What is Codex
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Latin for 'food code', is an
inter-governmental body that sets guidelines and standards to ensure ‘fair
trade practices’ and consumer protection in relation to the global trade of
It was established for this purpose in 1963 so
has more than 40 years’ experience controlling food in an ever-more
globalized world. It has over 170 member countries within the framework of
the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program established by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations and
the World Health Organization (WHO).
Its primary stated purpose is “protecting the health of consumers and
ensuring fair practices in the food trade.” The Commission also promotes
coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international
governmental and non-governmental organizations (INGO’s).
The guidelines and standards are used as a benchmark for regional/national
legislation and in World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes. Work is conducted
through nearly 30 committees, each dealing with specific areas of food, and
decisions are based on consensus voting by member countries.
INGO’s do not
have voting rights, but may influence proceedings. Most INGO’s present at
Codex meetings represent transnational corporation interests.
Watch Kevin Miller's 2005 movie about Codex: "We
Become Silent", narrated by Dame Judy Dench and Featuring Mel
"If people let government decide what foods
they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as
sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson (1762-1821)
Third President of the USA, author of the
Declaration of Independence.
Single greatest threat
to our access to natural health products?
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is responsible for establishing a system
of guidelines, standards and recommendations that guides the direction of
the global food supply.
It aims to tell us what is safe, but in the
process often uses criteria that are manipulated to support the interests of
the world’s largest corporations.
Admirable, some might say, but of course, just how are governments in Codex
protecting health, based on what criteria and - what exactly is meant by
‘fair trade practices’?
Well, it’s certainly got nothing to do with the fair trade movement that
aims to support farmers and producers in developing countries while
It’s much more about a system of guidelines and
standards that work to the advantage of the largest global food suppliers
and producers. In such company, inevitably, small producers and suppliers
get left out in the cold - as do small governments that disagree with the
thrust of some of the decisions made under the Codex banner.
Codex Alimentarius, certainly in alternative circles, is often claimed to be
the single greatest threat to our continued access to natural health
products and wholesome foods.
Robert Verkerk, of the Alliance for
Natural Health, challenges some of the misconceptions and explains both what
Codex is really about and what else we should be concerned about.
There was a rumor circulating that Codex was going to come into force on
December 31st 2009.
This rumor was incorrect. This date actually
represented one of many implementation dates of the European Food
Supplements Directive and was nothing directly to do with Codex.
The text for the Codex Guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements,
which has been based closely on the EU Directive - sharing some of its text
verbatim - was ratified in July 2005 but is unlikely to finalized until
around 2012 or 2013. It is only at this time it is likely to be used as the
basis for national and regional laws in many parts of the world.
To a large extent, Codex guidelines on food
supplements are irrelevant to Europeans as they simply reflect the European
laws on which they are based and it is the laws that ultimately affect our
access to products, not the Codex guideline.
Many other guidelines and standards, for example those affecting genetically
modified (GM) foods and organic foods are complete, although they tend to be
subject to regular amendment.
Some of the misinformation on Codex appears to be deliberately disseminated,
while other parts are unwitting reproductions of the misinformation by
concerned yet naive individuals. Among the common erroneous facts are:
All nutrients (e.g. vitamins and minerals) are to be considered
toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits
the use of nutrients to ‘prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease’.
All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, thus removing all ‘toxic’
nutrients from food (unless consumers can source their food locally).
Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex; it
will include such ‘beneficial’ nutrients as fluoride (3.8 mg daily), sourced
from industrial waste.
All nutrients (e.g. vitamins A, B, C, D, zinc and magnesium) that have any
positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal in therapeutic
doses under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to health,
with maximum limits set at 15% of the current Recommended Dietary
You will not be able to obtain these nutrients
in therapeutic doses anywhere in the world, even with a prescription.
It will most likely be illegal to give any advice on nutrition (including in
written articles posted online and in journals as well as oral advice to a
friend, a family member or anyone).
All dairy cows on the planet are to be
treated with Monsanto's genetically engineered, recombinant bovine
growth hormone (rBGH).
All animals used for food are to be
treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.
Use of growth hormones and antibiotics
will be mandatory on all livestock, birds and aquacultured species
meant for human consumption.
The worldwide introduction of unlabelled
and deadly GMOs into crops, animals, fish and plants will be
These are big claims indeed.
They are also deeply worrying for anyone who
cares about managing his or her health naturally, be it by consuming copious
quantities of wholesome, organic whole foods or taking lashings of
supplementary vitamins, minerals and herbs - or both. The problem is that
these claims are not all true.
Some are actually quite far off the mark, yet
most contain elements of truth.
How do governments
make their decisions over how to control the world’s food supply?
Codex is comprised of over 40 committees, task forces and expert groups
which deal with nearly every facet of food production.
Codex’s remit covers almost all areas of the
food supply, ranging from cereals, cocoa, dairy, meat, meat hygiene, sugars
and fresh fruit and vegetables to more controversial issues such as food
labeling, food additives, contaminants in food, pesticide residues and
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Committee meetings are hosted by particular national governments and held
either in the host country or another part of the world.
For example, the host government for the Codex
Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) is Canada, whilst that for the Codex
Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU),
which deals, among other things, with food supplements, infant and formulae,
29th Session of
the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special
(CCNFSDU) 2007, Germany
All Codex country members are permitted to attend each annual meeting or
‘session’ and the meeting is facilitated and closely managed by the
Committee’s chair and secretariat that sits at the top table facing the
Behind the country delegates, which typically comprise between three and
five members, are the international, non-governmental organizations (INGOs).
Depending on the meeting, these might include
large consumer groups such as Consumers International, but they tend to be
dominated by industry interests. That tends to mean the various
international associations representing the food, pharmaceutical and
Decision-making in committee meetings is by so-called consensus among
INGOs are not allowed to vote, but they can
certainly interject during meetings and therefore have the potential to
Observations about the
Codex Alimentarius does not represent any law.
It is however, the guidelines, standards and
recommendations instigated by the inter-governmental organization of Codex
that has such broad ramifications on how the global food trade and food
safety considerations are managed.
Government delegations that sit in the committees and task forces of Codex
are not democratically elected representatives; they are bureaucrats.
the over-riding changes we have witnessed in recent years is the increasing
influence of bureaucrats in rule making, for example, even the USA, which
prides itself as a true democracy, has seen massive growth in the influence
of federal agencies as compared with democratically elected Congress.
Jonathan Emord, in his book
of Tyranny, estimates that as much as 75% of all laws in the USA are now
created by agencies, completely bypassing the democratic process.
While the bureaucrats in the country delegations of Codex are theoretically
responsive to concerns of stakeholders and members of the public, often
engaging with them via consultations, the practical reality is that the
primary steer comes from major cooperations.
Small businesses and individuals may even make
representations in consultations to governments, but by and large their
views are ignored. Decision-making at Codex occurs by consensus, each
country carrying a single vote. This process is complicated by the fact that
countries may assemble as trading blocks, given changes to Codex procedural
rules in 2003.
The European Union now acts as a trading block
where a single unelected European Commission official typically represents
Government representatives of the EU’s 27 Member States, alongside those
Member States present .
Government delegations and the committee secretariat may be influenced by
international non-governmental organizations (INGO’s) who participate in the
Codex process where official observer status has been granted.
While INGO’s purportedly reflect all interest
relevant to a given committees activities (e.g. GMO’s, food additives,
pesticide residues, food hygiene, etc.), the reality is that INGO influence
is disproportionately in favor of trade associations representing the
largest trans-national cooperations in the food sector.
While excited debates during the course of Codex
meetings may often occur between various INGO’s, governments and the
Secretariat, it seems much of this is for show as a demonstration of Codex’s
The reality is somewhat more stark; in most
situations, the primary decisions have already been made prior to the
meeting and INGO’s voicing a contrary opinion will effectively find that its
views have little or no traction.
Another interesting observation that can be drawn from Codex meetings is the
extent of the influence of certain country delegations, and the lack of
influence of others.
For example, the case for the Codex Committee on
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) appears to be
disproportionately influenced by the US, EU and Canadian government
delegations with the German-controlled Secretariat chaired by Dr Rolf
Grossklaus exerting the primary influence.
In these meetings, it is clear that these
Government delegations have conferred deeply during the months preceding the
annual CCNFSDU meeting, aided by particular trade associations in order to
resolve decisions in their respective favors.
What issues does Codex
exert influence over?
There is no doubt that Codex develops the prime system of guidance for the
global food supply.
Whether we’re looking at,
the amounts of
pesticide residues or particular micro-organisms that are considered safe
the amount of gluten allowed in gluten-free foods
transport and storage
systems for fresh fruit and vegetables
the safety of food additives or
genetically modified (GM) crops,
...the particular Codex guideline or standard
related to the issue is viewed as the key benchmark for international trade.
One of the trends we see, given the disproportionate influence of very large
corporate concerns, is that GM foods, contaminants, additives, pesticide
residues and other synthetic chemicals that many of us regard as
intrinsically harmful, are pushed for all they’re worth, being deemed safe
at those concentrations typically used in processed foods.
On the other hand, those things we consider
intrinsically beneficial, such as vitamins and minerals, are given a very
If that weren’t enough, Codex standards for
healthy food production systems such as organic production systems, are
being increasingly degraded in order to suit the needs and interests of the
transnational corporations which are the key beneficiaries of the global
Looking through the diverse range of issues covered by Codex, it’s possible
to tease out some of the issues of greatest concern to natural health.
Important issues which
Codex affects that impact our ability to manage our health naturally
Genetically modified (GM) food
Driven by GM interests which argue
world food requirements cannot be met without global
implementation of GM
Led by USA and Canada; EU may cave
GM food plants being given the green
light on safety
Terminator’ seeds could be approved
for international trade
GM food animals are on the way
‘Dumbing-down’ of organic standards
to suit interests of large food producers
Promotion of large-scale, high-input
agriculture and international freight
Approval of various synthetic
chemical additives and ‘processing aids’ in organic foods
No outright ban on use of
Labeling allows use of hidden,
Approval as safe around 300
different food additives (mainly synthetic) including
aspartame, BHA, BHT, potassium bromate, tartrazine, etc.
No consideration given to potential
risks associated with long-term exposure to mixtures of
Allows significant residues of over
3,275 different pesticides, including those that are suspected
carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, e.g. 2,4-D, atrazine,
No account taken of long-term
effects of exposure to mixtures of residues in food
Setting very low maximum daily doses
for supplements using scientifically flawed risk assessment
international borderline between foods and drugs for nutrients,
forcing therapeutic nutrients into drug category
Requirement for clinical trials to
substantiate health claims; too expensive for small companies.
Therefore provides passport system for big corporations and acts
as obstacle to freedom of speech for smaller ones
Setting of unnecessarily low
Nutrient Reference Values which seriously understate
requirements for long-term optimum health for given
sub-populations, age groups and genders
Is Codex voluntary?
Because many of the issues take years to reach resolution, needing to work
their way through the long-drawn-out, iterative, eight-step consensus-based
decision-making process detailed in the Codex Procedural Manual, sharp time
lines are rarely known until an issue in the very late stages of
Moreover, the impact of any standard or
guideline is not immediate, as its impact is normally only really noticed by
consumers or producers once national laws have been harmonized with Codex.
But when citizens express their concerns about Codex to their governments,
the common response is along the lines of:
“Don’t worry, Codex is a voluntary system of
guidelines and standards that is not mandatory. Codex doesn’t represent
The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has made
its views on this clear for several years, particularly given that most
American concerns about Codex have centered around its impact on the US’s
fertile, dietary supplements industry.
While the FDA attempts to downgrade the significance of Codex in the
creation of laws on foods and related substances, such as dietary (food)
supplements, the FDA is somewhat economical with the truth.
It rightly pinpoints Article 3 of the Sanitary
and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) as
being of significance, but in my view, wrongly dismisses its crucial
Dr Rolf Grossklaus,
Chair of the Codex Committee
on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
We had a link to the video which was in
turn being streamed
through a link on the www.ccnfsdu.de
but unfortunately, shortly after we linked to this, the
link was taken down.
We are aware of a number of people who have
successfully obtained a copy
of the video direct from the CCNFSDU
after emailing firstname.lastname@example.org.
Mexico, where the laws have historically been lax enough to allow a thriving
natural and integrated cancer treatment industry to flourish, is now being
forced to clamp down on its own laws.
The Trilateral Co-operation Charter, signed by,
...is increasingly becoming the mechanism to
tighten the screws in all three countries.
If the North American Free Trade Agreement proceeds, this will likely ensure
that policies affecting natural health (including GM, food additives,
pesticide residues and all the other things that Codex deals with) will be
aligned to the existing European system.
It's almost certainly why we see a transition
away from Europe's traditional anti-GM stance towards a pro-GM stance -
massively opposed by the European public - because that's the way the US and
Canada want it to be.
Once these various trading blocs are aligned, smaller nations will be forced
increasingly to dance to the tune of Codex.
Damage caused by the
global food trade
We’ve established so far that the Codex Alimentarius Commission is the
prevailing mechanism that dictates the rules governing the global trade of
We’ve also established that the WTO is the
‘policeman’ that ensures these rules are abided by. The question we need to
ask ourselves is whether these rules are good for us, the people, and
whether they are good for the environment.
The ANH position is that the development of the
global food trade in the last 30 years is neither good for our health, nor
is it good for the environment.
The system has few winners - the main ones being the transnational
corporations being directly involved in the global production and trade of
food and the pharmaceutical industry that profits from the increasing
chronic disease burden that results.
One of the key characteristics of the contemporary global food trade is its
simplicity and lack of diversity.
The nutritional content and quality of
foods is a low priority. Food hygiene as a means of controlling pathogens
that cause food borne illness (a very real and persistent threat to health)
is a key priority but methods for managing such pathogens, such as the use
of irradiation or large quantities of preservatives, deplete the integrity
and quality of the food.
The increasing use of GMO’s, which are endorsed
by Codex, is a huge problem both in terms of the effects on human health,
and the environment.
We uphold that the increasing control of our food supply by a small number
of governments and an even smaller number of corporations is counter to the
needs and requirements of the majority of the population of the world.
A considerable and growing body of work points
to the fact that environmental and health sustainability requires the
efficient functioning of local and community based food production and
healthcare systems that are optimally adapted to the local requirements.
Such systems demand increasing decentralization rather than increasing
They demand community and individual engagement
rather than community and individual disempowerment.
When the UN looked to 400 scientists from 60 countries to offer views on
viable approaches to solving the challenge of food security and world hunger
as part of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development (IAASDT) project, the general
thrust argued against biotechnology as a solution.
In fact, the report stressed that making
subsistence farmers dependent on GM seeds produced by just a handful of
companies was completely counter to the food security requirements of these
It stressed that sustainable and community based
farming were central to a solution and of course Codex Alimentarius
currently works in a completely opposite direction.
Why are countries
forced to dance to the Codex tango?
While countries like the USA are vocalizing that they have no intention of
harmonizing their national laws with Codex guidelines, they admit they will
have to comply for exports in order to avoid falling foul of the global
But these claims are both deceptive and hollow;
they fail to take on board the full implications of the double-edged sword
that is Codex, dealing on one hand with the facilitation of global trade
and, on the other, the restriction of trade, supposedly on the basis of
As we’ve seen, the whole purpose of Codex Alimentarius is to instigate a
system of guidelines to which countries can adapt their laws to facilitate
so-called fair trading practices in relation to food.
That means removing barriers to trade. And since
the WTO arbitrates on such matters, let’s examine the WTO’s SPS Agreement.
The Agreement, under Article 3, specifically requires that countries
harmonize their sanitary and phytosanitary measures with international
guidelines, standards or recommendations. This article specifically uses the
verb shall rather than should. The Agreement clearly states that for matters
concerning food safety, those guidelines, standards or recommendations
established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission are the ones relevant for
Since the Agreement quite centrally deals with
the issue of consumer protection, it follows that countries are mandated to
harmonize their national laws to Codex. In actual fact, countries can be
even more restrictive than Codex, under the terms of Article 3, although
such restriction needs to be scientifically justified.
Should there be a dispute over the effect of a country’s laws restricting
trade or not adequately protecting consumers, the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body (WTODSB) can be summoned to arbitrate.
This of course is something that powerful
nations can entertain, while for smaller, developing countries, dependent on
food trade, getting sucked into a trade dispute is likely only to end in
A good example of the consequences of a trade dispute managed through the
WTODSB is the long-running case of the EU ban on imports of beef treated
with artificial growth hormones in the US and Canada. The dispute costs the
EU over $116 million annually in sanctions paid to the US, with another $11m
paid to Canada, and has now run for over 10 years with still no resolution
Compliance is the only real option unless your pockets are as deep as those
of a powerful trading bloc, such as the EU.
The Bottom Line
29th Session of the Codex Committee
on Nutrition and Foods for Special
Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU),
Bad Neuenahr, Germany,
Given that Codex does not create laws but merely delivers guidelines,
standards and recommendations, its outputs are characterized as innocuous by
many governments and corporations that benefit from them.
The reality is that most countries find they
have no option but to harmonize their laws to Codex as they are unable to
face the sanctions imposed on them by the WTODSB, the ultimate enforcer of
Codex’s rules governing the global food trade.
When it comes to us either being poisoned by pollutants or chemicals in our
food, or having our fundamental rights and freedoms restricted by losing
access to wholesome, natural foods and nutrients, it is of course not Codex
itself that provides the legal instrument that impacts us; it is the
national and regional laws of countries.
This distancing of Codex from the law seems to
allow Codex to escape direct culpability - but of course also makes its
operation so insidious.
As the global food trade continues to expand and regional and local food
production comes under increasing pressure from the biggest agricultural and
food producers in the world, Codex continues its work.
In some cases, Codex guidelines and standards
are built on existing legal templates, such as in the case of the Codex
Guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, which is modeled closely
on the EU Food Supplements Directive. Codex then allows this model to be
In other cases, such as with GM foods, where the
US legal model - which presumes GM foods are substantially equivalent to
conventional foods and therefore intrinsically safe - is increasingly acting
as the international model relevant to biotechnology products.
Although we can all engage with our governments to try to show them the
short-sightedness of so much that they engage with within the committee
rooms of Codex, probably our most powerful weapon is our ability to choose
what we eat. While many of us are still able to exercise freedom of choice,
one of the most effective actions we can take is to be selective in our
choice of foods.
We should, for example, support those food production systems that
contribute positively to our health, while rejecting those that don’t. We
also have to ensure those around us - and especially our children -
understand the importance of consumer power.
Combine this with targeted lobbying of
governments and elected representatives and we could see fundamental change
to our food supply, a change that has the ability to facilitate our return
to the foods to which our genes have adapted over millennia.
Ironically, when it comes to Codex assessments of the safety of nutrients,
they do take into account the nutrients consumed in the diet and substract
these from the lowest amounts they consider safe using multiple safety
factors and selective, worse-case scientific data.
The end result? Codex-compliant food supplements
containing diddly squat of life-saving micronutrients.
Dr Bruce Ames, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Scientist at Children's
Hospital Oakland Research Institute (CHORI), is one of many scientists who
have long argued, on the basis of ample scientific evidence, that
micronutrient deficiencies, associated with modern western diets, are one of
the most important factors in the epidemic of chronic diseases.
These diseases include the ‘Big 5’:
...which now contribute to the greatest burden
on our healthcare systems.
Codex, and regulatory regimes based on it,
undoubtedly present one of the greatest threats to any healthcare system
which seeks to deal with the fundamental causes of disease by addressing
Are you willing to let governments and corporations control what you put
into your body? Or will you play your part in helping to reverse the trend
towards the global control of our food supply and the dumbing down of
natural medicines based on faulty, manipulated science.
Thomas Jefferson’s words must be allowed to ring
loudly in our heads as we effect these changes that are urgently needed to
prevent any further distancing between humans and our natural heritage.
We must protect not only our lifeblood but that
of future generations.
What can you do to
The short answer is that it’s extremely difficult to influence Codex.
It's even harder if you're in Europe, as
European Member States don't just act individually, they are also 'spoken
for' by the European Commission which acts on behalf of the EU trading bloc.
So even if you get the ear of the bureaucrats within your Member State
delegation, this delegation is just one of 27 in the EU that is largely
represented by a single European Commission bureaucrat.
This is one of the reasons that it’s so
important for concerned individuals in the EU to have an aligned view on
what the problems are so that maximum influence in relation to the same key
issues can be applied both to Member States Governments and the European
We would go one step further and argue that the difficulty in influencing
Codex is likely to be the result of deliberately engineered decision-making
process that prevents or at least greatly complicates individuals’ capacity
to exert their democratic right.
One of the key requisites in having influence is to ensure that complaints
about Codex are both accurate, and can be substantiated.
There are many examples to show that
misinformation on Codex has acted as a smoke screen to conceal genuine
complaints, and this enables politicians and bureaucrats to have a reason to
reject people's concerns.
Too often, we’ve had feedback from members of
the public telling us that when they have approached their elective
representative with their concerns they've been told that their facts are
wrong and that they have misunderstood the problems so there is nothing that
can, or need, be done.
Bearing this in mind we have the following advice:
Inform yourself about Codex using
reliable sources such us documentation available from the official
Codex website and our own site. Inaccurate information or
disinformation can be more damaging to the cause than no information
Focus on the following issues
Codex’s support for the global
trade of simplified, nutritionally-inadequate,
chemically-contaminated and increasingly
Codex’s lack of support or
interest in community-based farming and food supply
infrastructures which are known to offer high quality foods
better adapted to local environments
The increasing ‘dumbing down’ of
organic agricultural principles making them less
environmentally sustainable while making them more amenable
to large agri-businesses
Codex's lack of interest in the
agricultural self-sufficiency of poorer countries
Codex’s support for hazardous
food technologies such as GMO’s, chemical additives,
pesticides and irradiation
Codex’s desire to limit
beneficial and therapeutic nutrients delivered as
The acceptance of risk analysis
principles that are fundamentally defective scientifically
when it comes to the consideration of nutrients, and foods
with health benefits
Codex’s attempt to harmonize
health claims using excessively onerous criteria to support
claims which flies in the face of approaches that support
the education of consumers in the field of healthy eating
and nutritional supplementation
Pressure from World Trade
Organization (WTO) for countries to harmonies to Codex
recommendations, guidelines or standards, or face sanctions
which might be sufficient to cripple the economy of smaller
Communicate these concerns (above) to as
many of your contacts as possible both within, and outside your
Write to and/or meet with your elected
representative and ensure s/he works on your behalf to influence
Where possible work to influence
representatives from the Codex delegation, their names and addresses
being publicly available in the annual reports of individual Codex
Work to influence national laws such as
those on GMO’s, food additives, food safety, pesticide residues,
organic farming, food supplements and health claims that are likely
to influence the development of Codex guidelines and standards.
In essence, some of the most influential laws
are derived form the EU, the USA and Canada.
This is therefore a call to citizens and food
producers and suppliers from these three countries to engage with the law
making system to the maximum possible extent in the genuine interest of
Key action steps
In addition to the actions of the individual (above), actions on Codex can
be divided into three main groups:
make sure you make your views about
national laws and Codex known to your governments and elected
representatives (see above).
how you spend your money is one of the
most powerful ways of bringing change. Do not buy or eat processed
foods, GM foods, or foods containing food additives wherever
possible. Try to buy or cultivate organic foods or foods to which
pesticides have not been applied. Support local and community based
food production systems. Minimize the purchase of imported foods.
make others aware of the risks posed to
our food supply by the global food trade and its control through
Codex. Stay informed and use only reliable resources providing
accurate information. Help your friends, relatives and other
contacts to appreciate the risks of processed, GM and unnatural
foods. Stress the importance of chemical-free, locally or regionally
produced, whole foods in the diet. Get them to be active both
politically and as consumers.
Recent meetings of the
Codex Committee on Nutrition
For information about the 31st
Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special
Dietary Uses - CCNFSDU, to be held on 2-6 November 2009 in
Dusseldorf, Germany, click
For a report of the 30th Session of the
Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses -
CCNFSDU, held on 3-7 November 2008 in South Africa,
For releases following 29th Session of
the Codex Committee on Nutrition & Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU),
Bad Neuenahr, Germany, November 2007.
Opening release. Closing
For an ANH Codex exclusive on the lead
up to the 28th Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition & Foods
for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), Chiang Mai, Thailand, November
For release following 27th Session
of the Codex Committee on Nutrition & Foods for Special Dietary Uses
(CCNFSDU), Bonn, Germany, November 2005, click
Codex Committee on Nutrition
- official information
of the Codex Committee on
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
(CCNFSDU) 2003, Germany
Inform yourself! Find out what the Codex Committee on Nutrition & Foods for
Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) says about itself:
For the official CCNFSDU website, click
For images of previous sessions, click
If you want to find out what the
official line on the Codex Committee on Nutrition & Foods for
Special Dietary Uses is, you may be lucky enough to get yourself a
copy of the official video about the CCNFSDU's activities produced
by the German government and screened at the 2006 Committee meeting
in Chiang Mai, Thailand.
We had a link to the video which was in
turn being streamed through a link on the www.ccnfsdu.de
website, but unfortunately, shortly after we linked to this, the
link was taken down. We are aware of a number of people who have
successfully obtained a copy of the video direct from the CCNFSDU
after emailing email@example.com.
The video includes an interview with Dr
Rolf Grossklaus, who heads up the Committee.