Having problems with message search?
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=61079
Codex adopts international guidelines for vitamins and minerals
05/07/2005-
Global standards for vitamin and mineral supplements were adopted by Codex yesterday, despite some last minute requests for amendments and consumer group campaigns to stall the ratification, writes Dominique Patton.
The guidelines, under discussion by Codex committee members for more than 10 years, recognize vitamin and mineral supplements as a food category, and are expected to expand markets for supplement makers.
“You can’t underestimate the impact of these guidelines. They create a global category of vitamin and mineral supplements – in many countries there is no such category in place,” said Simon Pettman, executive director of the International Alliance of Dietary Supplement Associations (IADSA).
Codex Alimentarius, established by the United Nations in 1961, establishes guidelines to harmonise trade in food and although the standards are not binding, they tend to influence less liberal markets and those without a regulatory framework in place, particularly common in supplements.
Pettman told NutraIngredients.com that more than 60 countries worldwide, including China, India, Taiwan and Mexico, are currently looking at introducing new or amended regulations for vitamin and mineral supplements.
"This means more than 50 per cent of the global population," he said.
One element of the new Codex guidelines is set to be particularly influential for the supplement industry - the basis for setting permitted levels of vitamins and minerals. Last year the committee working on the draft guidelines agreed that maximum levels should be based on risk assessment rather than RDAs (recommended dietary intake), currently used by a number of countries but resulting in significantly lower levels than those based on risk assessment.
However the natural health campaigners Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), which has released a documentary this week describing the threat posed by Codex guidelines, fears that the method for setting maximum levels currently being investigated by a FAO/WHO committee will be based on previously developed systems that it believes are scientifically flawed. These would set the levels much lower than those currently used by many consumers.
The group has commissioned independent risk assessment scientists at the Netherlands-based HAN Foundation to develop new methods for vitamins and minerals.
However John Hathcock, vice president of scientific and international affairs at the US trade association the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), said: "The risk assessment values for vitamins and minerals is always severalfold higher than reference dietary intakes. Of course the risk assessment system could be abused, like any other, but the RDAs are already very low.”
Hathcock noted that the FAO/WHO risk assessment project attempts to harmonise risk assessment methodology across nations but “specifies no numbers whatsoever”.
Hathcock also said that consumer groups claiming that the Codex guidelines would lead to restrictions on supplements were misinformed.
“There are a lot of people who don’t understand what Codex does and how far the WTO powers extend. Codex does not force any country to adopt these guidelines, and the WTO will only force a country to raise standards up to Codex, rather than down from domestic policy.”
Around 85 of the 172 members of Codex Alimentarius are in Rome this week at the body’s Commission meeting, and they were largely in favour of adoption of the guidelines, which also cover packaging, labelling and sources of vitamins and minerals.
The Commission agreed to amend the text following a request from Australia that the word ‘only’ be added to section 1.3 so that it would read: "These guidelines apply only in those jurisdictions where products defined in 2.1 are regulated as foods."
Comments submitted by China that the guidelines should take into account the dietary limitations of each country were included in the minutes but not in the text. Making such changes would have required taking the guidelines back to the committee discussions stage.
“After more than 10 years of discussion it was felt that to bring the text back to the nutrition committee, when a consensus had already been reached last year, would jeopardize the guidelines,” said David Pineda, director of regulatory affairs at IADSA.
He added that the concerns went far beyond the scope of non-binding international standards, and would be more suited to national discussions.
The US-based National Health Federation (NHF), the only consumer organisation with NGO status at Codex, claimed that the Chinese comments were substantive and therefore should have been addressed at the committee level.
FAO is expected to produce a report in a few months on its risk assessment methodology but it will be several years before this is adopted.
http://www.mercola.com/blog/2005/jul/5/flawed_codex_guidelines_passed
Joseph Mercola
Flawed Codex Guidelines Passed
I'm sad to report, despite some superficial changes and the last-minute efforts of some consumer groups, global standards for vitamin and mineral supplements -- debated for more than a decade -- were unfortunately adopted as expected by the Codex Alimentarius in Rome yesterday (download them at this link).
Even worse, these guidelines will now serve as a model for many countries that do not currently have supplement regulations in place and may be used under World Trade Organization agreements to force countries to allow the importation and sale of products that conform to those guidelines. The effect of these new rules is very bad news to Americans and many other people, considering some 60 countries -- including more than half of the world's population -- are currently looking at introducing new or amended regulations for vitamin and mineral supplements.
Of the greatest concern in these new guidelines is a new ceiling on the maximum level of vitamins or minerals based on a scientific risk assessment rather than recommended dietary intake, better known as RDA, that result in significantly lower amounts than those based on risk assessment. Opponents of these measures strongly believe these guidelines will force vitamins and minerals offered in higher dosages to be classified and regulated as drugs.
Dr. Robert Verkerk, executive director of the Alliance for Natural Health, really nailed my objections to Codex: It appears that the Codex guidelines for food supplements include faulty procedures that contradict Codex's own rules, as pointed out by the U.S.-based National Health Federation, itself a Codex participant. We have also demonstrated that the risk assessment system being considered by Codex is scientifically flawed...
Of course, you know there was one group who was extremely happy about the passage of these regulations: The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), a Washington, D.C.-based trade association/lobbying group representing dietary supplement industry ingredient suppliers and manufacturers.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is expected to produce a report in a few months on its risk assessment methodology, but it will be several years before this is adopted. That could very well mean there's still some time to have Codex reconsider these measures. And, besides, do you want to let foreign interests dictate what you can do with your body?
And, if you're not sure why people like me are gravely concerned about this issue and want to get your blood boiling even more, you'll want to watch the documentary "We Become" Silent," produced by International award-winning filmmaker, Kevin P. Miller in an attempt to raise public awareness about these misinformed guidelines.
I believe Americans must never lose the right to choose and buy supplements. If you agree with this - and if you read my eHealthy news You Can Use newsletter regularly I'm sure you do -- I urge you to take a little time to let Congress know how you feel, by sending the letter provided by the Health Action Center.
Food Navigator.com July 5, 2005
NPI Center July 5, 2005
Natural Newswire July 5, 2005
Send Email