[article of interest]

Codex Draft Vitamin and Mineral Guidelines:
An Affront to Personal Freedoms

By Diane Miller JD, Legal and Public Policy Director, NHFA and FOFI

Codex alerts are flying across the web. The main media is silent. On top of that, the web Codex alerts have been infiltrated with dis-information campaigns and wrong information. Now consumers are crying for help to sort it all. Where is the truth?

If I only had two minutes to tell you about Codex I would say this:

The United Nations body setting food trade standards for trade between international countries, (known as Codex), has decided among their many projects, to set guidelines for trading Vitamins and Minerals. In addition to including sanitary measures, purity, and truth in labeling, the Codex body has decided that the dosage level of Vitamins and Minerals poses a risk of harm to the public so they took it upon themselves to claim jurisdiction over "dosage' and are trying to pass a guideline that mandates upper limits of vitamins and minerals before they can be shipped across country lines. On top of that the Codex body itself are going to decide what the upper limits are by setting up a Codex "risk assessment' protocol.

From a freedom perspective, the pending passage of these guidelines is not just about Vitamins and Minerals. The essential danger is that a global international body (in this case Codex) is attempting to claim jurisdiction over natural resources in a situation where there is no basis for such jurisdiction. Claiming jurisdiction over an issue and area where products are generally regarded as safe and there is no basis of harm to justify regulation or police power is a precedent that will have a ripple affect in to every area of our world. Government jurisdiction over issues that have no basis for jurisdiction and that would result in the loss of personal freedoms should be scrutinized and struck down at all times in order to protect personal freedoms and national sovereignty.

On July 4-9th, 2005, the full Codex Alimentarius Commission will meet. The Codex Committee working on the guidelines (they have worked for six years with three preliminary approvals) is requesting they be adopted. The United States delegates, employees of FDA and USDA, will be supporting the guidelines. The European Union also plans to support them. On the last preliminary approval one year ago at the full Commission meeting in Geneva Switzerland, the guidelines passed with very limited comments from any international country. All of these regulators from all of these countries are supporting this process. Why? Because they are thinking trade. All of their contacts are interests in trade. They are blatantly not vigilant about properly scrutinizing regulations so as to regulate in the least restrictive manner in order to protect personal freedoms. In addition, they do not agree with a presumption of food safety as outlined in our United States Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act because then they would not be able to have jurisdiction over such things as dosage. They prefer to have the power to regulate!

By regulating dosage and abiding by Codex laws, countries such as the US will possibly be able to force their exports into other countries as long as they are abiding by Codex guidelines. How will this be enforced? If you are a member country of the WTO you will be required to use the international standards for trade that WTO recommends, which is Codex. If you are abiding by the guidelines you will be able to continue trade (most likely no matter if the importing country has a domestic law that does not want you in their country). If you do not abide by these standards, you could be challenged by another country under the WTO dispute resolution body and acquire sanctions.

The Codex guidelines are designed for international trade and are not designed to dictate what laws are within an individual country borders. But the WTO is not Codex. The WTO is a very different body and the WTO has a goal to harmonize all of trade. The WTO encourages the use of international standards whenever possible. The WTO frowns upon local laws that may have been set up just to discourage trade and they call them "technical barrier to trade'.

The United States has adopted the WTO agreements into United States law. However on the issue of harmonization we have a special exemption in the promotion of harmonization area of law which says that we are not mandated to harmonize our Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act to international standards. Some are counting on this section of US law to protect DSHEA. Others believe that it is only a matter of time before regional agreements such as CAFTA will force us to use Codex guidelines and to adopt Codex guidelines into our domestic law.

The bottom line is that ………just because an international body has claimed jurisdiction over an area that they have no right to have jurisdiction over, the people of the earth will be blocked from accessing those natural substances that help them be well and survive. If we allow this to happen, then vitamins and minerals are only the beginning. The overly broad jurisdiction will proliferate. This is a test run.

We need to teach freedom and hold the line on freedom in the international trade arena or we will lose the remaining freedoms we have to trade and corporate interests.

Steps to take:

1. Find heads of states in other countries to stand up and oppose the guidelines in Italy.

2. Ask your US Senator or Congressman to go to Italy as part of the US Codex official delegation to watchdog the FDA and make them oppose the guidelines and represent US law and DSHEA.

3. Spread the word about Codex locally, nationally, and internationally.

4. Teach freedom and support health freedom efforts in your local communities.

I invite you to read about Codex on our website which includes numerous articles and power point presentations and links to other important sites. This will help you to know the differences between Codex which is being presented for adoption in Italy in July 2005, the European Union Food Supplements Directive that is being challenged and that may go into effect in Europe August 2005, and other freedom initiatives.

UNDERSTANDING CODEX ALIMENTARIUS, ITS IMPACT ON HEALTH FREEDOM

(A SUMMARY OF A FULL TEXT PAPER - by Diane M. Miller JD, Legal and Public Policy Director)


Why are Americans concerned about global CODEX standards?

US citizens want to protect their access to all health care products including dietary supplements. They have heard that their access is being impacted by national and international commerce and trade laws. The question to many Americans is whether global trade standards such as CODEX, or world and regional trade agreements such as WTO and FTAA, are putting these freedoms at risk. Given the breadth and complexity of global and regional trade agreements and the presence of corporate entities that are unlimited in their wealth, power, and ability to be at every negotiating table, Americans are wondering whether they need to take action to protect their freedom and independent choices. The following will provide background to guide Americans as they make plans to take actions in this area of health freedom.

What is CODEX?

CODEX is a group of 170 country member nations that voluntarily set up international safety standards and rules about the trading of food products (which they have decided includes food supplements like Vitamins and Minerals). CODEX originated in 1911 with no legal force as a collection of standards and product descriptions for a wide variety of foods and used as a reference to determine standards of identity for specific foods. In 1963 the World Health Assembly of WHO (of the United Nations) approved the establishment of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme and adopted CODEX. FAO is governed by 188 member countries and WHO has 192 countries.

What is the World Trade Organization (WTO)?

WTO is the organization that implements the major global trading agreements. The main agreements are on the trading of goods (GATT 1947 and GATT 1994), on the trading of services ( GATS), and on the introduction of intellectual property (TRIPS). The WTO is made up of 146 countries, many of whom are also members of the Codex Commission.

How are CODEX and WTO enforced?

CODEX has always been a voluntary standard setting forum not related to WTO and with no enforcement component. WTO is not like Codex, but rather it includes an enforcement component, requiring member countries to abide by the trade agreements and to cooperate with its Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.

How does WTO Impact CODEX?

Recently, the voluntary nature of CODEX standards has been impacted by the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The link was made when WTO referred to Codex as the international standard to be used by WTO members for trading goods. What this potentially could mean is that the WTO makes CODEX standards virtually mandatory for member countries of the WTO in some circumstances. And the enforcement arm of WTO would enforce those measures.

Special Note: Although the WTO mentions CODEX specifically, I believe that an in depth analysis of all of the documents of the WTO in their entirety is needed to explore the possibility of whether there may be a substantive argument, asserting that the CODEX standard should not be exclusively applicable and that other standard with proper assessment may be used by traders. To my knowledge there has not been an opinion rendered on this specific question.

What Parts of WTO are especially important to health freedom?

WTO is very large and is made up of many special agreements, three of which are especially important to health freedom. They are: The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement (SPS); The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT); and The Understanding of Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).

How does the WTO-SPS agreement Impact CODEX?

The language of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) agreement has potential for impacting health care products trade for many reasons including: It's very broad definition of "sanitary and phytosanitary measures' which notably includes methods of risk assessment; its definition of "harmonization' which includes the establishment of common measures; it's reference directly to CODEX in its' International Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations; and it's definition of "risk assessments' which includes evaluations according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures....<edited for space>

CONCLUSION
Principles of freedom of access to health care options are being impacted by the actual policies and laws being developed globally. A main theme negatively impacting health freedom is the fact that governments and organizations claim jurisdiction and develop enforcement mechanisms over almost all health products sometimes resulting in the potential ban on trade of many products that consumers deem to be helpful health care options. The claiming of jurisdiction over all products often proceeds without scrutinizing whether any government or international organization has the right to have jurisdiction over all products, especially since many products do not create an imminent and discernible risk of significant harm to the public even when unregulated.

The establishing of global enforcement mechanisms is equally onerous because concepts of due process, which Americans hold so dear to the rule of law, are not part of enforcement bodies, even though the enforcement bodies have the power to levy sanctions that can drastically affect the economy of a nation. Even when jurisdiction is created, the agreements being set up do not reflect the level of freedom and liberty that Americans are accustomed to. The concept that individuals have fundamental rights to make their own health care choices is not looked upon as taking precedent over developing trade regulations that may prohibit some health options individuals want. Individual rights to have due process are not being considered as key elements in the establishment of a global dispute settlement panel with members from multiple countries. Commerce seems to be taking precedence over human rights.

American value a limited government that honors fundamental rights and liberties and Americans value their access to a full range of health care options and products. These values are not automatically part of a global agenda and this is cause for grave concern It is extremely important that Americans get involved in learning about these issues and working to impact international conversations on behalf of their health freedoms