10 mg/kg as indicated through a typo in the standards document?) is the Global Strategy for Diet, Physical Activity and Health (GS).
You remember that SA has proposed 11 strongly pro-health principles which we support. You also remember the fight over them at the last Codex committee at which they were to be discussed.
We were loaded for bear. We had a coalition of 6 countries and 3 Observers (NGOs who can speak after all the countries have spoken) ready to raise a ruckus in support of SA’s 11 points. What happened next was fascinating, indeed.
Dr. Grossklaus, famous for his autocratic behavior, changed the tune. Explicitly ignoring any dissent whatsoever, he destroyed what might be said to be even a slightly democratic process when he defined the time allowed and the issues under consideration in such narrow terms that there was no possibility of dealing with health on any meaningful level.
First, time: Although my read of the procedural requirements is that the GS should have been considered as Agenda Item 2, Work Referred by Other Bodies, it was moved to the end of the proceedings. That should sound familiar since it is exactly what happened last year in this same committee when we had a total of about 6 minutes for discussion. This time it was almost the last item and Dr. G. used the time pressure which he had carefully engineered to race through the item so that there was no time for discussion of any meaningful nature. Lengthy reports were discussed in a minute or less with countries urged not to make comments in the interests of time! Countries which did make “interventions” (as comments are called) were scolded for taking the Committee’s valuable time.
Thailand introduced a paper urging the limitation of sugar in formula, cereal and drinks for children 2 and under to levels no greater than breast milk since the sweet taste preference is set in that period, chemo receptors are laid down, social meaning is acquired for food, etc. This is directly in accord with the GS’s recommendations.
Never mine. No time, no time. Norway supported, as it has all along, this health measure which would save countless lives and untold numbers of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity, stokes, etc. A simple measure, but a very expensive one. Sugar and sweeteners are a huge economic force. Here is a quote from Dr. G. when he rudely interrupted Thailand: “Thailand, we can’t discuss the whole strategy. Please give specific conclusions.”
Why “can’t we discuss the whole strategy?” That is, after all, the job of this Committee and the one on Food Labeling, mandated by the parent bodies, WHO and FAO.
On cue, the every industry-friendly EU said,
“The paper sets out the recommendations that are relating to this issue but I would like to know that the recommendations are relating to the overall diet and not to the individual products. The diversified diet of infants including cereal products are such that they consume several diets. Therefore we believe that applying the recommendations to a single product about sugar is going a little bit far. We notice the objectives but we believe that there are different means of achieving them, non regulatory and regulatory.”
Forget limiting sugar to breast milk levels. Ploy number 2 coming up: Dr. Grossklaus then confused the issue totally with the introduction of cereals:
We have general recommendations of pediatricians and it is hard to translate this diet guideline into the diet of individual persons. How does cereal based diet translate into dental caries, for example? It is very, very difficult.
I would like to discuss this item for another 5 minutes only. This is the maximum. [only another 5 minutes for countless millions of lives impacted by failure to enact achievable, but less profitable, disease control measures– comment added by Natural Solutions Foundation]
The question is whether the position of EU is also shared by other member state that it is difficult to revise the standard.”
South Africa, the breast feeding NGOs and (I think — it was hard to hear) Finland chastised the EU saying “We are deeply shocked by the unhelpful position of the EU. We would have expected them to support Thailand, Norway and SA”. But once the cereal issue got put on the floor, the discussion became chaotic. India said, quite rightly, that their problems were under nutrition in children, not over nutrition so cereals for their people should have more energy density, not less (e.g., calories per unit of food) and Dr. G. just stirred the pot.
So WHO weighed in. Here is a direct, verbatim quote of WHO’s intervention:
“We believe that the standards should be set having in mind healthy diet and healthy diet is for all. We are not looking at obesity without looking at under nutrition for all. The mentality is what leads to a healthy life for all children. The case is that for outside [these norms] will be dealt with by a number of different interventions. Last year we had already put the issue of the 10% level [energy from sugar] that was discussed; the translation of that figure is not a straight translation. In a general way we support very much the intent of Thailand wanting to reach a standard that is the best standard for all children, especially for infant feeding.”
At that point, NGO of European pediatricians with specialization in GI, liver and development volunteered to lead a Working Group to clarify these issues and report back to the Committee next year.
“We have been following this with great interest. It seems to us that different standards and issues have been raised by different delegations. We feel that these issues are complex and need to be examined in light of scientific data and we wonder if it might not be useful to bring together an ad hoc working group.”
WHO liked the idea: “I would like to support this because we need to take into account obese as well as malnourished children.“
Ah! Not so fast there! Although Thailand agreed to the Working Group without really considering it,
“We appreciate this, but because of the shortness of time we don’t have time to discuss this in detail so we will support the proposal of ESPHAGAN [the NGO]”,
but as if on cue, the German Secretariat of this Committee, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), said that the Committee could not, for procedural reasons, accept a working group providing data if that group were led by an observer group.
The EU and then the US sucker punched the idea and the last word on the discussion of the Global Strategy this year came from Barbara Schneeman, US Delegate to CCNFSDU,
“It should be stated in the report that the committee cannot accept ESPHAGAN’s offer to have an ad hoc group.”
Creative chaos in the service of industry and illness. Thank you, FDA, EU and Codex.
We definitely did not win that round. The tune was changed and so we have to change our dance steps. Immediately after this disgusting session concluded (and, by the way, it was preceded with what appeared to me to be a completely unnecessary 30 minute break (although they may have been dealing with union rules — that I do not know) our team had a meeting which lasted for several hours to work out our forthcoming steps. They are good. Very good.
This was, is, and continues to be, a winnable battle. Every time the other side behaves this obviously badly, more countries “get it” and the willingness to dance a different dance gets stronger. Last night there was a lot of willingness after this shameful performance by the forces arrayed.
Thursday, November 2, the delegates are being taken on an excursion to a horticultural exhibition created in honor of the King of Thailand. If I can figure out how to do it, I will mount some photos of that excursion. You may rest assured that there will be a good deal of talk about yesterday! It’s a working outing and the pictures should be terrific!