World Health Organization Chastises Codex

Codex Alimentarius is a joint project of the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). WHO provides 1/3 of the budget to Codex, while FAO provides the remaining 2/3. Codex regulations are actively being formulated despite the fact that they explicitly conflict with the findings (PDF) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). As amazing as it may sound, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has defiantly rejected WHO and FAO policies and reports.

It turns out that there are people working within the WHO and FAO who are on the side of health freedom and do not want to see Codex Alimentarius eliminate access to nutritional supplements or make the other disastrous pro-illness choices it seems determined to make.

Dr. Laibow observed this damning criticism of Codex when she attended the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) meeting in Rome (Italy) in the early weeks of July, 2005.

Her reportage resonated around the Internet community in the form of a widely disseminated press release.

Codex Scolded in Rome

At the Rome Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) meeting (July, 2005) the WHO literally lambasted Codex about its of contribution to human health during its 42 years of existence. This was seconded by the FAO representative.

Here's the drama as I (Dr. Laibow) observed it in Rome:

After the CAC chairman (Dr. Rolf Grossklaus) had succeeded in approving the destructive Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (and either advancing or ratifying a large number of equally destructive guidelines, regulations and standards), the WHO Undersecretary took the microphone and sharply criticized Codex for failing to make a contribution to human health. She noted that the reason that Codex has not had an increase in funding from the WHO was because of its poor performance in relation to human health!

Shortly before that, the report of the Joint Consultant's Report (funded by FAO and WHO) was presented. Item No. 18 stated that "Codex should determine if it has a relationship with nutrition and, if so, what that relationship is". The CAC Chairman permitted no discussion of that item. When the Undersecretary noted that if Codex does not take nutrition more seriously, the consequences would be serious, her tone of voice was very forceful and the whole room seemed to be in shock!

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) Chairman did not allow for discussion. This is to be expected based on his autocratic manner.

But the next day, another representative of the WHO stated that CAC would implement the WHO global strategy for Health through Diet, Physical Exercise and Nutrition. In order to do that, the WHO representative said that CAC must either change the mandate of the two committees which deal with nutrition (Dr. Grossklaus' "Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses", CCNFSDU and the "Codex Committee on Food Labeling", CCFL) or create a new task force to deal with nutrition. The FAO representative seconded the WHO position.

This was totally unprecedented and sent shockwaves of opportunity around the health freedom community. As an observer of the meeting, Dr. Laibow saw firsthand how WHO scolded Codex. Here's what she wrote in her blog:

"At the very end of today's deliberations, the WHO, one of the parent bodies of Codex, made it clear that Codex had done little to advance health during its 42 years of existence and that was about to end. The WHO undersecretary made it very clear that the WHO Global strategy for diet, exercise, nutrition and health would be implemented by Codex and, in order to do that, the two committees of Codex which could deal with nutrition would have to deal with nutrition. An official joint publication by the WHO and FAO called "Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases" (pdf) is in favor of nutritional supplementation. Whereas Codex Alimentarius would eliminate meaningful dosages of nutritional supplementation, and thus violate the findings of this publication."

WHO Publication Supports Nutritional Supplements

As mentioned above, WHO and FAO jointly authored a document called "Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention Chronic Disease". This document makes it clear that supplemental feeding is essential for the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, especially in the developing world. The report states that the WHO and FAO,

"recognized that the growing epidemic of chronic diseases afflicting both developed and developing countries was related to dietary and lifestyle changes."

These two organizations then noted,

"Furthermore, rapid changes in diet and lifestyles have occurred with industrialization, urbanization, economic development and market globalization, all accelerated over the past decade. This is having a significant impact on the health and nutritional status of populations, particularly in developing countries and countries in transition"

The report then makes an explicit statement that nutrition affects health:

"Because of these changes in dietary and lifestyle patterns, chronic NCDs [i.e., Non Communicable Diseases] - including obesity, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension and stroke, and some types of cancer - are becoming increasingly significant causes of disability and premature death in both developing and newly developed countries, placing additional burdens on already overtaxed national health budgets."

In addition to looking at the problem of under-nutrition, the report states that nutrition is a major factor in the manifestation and treatment of disease:

"Nutrition is coming to the fore as a major modifiable determinant of chronic disease, with scientific evidence increasingly supporting the view that alterations in diet have strong effects, both positive and negative, on health throughout life. Most importantly, dietary adjustments may not only influence present health, but may determine whether or not an individual will develop such diseases as cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes much later in life. However, these concepts have not led to a change in policies or in practice. In many developing countries, food policies remain focused only on undernutrition and are not addressing the prevention of chronic disease."

"Chronic diseases are largely preventable diseases. Although more basic research may be needed on some aspects of the mechanisms that links diet to health, the currently available scientific evidence provides a sufficiently strong and plausible basis to justify taking action now."

 

But Codex Would Eliminate Nutritional Supplements

Remember that therapeutic supplementation would become illegal if Codex if the U.S.A is harmonized with Codex. For example, folic acid in high dosages would be banned. But look at what the report, produced by WHO, has to say about Cardiovascular Disease and folic acid supplementation:

"The relationship of folate to CVD (Cardio Vascular Disease) has been mostly explored through its effect on homocysteine, which may itself be an independent risk factor for coronary heart disease and probably also for stroke. Folic acid is required for the methylation of homocysteine to methionine. Reduced plasma folate has been strongly associated with elevated plasma homocysteine levels and folate supplementation has been demonstrated to decrease plasma homocysteine levels."

As you can see, WHO explicitly supports folate supplementation. Despite this, clinically significant folate supplementation would be unavailable in countries which harmonize with Codex Alimentarius!

The WHO findings and others like them have been rejected by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and especially by the nutrient-hostile Dr. Grossklaus, Chariman of the CCNFSDU. The Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) has promulaged standards that forbids discussion or dissemination of any benefits for nutritients and supplements. These are the two committees which the WHO has demanded to redefine their mandate to deal with nutrition, or have CAC create a task force to deal with nutrition, according to the findings of the joint WHO/FAO report on nutrition (pdf).

Codex Facing Repercussions from WHO/FAO

In conclusion, the WHO/FAO report is supportive of nutritional medicine and nutritional supplementation. There are strong pro-health forces within both organizations.

We at the Natural Solutions Foundation are working to become strongly associated with these pro-health forces, so that we can support them in their desire to bring the corporate agenda behind Codex Alimentarius to heel. What do this report and the WHO Global Strategy mean in the context of Codex? It means that the pro-corporate profit, pro-illness policies of the current Codex Alimentarius is going against the findings of two of the largest health organization in the world, the WHO and FAO... which also just happen to be the parent organizations of Codex Alimentarius.

So, because Codex Alimentarius is totally dependent on funding from the WHO and FAO, this disobedience to the wishes of the parents will probably have repercussions for the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

We hope it does.