CODEX NUTRIENT REFERENCE VALUES THREATEN YOUR SUPPLEMENTS - BY STEALTH

Gen. Bert, Dr. Rima at
Codex in Dusseldorf

Dr. Rima                      Codex              General Bert                                      Propaganda

Attending a Codex meeting makes me remember Edmund Burke's famous saying,  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." 

Most of the delegates attending these meetings have less than no idea what is actually going on and so, sadly, they do nothing to change the intended outcome of Codex: degredation of the world's food supply. 

Why? One reason is that the glossly, highly science-like materials and propaganda they are given by Codex (largely from the WHO, FAO, US, EU and Australia), look, to the casual observer,  pretty solid.  They are not. They are, in fact, glossed up, glossed over junk science.  You'll see a perfect example when we get to the "Nutrient Reference Value Upper Daily Intake Limits" from the Institute of Medicine in a little bit.

The second reason is that while people in the developing world may revile the political and military activities of the US,  they revere, yes, revere, the science of the US.  They do not realize that when they stand aside in breathless awe of, for example, Nutrient Reference Values produced by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) as - hold onto your hats - UPPER LIMITS for DAILY NUTRIENT INTAKE these upper limits:

1. Violate  current US law if they were to be enacted since nutrients are to be considered as foods and, as such, may have no upper limits set for them under the 1994 Dietary Supplements Health and Education (DSHEA) legislation, passed by unanimous Congressional assent.

2. Have been set to concur with the limits proposed by CCNFSDU's chair, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, retiring this year, by the way, for Maximum Permissible Upper Limits on nutrients.  These same absurd and dangerously low levels will go into effect in the European Union through its Food Supplements Directive this December 31, 2009.

These Upper Intake Limits are so low that they are incapable of even preventing nutrient deficiencies, let alone promoting health. 

Dr. Schneeman, in what looked to me like a well-scripted performance, allowed as how, although she had not thought about it before (!), since dietary supplements are foods under US law, well, yes it would seem that these Upper Limits would apply to them as well.  This is, of course, contrary to US law.  But remember that the FDA's Codex game is to ramrod things through Codex that violate US law and then come home and tell the US that we have to go along with it since Codex requires it.  If we don't they say, the WTO will sock us with horrific trade sanctions and we don't want to loose that money, do we?  That, after all, is precisely how we got fructose in the beverage supply, with its consequence of childhood obesity and diabetes.

Nutrient Reference Values are specified for labeling purposes only - at this point.  What is expected to happen is that they will first become the standard of international trade (isolating and weakening the US nutrient industry, by the way) and then the national standard of the developing world.  Once that happens, you can be sure that they will become the US standard if we do not act now to protect our high potency nutrients.

If you take a good, strong multinutrient (a good one requires 6 pills per day to get the proper level of nutrients each day!) check out these Nutrient Reference Value UPPER INTAKE LIMITS. I promise you will be shocked and appalled.

Nutrient Reference Values vitamins and minerals (NRVs)  are to be used for labeling so that consumers know what their upper limit nutrient intakes should be and what percentage of that intake they are getting in the foods they purchase, no matter where they are from.  They are intended for everyone over 36 months of age regardless of state, sex, medical condition, pregnancy, biological absorption capacities, etc.

These NRVs were proposed by South Korea: in fact, it came out in the discussion that Australia gave them to SK which had NO idea what they meant or where they came from. The US and Canada were deeply involved in that process, too.

Although they are purely for labeling right now, these upper limit values are expected to be adopted by national entities when they have reached Step 8 [final ratifiction], according to the discussion which took place on the floor of the Codex meeting.

Where the Upper Intake Limits have been changed from earlier proposed levels, the original is in parenthesis.

Technical note: Codex says "Numerical information on vitamins and minerals should be expressed in metric units and/or as a percentage of the Nutriet Reference Value per 100g or per 100 ml or per package if the package contains only a single portion.  In addition, this information may be given per serving as quantified on the lable or per lportion provided that the number of portions contained in the package is stated. This information is contained in Para 3.4.4 of the PROPOSED DRAFT ADDITIONAL REVISED NUTRIENT REFERENCE VALUES FOR LABELLING PURPOSES IN THE CODEX GUIDELINES OF NUTRITION LArevised Nutrient Reference Values for Labelling Purposes in the Codex Guidelines of Nutrietion Labelling at Step 3, Cx/NFSDU 09/31/4

My comments in red - REL
Protein (g) (50) [no new value proposed: category eliminated]
Vitamin A ug RE (800) 550 Minimum 10,000 for adults
Vitamin D (ug) 5 I personally take 10,000
Vitamin E (mg a-TE) 8.8 I take 1800 plus fish oil
Vitamin K (ug) 60 I take 1000
Vitamin C 45 I take 6,000
Thiamin (mg) (60) 45 I take 100
Riboflavin (mg) (1.6) 1.2 I take 50
Niacin (mg NE) (18) 15 I take 1000
Vitamin B6 (mg) (2) 1.3

 [ send green star]