“It’s not what you don’t know that kills you, it’s what you know for sure that ain’t true.” How many of us have heard this truism by Mark Twain many a time and nodded our heads in agreement? Well, it certainly applies to business.
Sunset pinked the German sky as the Codex delegates sat at their conference-room tables, a long first day already behind them, still debating health standards that will affect billions worldwide. Naturally a day filled with such debates—especially over technical language for draft guidelines for vitamin-and-mineral Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) as well as draft Principles about adding essential nutrients to foods—would trick the delegates’ sense of time as they crawled through reams of documents, making a long day seem even longer. At such times, natural health is a frequent casualty because overall vision is sacrificed on the altar of hyper-technicality. But not this time. Instead, this first day of the 35th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) saw health granted a reprieve, however provisional, as the executioners stayed their hands for reasons unknown.
It always happens this way. First, like an artillery barrage, comes the media attack. Then, after the enemy has been softened up, comes the main assault: the legislation. Those who would prefer that you and I suffer from ill-health and be forever chained to their miserable, drug-happy, disease-care system employ this strategy repeatedly to attack their competition: alternative medicine and supplements.
The pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association (AMA) are running scared—very scared. In fact, jackrabbits have more courage right now than they do. After having created a near-monopoly in medical care that has endured 100 years since the Flexner Report came out in 1910 with its hatchet job against competitive health treatments such as homeopathy, naturopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic and herbal medicine, this drug and medical mafia has kept a jealous and vigilant watch over its monopolistic commercial privileges.
The hazy, smoggy skies over Beijing over those March days were emblematic of the Codex meetings that the National Health Federation (NHF) was attending for many days in China. The sun only shimmered as a strange, pale orange globe, casting an ethereal, almost futuristic “Bladerunner” look to the cityscape while city residents glided silently past with white face masks as we Codex delegates and staff worked inside in overheated rooms on international food-additive standards. Given what transpired, the setting seemed apt.
For anyone doing business in California, Proposition 65’s history is well-known by now both within and outside that state. In November 1986, California voters approved ballot Proposition 65 in the belief that its passage would help protect them from toxic chemicals in the environment. Officially entitled the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,” almost everyone these days simply calls it Prop 65.
The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) just finished a week-long (December 3–7) meeting in Bad Soden, a small German city near Frankfurt am Main. Nearly 300 delegates were in attendance, composed of government functionaries and international non-governmental organization (INGO) representatives. So, for one week, the assembled delegates—including the INGO delegation of the National Health Federation (NHF)—met, discussed and debated a wide number of food and food-supplement issues, including the controversial draft Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for vitamins and minerals.
We left off in Part One with this: “The facilitated session ended, as had all of the others, with no consensus on ractopamine. But, as it turned out, finding consensus on ractopamine at this meeting had never been in the game plan for the pro-ractopamine forces.”
It sounded like doom. After having taken a vote by secret ballot on July 5th, the Chairman of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Mr. Sanjay Dave, solemnly announced the results of the voting on whether or not ractopamine1 standards were adopted. Out of 143 ballots cast, the vote was 69 for ractopamine, 67 against ractopamine, with seven abstaining. If only one vote had shifted from the “for” camp to the “against” camp, then the result would have been completely different and the ractopamine standard would have been defeated.
The decision of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been officially announced as of this column’s writing, but Senate staff confirms that, on June 19th, Senators Tom Harkin and Orrin Hatch were informed in a personal meeting with FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and Deputy Commissioner Mike Taylor that a revision of the FDA’s Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues may be attempted in the future.