Codex Alimentarius (Part 2)—Food Defined As A Bunch of Chemicals

by Heidi Stevenson

13 May 2009

In Part 1 on Codex Alimentarius, we saw the nature of the beast. This time, we'll take on what it's doing to the world's food and how it's redefining food and medicine. We live in a time when nutritional content from the foods most commonly eaten—those supplied by agribusiness—are sorely lacking in nutrients. If the health of people were Codex's primary concern, this would be a major issue. They don't, though, address it. Instead, it is determined to remove our ability to rectify the problem. Supplements and vitamins are a major focus, with the goal—very nearly achieved—of eliminating or cutting the potencies so low that they become virtually useless.

Think this is hyperbole? Sadly, it's already a reality in a couple of countries that have gone along. Germany is one. Helke Ferrie tells the story of needing to purchase nutritional supplements for her German mother after a stroke. She tried to purchase high-dose vitamins C, E, and B (especially Inositol), and Q10. The pharmacist was shocked. What he gave, for exhorbitant prices, was a total of 10,000IU of E, equal to only 25 400IU capsules, and they were synthetic, made by a pharmaceutical company. The vitamin C was in effervescent tablets that released a mere 10 milligrams of C in a solution of refined sugar—which counters the body's ability to metabolize the C. The pharmacist asked what Co-enzyme Q10 is, and wondered if "such dangerous dosages" were available in Ms. Ferrie's home country of Canada.

Ms. Ferrie asked, "Why can’t I buy these supplements here?" The answer was, "Well, Germany is a Codex country." This is the future under Codex Alimentarius rules. And it's only the vitamins and supplements part.

Codex is redefining what food and medicine are. Supplements, by any reasonable standard, are food—especially if they're derived from nature. Today, they've become a necessity for good health, since foods bred and processed by agribusiness are seriously deficient in nutrients. Nonetheless, there is a concerted attack on supplements, and Codex is leading the charge.

Free Speech Takes a Header

Based on Codex requirements, the European Union developed Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation (NHCR). These are onerous requirements that benefit large corporations at the expense of small businesses. Always based on a holy grail of science that has been financed by corporate entities like pharmaceuticals and agribusiness, all health claims will have to be based on so-called scientific studies—even claims for nutrients. In the United States, the FDA is taking the same stance without being given such authority. (Keep in mind that the FDA is a major player in defining Codex Alimentarius rules.)

The FDA is a US government agency that is beholden to pharmaceutical corporations and agribusiness. By law, a significant portion of its budget comes from Big Pharma. In 1995, the FDA officially stated its intent to participate in "international harmonization", the terminology that Codex Alimentarius uses for making all countries follow the same rules. In other documents, the FDA stated clearly that its intent is to harmonize with Codex Alimentarius. The FDA's current tactics are designed to implement Codex rules.

Because of public lobbying, the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 specifically removed regulation of dietary supplements and nutrients from the FDA's purview. They are now doing an end-run around DSHEA, taking control of claims for benefit from nutrients. Let's look at just one example of the FDA's current stance on what may or may not be claimed about one nutrient, vitamin D. This document, labeled Food Labeling: Health Claims; Calcium and Osteoporosis, and Calcium, Vitamin D, and Osteoporosis. What it does is propose that, among others, health claims for vitamin D and calcium in relation to osteoporosis must adhere to the following:

• Sex, race, and age as specific risk factors for the development of osteoporosis must be specified.
• Claims may not state or imply that the risk of osteoporosis applies equally to everyone.
• A statement must be included that there is a limit to the benefits that can be gained from dietary calcium intake when the amount of calcium is over some arbitrary amount.

Holy Food, Batman! Just the labeling alone will deforest the Amazon! The document goes on interminably discussing these and other issues and requirements. At one point, the following statement is made:

If producers fortify more products with vitamin D, consumers can get more vitamin D in their diet without making changes in their dietary choices.

Clearly, the FDA believes that fortification of foods with artificial pseudo-vitamins is a good thing, which is far from true. Also implied is the idea that consumers are too dumb to be able to make sensible decisions about their food, that they must be tricked into eating well—and, of course, the FDA and its handlers in Big Agro and Big Pharma will make the decisions about what "healthy" is. But, it gets worse. Another quote from the same document:

A potential concern is that allowing these osteoporosis health claims on juice drinks will result in consumers switching away from milk to juice drinks, which are higher in calories, for dietary sources of calcium and vitamin D.

I'm truly sorry to bore you with this tripe, but sadly, this is what the FDA, in conjunction with Codex Alimentarius, is doing to our food system. Do you want the FDA and Codex making these decisions for you? They are codifying it in the minutest detail, and making health claims illegal unless they've been approved by the FDA. Food is treated as nothing more than a bunch of chemicals that can be manipulated, and if you wish to suggest otherwise, you may find yourself breaking the law.

Imagine that you bake a wonderful bread with lots of natural calcium in it and want to sell it with the health claim that it can help prevent osteoporosis. Unless you were to go through the processes required by documents like this one, you would be prohibited from making any health claims for your product. You would be required to test the product, which would be impossible without the financing available to agribusiness. But, you'd be at an even worse disadvantage, because you would also need to quantify the calcium included in your bread, and somehow also document and control exactly how much is in each and every slice. Thus, the ability to make and market food with any sort of health claim is being taken away from most people and handed over to Big Agro and Big Pharma.

Redefining Foods As Drugs

As this is being written, news is coming out that General Mills has been informed by the FDA that its claim of cholesterol-lowering benefits from eating its cereal means that Cheerios is not a food, it's a drug!

The FDA stated, "Because of these intended uses, the product is a drug." In other words, a health claim converts food into a drug. Magic!

But it gets worse than that. Because Cheerios has not been "recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease", it is classed as a new drug. This means that it can't be grandfathered in under rules that allow existing drugs to avoid having to prove their efficacy or safety. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the public. Only pharmaceutical corporations can benefit by their products being grandfathered in as drugs, since no one else has such products.

How can a small business possibly compete in such an environment? Certainly, General Mills isn't at risk. They have armies of attorneys and staff. A small company or a single person cannot fight such onerous restrictions. And how does this benefit the general public? One of the most basic rights of all, the right to choose what to eat or not, is being abrogated at this moment.

Organic Foods

Codex redefines organic foods, allowing the use of nonorganic substances and processes.

Ethylene is a gas used to artificially ripen produce. If you've ever wondered what the primary cause of bland-tasting apples is, this is it. Artificially ripened produce has not been able to develop its full taste or nutritional value because the fruit is picked long before it's ripe and had a chance to absorb and naturally manufacture nutrients. The use of ethylene gas ripening is far from natural, and most assuredly isn't organic.

Codex Alimentarius allows this to be done to foods labeled as organic, utterly corrupting the meaning of organic food.

One other example, also documented in the previous link, of Codex's corruption of organic foods is its going along with the United States' demands that Rotenone be allowed as a pesticide in organic farming. Rotenone is known to be harmful to fish and has recently been implicated as a factor in Parkinson's disease. The logic used is that it occurs naturally in some plants. However, the same applies to arsenic and cyanide. Certainly, they occur naturally in many fruits and veggies, and in that context, they can be very healthy. You wouldn't, though, spray them on plants or eat them plain, because in pure chemical form and concentrated, they're highly toxic. Codex's agreeing to the use of Rotenone can only destroy the meaning of organic food.

Codex Alimentarius is well on the way to destroying your freedom to eat healthy food and make your own choices about dietary supplements. But there's even more to fear in Codex Alimentarius. The next article in this series will discuss other aspects of food that are being affected.

Codex Alimentarius (Part 1): Evil As a Medieval Cabal tracks down what Codex Alimentarius is.

References: