Natural Solutions Foundation
Your Voice of Global Health & Food Freedom™
Codex Alimentarius is Unscientific
Codex Alimentarius (the so-called “World Food Code”) consists of various Standards (defining food items in international trade) and Guidelines (defining various food processes and materials in international trade). One of these is the “Vitamin and Mineral Guideline”. It alleges to “safeguard consumer health” against [sic] “dangerous levels” of vitamins, minerals, and amino acids. But in truth, like the rest of Codex Alimentarius, it is not about consumer protection at all; it is about Big AgBiz profitability. Not only that, but it is highly unscientific, as shall be explained on this page.
Declaring Nutrients as Toxins
Codex Alimentarius has declared nutrients to be toxins. How has it done this? Through distorting real science into a meaningless, pseudo-scientific framework that allows the convenient elimination of vitamins, minerals, and eventually all other nutrients from the market.Why would any one do something this absurd and harmful? Simple: the purpose behind Codex Alimentarius is to eliminate competition to the pharmaceutical industry. However, it is necessary to give people the impression that Codex Alimentarius operates scientifically, even though this impression has nothing to do with reality. When you attend Codex meetings, as we do when we have the financial support to do so, you can see the way pseudo-scientific jargon is used to give a patina of legitimacy to a very dirty business…
The interests behind Codex Alimentarius know that if people knew that it was unscientific, they would resist it. So, the careful application of deception enters the picture.
Codex Alimentarius Uses the Wrong Science to Assess Nutrients
The proper science for assessing nutrients is Nutritional Science, which is a branch of Biochemistry, “the science of life”.
Nutrients are not toxins and therefore cannot be treated as such without yielding false data.
Even a science novice understands that in order to get the right answers, the appropriate science must be used to ask the right questions. Using Risk Assessment to assess nutrients is simply not the right tool for the job. Risk Assessment is properly used to determine the largest dose of a toxin that people can be exposed to without any discernible impact on them. However, Codex has modified the science of Risk Assessment for its own use, without either peer review or scientific validation, to bypass the fact that nutrients are essential for life. Risk Assessment procedures are completely inappropriate for the purpose it is being used for here. How can the Codex Alimentarius people not know this?
We believe they do know. And we believe that Risk Assessment is being intentionally used to deceive people into believing that Codex Alimentarius is “scientific” when, in fact, it is pseudo-scientific. Using toxicology to treat nutrients as toxins yields “data” that “shows” that nutrients are “dangerous”, and that’s why it is being used. This is either an intentional scheme, or the “scientists” working on this project are totally incompetent and should be fired immediately.
Setting Ridiculously Low “Safe Upper Limits” With Junk Science
Using Risk Assessment, the Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline would set incredibly low doses for vitamins, minerals, and amino acids.
For example, Codex intends to restrict the Vitamin C you’re allowed to use to only 200mg/day, or even substantially less, whereas in my clinical practice I routinely give 10,000 mg/day to patients with great success (or many times that amount, if needed). Codex would justify limiting Vitamin C intake to a mere 200mg/day (a useless amount!) through its unscientific application of Risk Assessment/ toxicology, a science totally irrelevant to nutrients.
If toxicology were applicable to nutritional supplements, then a concentrate of tomatoes, lettuce, apples, or broccoli would be “dangerous” and illegal, too, because it would contain nutrients, classed as toxins in Codex-land, higher than those found in food! That is exactly how irrational Codex Alimentarius’ relationship to nutrition is.
Why Nutrients Are Vital to Health and Longevity
Nutrients are essential components of enzyme function in the human body and enzymes are the very stuff of life because they carry out every biological process in your body. Without enzymes, nothing would happen. Literally.
There would be no digestion, no growth, no detoxification… no life. At any moment, approximately 35,000 enzymatic reactions are occurring in every cell of your body. Nutrients feed and support enzymatic action and that’s why they are so crucial to health.
Optimal enzymatic action = optimal health
Healthy enzymatic action = health
Impaired enzymatic action = symptoms
Unhealthy enzymatic action = illness
No enzymatic action = death
Your body has varying needs for nutrients based on genetic diversity and requirement, diet, climate and energy output, toxic load (from food, water, air, and skin absorption), underlying nutritional deficits, diseases and stress of every type (including emotional and electromagnetic stressors). The fact that there are so many factors affecting nutrient need is called “Biological Individuality”, and is totally absent from the philosophy of Codex Alimentarius.
The Body Can Handle Excess Nutrients Without Needing Codex Alimentarius to “Help” It
The body has evolved in the presence of changing nutritional availability so it has developed effective mechanisms to rid itself of excess nutrients (or store them for future shortages). It is fair to say that after millions of years of evolution, the human body knows how to handle nutrients.
Because of Biological Individuality, there is no thing as a scientifically measurable “upper limit” for nutrients. True, a person might be able to take an unreasonable numbers of capsules of a nutritional supplement and cause themselves harm through ignorance. Even that would be really hard to do since the real toxicity of nutrients is so astonishingly low! Such a person would have their ignorance to blame for any ensuing digestive problems or cellular imbalance, not the nutrient. And we are talking mega-gram doses here, while Codex Alimentarius would restrict the nutrients it would allow to thousands of degrees lower, in the milligram range (and it would only allow around 20 nutrients, period).
There are important considerations when using nutritional supplements, such as taking high quality, balanced forms of nutrients (e.g., a natural vitamin E supplement instead of a synthetic isolate), consuming natural forms versus synthetic whenever possible, and using appropriate dosages for each particular unique individual. And, of course, let us not forget that more is not necessarily better.
But Codex Alimentarius is totally unconcerned with sound nutritional supplementation principles. It is focused on banning nutrients altogether, through setting unscientific “upper limits” in the name of “consumer safety”, using an intentionally deformed version of a branch of toxicology.
This deception is by conscious design. It is intended to convince you and me that there is real, valid and meaningful science involved in the Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline’s limitations on nutritional supplementation. There is not. The science used is irrelevant to the task at hand, which is bad as using no science at all.
Nutrients Are OK for Human Body, But Toxins Are Not
Your body has evolved graceful and efficient means of dealing with excess intake of nutrients. However, what it has not evolved is protection from man-made toxins, which are predominantly the result of the relatively recent industrial revolution. Man-made, real toxins poison our enzymes and greatly increase nutrient requirements.
It is important to remember that DSHEA guarantees Americans that there will be no upper limits for nutrients and herbs because nutrients and herbs are foods, not drugs! Scientifically, DSHEA is right on the mark. It honors the science of Biochemistry by recognizing your biochemical individuality and the fact that nutritional and herbal supplements are foods, and therefore can have no upper limits.
While there is always the question of manufacturer honesty in the labeling of supplements (or any other) products, that is another discussion altogether and does not justify the unscientific use of Risk Assessment by Codex Alimentarius.
How Risk Assessment Works
Risk Assessment is a branch of the science of Toxicology which is used for the assessment of toxins, substances which poison enzymes. It was never meant to be used for nutrients.
Risk Assessment demands testing toxins on live animals to kill half of them. This does not happen with nutrients, and thus, if nutrients were taken to the lab to be tested using Risk Assessment, the experiment would be futile as no animals would die. In fact, Codex Alimentarius does not take it to the lab – it only uses Risk Assessment on paper.
If you want more detail about exactly how Risk Asessment works, click here.
There can be no average diet in the real-world. Humanity is so diverse, culinary habits, individual preferences, tolerances and food availability are so vastly varied, and so dependent on culture, that there can be no real average.
But Codex Alimentarius is not concerned with the real world. It is concerned with creating pseudo-scientific concepts for the sake of furthering an agenda that has nothing to do with consumer protection.
Even Codex Delegates Are Shocked
While flying over to observe the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) meeting in Rome, Italy (July 2005), I had the opportunity to speak with delegates from a variety of developing nations.
I asked each one of them if they understood what nutrient levels determined by Risk Assessment would mean to their countries, their pregnant mothers and babies, their rates of cancer, etc. They had literally no idea what I was talking about!
Codex Alimentarius is busy keeping the truth from everyone, including its own delegates.
I explained the problem and these mid to upper level bureaucrats had a universal reaction: they dropped their jaws, stared at me in absolute horror and asked if I would help them. I said “yes” and the Natural Solutions Foundation is working hard to create the information that they need to resist this deadly option.
Independent governments can get out from under Codex rules that prevent them from protecting local food traditions and higher local safety standards. See our Codex Two Step video for an overview of this approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QNg3MD6BxM
We believe that Codex Alimentarius is using Risk Assessment to create the image that it is scientific. Since most people have never heard of Risk Assessment and thus have no idea what it is, and thus wouldn’t know the difference between Risk Assessment and Biochemistry, most people easily believe the image of Codex Alimentarius as a science-based organization with the goal of “protecting consumer health”.
Few people would do the research it takes to uncover the truth that Risk Assessment is the wrong science for the job.
If Codex Alimentarius used the right science for the job of assessing nutrients (Biochemistry), it would not be able to restrict nutrients. Why?
Because the irrefutable data of Biochemistry does not support restricting nutrients. Quite the contrary: Biochemistry points irrefutably to biochemical individuality and the enzymatic support which nutrients offer.
But, after all, the whole point of Codex Alimentarius is to create false and misleading data which creates alarmism around nutritional supplements. So that these natural health substances and natural and nutritional medicine (NNM) can be eliminated from the market. With the elimination of NNM and natural health competition, the profits of the pharmaceutical industry would be secured.
"I have been reading some of the emails from the NSF group and it's great to hear about all of the progress so far. After my trip to Costa Rica I realized how nice life was in Central America. It was different, but the quality of life is so much more pure. I have some obligations as of know, but I will keep spreading the word out about what you and Bert are doing and hopefully in the future I can be of more help."