You appear to be veeryknowledgable in the medical field and I truly respect your opinion. Could you please explain Codex to me? Thanks.
(I ought to be forward and say I am not a doctor or any other type of medical professional, but I have spent a long time reading studies and secondary literature, and pestering my MD/PhD/pharmacist friends and acquaintances to explain things my general science courses didn't cover. I do have a number of herbalist and alternative medicine practitioner friends who provide me with contrasting views, and I try to go for the most "objective" perspective possible.)
My first rule when delving into these kinds of things -- like understanding a legislative proposal or medical treatment -- is to go to the source texts. It's dangerous to rely solely on someone else's interpretation, because the Internet is an echo chamber that tends to pass along the most extreme viewpoints, however misinformed.
Codex is short for Codex Alimentarius. (Codex is just regulatory-speak for a book of rules. The FDA has lots of codices.)
It's a series of international guidelines, and as with a lot of large organizational efforts, it is subjected to a
lot of conspiracy theories.
It relates almost entirely to
food standards -- it's really a set of best practices and standards around labeling, handling, hygiene and safety, as well as guidelines about limits on surface contaminants (pesticides, etc.) that can remain on a product.
Codex
does not impose regulation or override in-country laws; it's mostly meant to set the rules/standards for international trade disputes.
(It doesn't have
anything to do with medicines or clinical trials.)
This kind of
standardization is a good thing, i.e. that you can count on "Gluten Free" meaning the same thing when it's imported from another country, and that disputes can be brought if one country starts loosening their idea of "Gluten Free" (or whatever) while still claiming it on the label.
It also has to do, in the world of dietary supplements, with the ensurance that what is on the label is the same as what's in the bottle. (Which, obviously, would be a nice thing.*) This is where much of the fear-mongering comes from.
But, while countries may use the Codex standards to guide the setting of limits on supplements (prohibiting toxic-level doses of a vitamin or mineral, for instance, or having label requirements) it is not going to impose any kind of worldwide "law".
Harmonization of standards, which is what Codex Alimentarius is all about, is a positive thing -- it means that the bureaucrats from one country know what the bureaucrats from another country are talking about. It gives a reference point for "good hygienic practices" for instance.
Given that so much of the food supply crosses borders these days (apple juice from China, grapes from Chile, etc.), having these published standards is pretty important if you think about it. I'd rather not allow one country to sell us contaminated food processed in filty old facilities for cheap, while domestic producers in the US have to follow FDA/USDA guidelines at higher cost.
Wikipedia gives an
overview of Codex, and the official website
has the standards, which are so dull your eyes will bleed.
(This is one reason why people read the most scary interpretations of Codex. Source texts are always so much more boring.)
*The 1994 DSHEA, as I alluded, only imposed basic labeling requirements (that are not actually enforced), and are subject to hygienic preparation standards that are (on paper) weaker than the regulations on prison food and animal feedstock.
(In contrast, with facilities manufacturing prescription drugs, the FDA must inspect facilities every four weeks for compliance, and overseas production sites every eight weeks (if I remember right).)
As relates to the OP:
The 2010 act that is the original subject of this post, if you read the
text of the bill, gives recall authority to the FDA on any over-the-counter supplements that have been associated with
serious adverse events or deaths, and puts some restrictions on
new supplement compounds to prove their safety. (Um, doesn't that make sense? That we don't become guinea pigs?)
This means vitamins and minerals will be completely untouched, unless a particular producer has been found to sell unsafe products
.
If someone sees anything more threatening than that in the text of the bill, please point it out to me. I don't see it.
I have been taking vitamins for most of my life and have researched their benefits and attended classes and seminars. This is outragous.8-o
