International Lifestyle Magazine Issue 51 | Page 115

Currently, it acts as a body
of
experts
who
make
recommendations to the 185
governments who are members
of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission. Although Codex
recommendations are not,
strictly speaking, legally binding
– and are described as voluntary
by governments and regulatory
bodies, such as the USA’s
Food & Drug Administration
(FDA), when questioned – the
reality is somewhat different.
For one thing, the bodies with
the most influence at Codex
are countries involved in the
greatest volume of international
trade in food – plus ‘key
stakeholders’ represented by
agri-business and biotech trade
associations. Those with little
clout include local, communitybased growers, food producers
and suppliers. So essentially,
Codex dictates European,
American and Canadian law
relating to the international
trade of food, bypassing the
democratic process; there are
no elected representatives of
the people involved in these
decisions, since bureaucrats do
all the work.
Since 2002, many new EU
regulations
have
been
coming into effect, with the
stated intention to protect
the consumer. Unfortunately,
their end result is to support
the continued growth of the
big industries, while largely
neglecting to pay attention
to what may serve consumers
or small businesses. The entire
holistic health industry has
been affected by these laws:
homeopaths,
reflexologists,
herbalists, naturopaths, health
food manufacturers...in fact,
anyone
whose
profession
involves people taking part
in their own responsibility for
their health, and healing by
working with natural methods,
has found that in recent years
it has become harder to share

products and inform customers
and clients of the benefits of
both products and procedures.

How Does It Affect Us?
The
Food
Supplements
Directive became law in 2002.
Under the FSD, the European
Commission is obliged to create
EU-harmonised maximum (and
minimum) permitted levels
(MPLs) of vitamins and minerals
allowed in food supplements.
Although the Commission has
not released its proposed MPLs
as yet, early signs are that the
methods it is using to assess the
potential risk of consumption
of vitamins and minerals in
food supplements will make
supplement doses so low as
to become meaningless. The
MPL for beta-carotene, for
example, may be equivalent
to eating a carrot, and the
MPL for selenium may be the
equivalent to eating a couple
of Brazil nuts. Current high
dosage vitamin D supplements
start at 1000 IU/day, and some
practitioners recommend as
much as 6000 IU/day for those
with vitamin D deficiency; the
new MPL may be just 20 IU.
You might remember the
outcry around the Traditional
Herbal Medicinal Products
Directive which came into
full force across the EU in April
2011. Despite all the protests,
the THMPD as enacted places
heavy restrictions on the sale
of herbal medicines, which
must now be approved and
given a ‘Traditional Herbal
Registration’ number by the
MHRA before they can be sold
in shops. There are currently
only 114 herbs approved as the
basis for THR herbal medicines
in the UK, and 134 across the
entire EU. Although this number
includes some of the most
popular Western herbs, such as
Echinacea and peppermint,
it excludes the vast majority of

Chinese, Ayurvedic and South
American herbs.
To put this in context, traditional
Chinese medicine (TCM) alone
uses over 3,000 herbs. One of
the reasons for the low uptake
of registrations is that it costs
over £100,000 to get a product
registered, which is prohibitive
to small companies; the
average cost for certifying and
registering a TCM consisting of
5 herbs is about £444,800. In
contrast, the pharmaceutical
industry is consistently one of
the most profitable industries in
the world – indeed, until 2003, it
was THE most profitable industry.
The US pharmaceutical industry
spent $855 million, more than
any other industry, on lobbying
activities from 1998 to 2006.
Next, we have the Nutrition
& Health Claims Regulation,
which was passed in the EU
with little fanfare in Dec 2012. In
effect, the NHCR ensures that
manufacturers cannot make
unauthorised claims about the
nutritional benefits or health
benefits of foods. The only
permissible health claims are
those that have been approved
by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) and published
on the EU Register of health
claims. Less than 250 health
claims are currently approved,
for just over 70 nutrients, so the list
of authorised claims is limited to
say the least. Non-specific claims
like ‘oily fish is good for you’,
‘antioxidant’, ‘probiotic’ and
‘superfood’ are banned. Go
into a health food store and look
at the products on the shelves
and notice how nondescript
the labels are. If a product does
carry any information beyond
that contained on the highly
restricted approved health
claims list, it’s because the
authorities haven’t caught up
with the manufacturers yet –
the law is less than a year old,
and it takes a very long time to
enforce it with each individual
company.

www.internationallifestylemagazine.com