December 17, 2010
While there are varying opinions on the effects the Codex guidelines would have on dietary supplements, there is little debate about the fact that these effects would be detrimental.
At best, the guidelines will reduce dose levels
to minuscule amounts too small to be beneficial, as well as causing the
prices to skyrocket for both consumers and producers.
In 2005, and in the face of much opposition from
the informed pro-supplement and natural health community, the CCNFSDU
approved The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, the set of
rules by which vitamin and mineral supplements may very well be removed from
However, it appears that these organizations, as well as the many others that oppose Codex such as the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF), are fighting a losing battle. While these groups and individuals spend countless amounts of money and energy fighting this global tyranny, their efforts amount to little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
At this point, their work focuses on lessening
the blow from the Codex guidelines. Unfortunately, it does nothing to stop
the blow from coming, nor does it protect against subsequent heavier blows.
While these statements are not meant to belittle their work, it is meant to
show that the battle is not within Codex itself, but outside of it.
Nowhere in the guidelines is it stated that “nutrients will be listed as toxins.” However, as with most governmental and institutional mandates, it is hidden within coded language and meticulous directives.
Such a technicality exists in this instance in the form of risk assessment; the technique specified by Codex to evaluate the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements.
In section 3.2.2 (a), the Guidelines state:
Risk assessment, while seemingly benign, is actually crucial to the ability of Codex to justify the ban of vitamin and mineral supplements.
This concept works on the assumption that the item being tested is inherently dangerous and toxic. This method is completely the opposite of what should be used when evaluating vitamins and minerals.
As Dr. Rima Laibow states in her article "'Nutraceuticide' and Codex Alimentarius:"
By applying “scientific risk assessment” to nutrients and supplements, they are essentially considering them toxins as they are lumped into the same category as chemicals and poisons.
There is no need to explicitly state that “nutrients are toxins.” This is done by default.
So, in the end, we have the categorization of
vitamins and minerals that are essential to human health and life as
something that is actually toxic. In this sense, we are entering the world
Indeed, even many alleged “health freedom” International Non-Governmental Organizations were either gullible enough to be taken in by the promise of the benefits of risk assessment, or morally bankrupt enough to be bought off by the pharmaceutical industry or others who might benefit from the demise of the natural supplement industry.
Yet, some of the support for risk assessment methods early on seems to have been based on the fear of the implementation of maximum limits proposed by European countries like France. These limits would have reduced the potency level of each pill to no more than 15% Recommended Daily Intake (RDI), a figure that is already set much too low. 
Yet those who favored risk assessment seemed to jump from the frying pan into the fire. As Scott Tips of the Natural Health Federation writes:
Indeed, things are not going “their” way.
That is, if the general wish is that Codex would offer up new trade opportunities for American supplement manufacturers in the form of a new European market. To be sure, it takes monumental ignorance to actually believe this.
Nevertheless, trade associations like the,
...are proclaiming that Codex poses no threat to
their access to supplements and, specifically, to the DSHEA law which was
passed in 1994.
It should also be noted that it is widely known that members of various natural health/supplement trade organizations are increasingly being purchased by the pharmaceutical industry themselves.
Once this is acknowledged, one can understand
more fully how disinformation spreads around the supplement community and
encourages apathy and a false sense of security among the populace.
As always, this global domination and subversion of national sovereignty will be done in the name of trade, and the true aims of the perpetrators will be cloaked in flowery language, wordplay, and semantics.
It will also be done right under our noses.