News

WILL CODEX ‘DUMB DOWN’ OUR SUPPLEMENTS?

By Robert Verkerk PhD, executive and scientific director, Alliance for Natural Health

27 January 2006

International debate rages on as to whether new guidelines being developed through the Codex Alimentarius Commission will one day kill-off all therapeutic supplements that many Americans have come to rely on as essential tools in the management of their health. In this missive I will describe the key characteristics of the three main platforms in the debate.

Platform 1 is the “No, Codex will never have any effect” group, which include a surprisingly large group of interests, including the big US trade associations like CRN and NNFA1. These associations include a very large portion of the US supplement industry. But what you will note if you closely follow the membership of these associations, companies making or selling many of the most effective, high dose, or practitioner-orientated products are absent. Of course in this “no” camp we must also include some of the biggest law firms that advise both the pharmaceutical and “big business” end of the US supplement industry2, as well as the US FDA itself3.

The “Yes, most definitely, Codex will cause us to lose all useful supplements and even organic foods” panel is comprised of a small group of health freedom interests, which have not always been well known for the accuracy of their facts4. If you hear doomsday scenarios which suggest that natural health is likely to be curtailed in the very near future, check these apparent facts carefully with a range of different sources. The thing is, those who work against the interests of natural health are far too clever to do things quickly. Their strategy is much more about boiling the frog slowly…lest it jump from the saucepan.

On the intermediate platform, which upholds “Codex might impact US supplements in the future under specific conditions”, comes an important group of health freedom interests. We, at the Alliance for Natural Health, include ourselves on this platform, and with us are others such as the US American Association for Health Freedom and the National Health Federation. There is no doubt that DSHEA, so hard won in 1994, has bought the US some protection from the ravages of EU and other international regulations and guidelines. But if DSHEA, as we know it, falls, possibly prompted by further trumped up charges akin to those that have discredited ephedra in the eyes of US regulators, anything goes. In fact there are plans already on the National Academy of Sciences drawing board that provide a requirement for pre-market authorisation of supplements very similar to the overly restrictive EU model – which bear more than a passing resemblance to a drugs licensing system.

Also, as globalisation takes an ever increasing grip on the global economy, it will be more and more difficult for the US to maintain a regime that is seriously out of step with the rest of the world. The World Trade Organisation specifically exists to stop such things. Remember how the Central American Free Trade Agreement won its way through the House of Representatives by just two votes last July? Now the North American Securities Act is on the table…

Codex, along with its 170 odd member countries, is considering a range of ‘risk assessment’ systems for supplements that are meant to tell us the maximum dose of supplements that are safe for consumption5. Sitting on the key Codex committee that is developing the supplement guidelines are the big trade associations that believe Codex won’t have any effect on the US market, along with the US government and the FDA itself.

The problem is that this committee is considering using some astonishingly bad science to develop overly cautious upper safe levels, which are in many cases well below those levels found at the ‘high end’ of the US supplements market. Can you really imagine the US justifying its position for high-dose supplements in a WTO dispute after it has itself endorsed Codex guidelines? And then let’s not forget the political effect of an international guideline. Imagine, to take just one example, how newspapers could manipulate consumer demand by publishing story after story focusing on the large number of US supplements sold at levels well above those considered safe by international panels of scientists and regulators - including even American ones? I rest my case.

Ultimately, you, the individual, must decide what the risks are – and act accordingly. I, for one, am very concerned, and through the Alliance for Natural Health and our many international contacts, we are doing everything within our power to help stop the ‘dumbing down’ of your supplements. For further information: www.alliance-natural-health.org.

© Copyright 2006 Robert Verkerk. All Rights Reserved.

  1. CRN website: http://www.crnusa.org/leg_CODEX_JointFAQs.html.
  2. Examples: Sidley Austin LLP and Greenberg Traurig.
  3. FDA website: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscodex.html#restrict.
  4. See Natural Solutions Foundation / Dr Laibow’s letter published by the Power Hour (and others): http://www.thepowerhour.com/news/laibow_letter.htm.
  5. See FAO/WHO nutrient risk assessment project: http://www.who.int/ipcs/highlights/nutrientraproject/en/.