Dietary Supplements and Codex: To Be, or Not To Be Concerned

By Martin Kidwell

Over the past several months we've heard from a number of customers expressing their concern about The Codex Alimentarius Commission's proceedings in Europe and the effect the commission's soon-to-be adopted guidelines may have on domestic access to dietary supplements. The purpose of this article is to lay out the facts as we know them and provide our readers with resources whereby they might become better informed about this impor tant and complex issue.

In 1963, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization established The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "food code") Commission to develop food standards, guidelines, and codes of practice with the purpose of "protecting (the) health of consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade." It has adopted almost 250 standards covering different aspects of the food industry to date.

In 1993, the Codex Commission first proposed Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. Over the years, representatives from various nations have worked to hammer out details in numerous meetings, and in November 2004, the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses approved the final draft guidelines that are being sent to Rome for ratification in July of this year.

What does this mean for users of dietary supplements in this country? The answer depends on whom you ask. Many health advocates and consumer leaders in the U.S. believe that with the adoption of the Codex regulations we are in real danger of losing access to dietary supplements in this country, at least in the dosages at which we are accustomed to taking them. If U.S. consumers are already protected by DSHEA (the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act), and most overseas consumers are already hyper-protected by standards that regulate supplements as drugs, then why they ask, do consumers need a web of international regulation added on to what is already regulated by individual nations and blocs of nations - e.g., the European Union (EU)? Specifically, they believe that domestic industry caved to the pressure of Germany and the EU bloc and is happy over vitamin and mineral guidelines that will be considered binding by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and may potentially lead to the FDA's eventual harmonization of its regulations to international standards that reflect the restrictive regulations of the EU.

Most representatives in the U.S. dietar y supplement industry insist such thinking is alarmist nonsense, that Codex will have absolutely no bearing on domestic regulation of dietary supplements. Their belief is that government and industry cooperated and came up with a science-based approach to the establishment of rational standards for dietary supplements, that now consumers worldwide are protected and countries can rest assured that vitamins and minerals are safely regulated in trade.

Whom to believe? While it is technically accurate to state that because the Codex guidelines are voluntary they will not change U.S. law regarding dietary supplements, it is also true that Codex signed agreements with the WTO and the WTO has the authority to resolve disputes in treaties and agreements among its members. It is conceivable that if a WTO-member nation brought a dispute against the U.S. for perceived violation of the Codex regulations and the U.S. lost in dispute-settlement court, the WTO could impose sanctions on the U.S. (it should be noted that sanctions could be imposed across a broad spectrum of industries unrelated to dietary supplements). Congress would then have to decide whether to vote to change U.S. law to conform to international standards or to accept the WTO imposed sanctions on exports.

How likely is this scenario? Our sources indicate that such concerns are speculative. However, any possibility for such a dramatic change in domestic laws regarding dietary supplements, however remote, should be reason enough to stay informed and remain vigilant. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is vigilance."

If you would like more information about Codex and the various positions both pro and con, we recommend visiting the American Holistic Health Association's website.

An excellent synopsis of the Codex issue is an article in the latest edition of Natural Foods Merchandiser entitled "News analysis: decoding Codex".

Martin Kidwell is a licensed acupuncturist and herbalist. When he's not treating patients at his clinic, he works in the Health and Body Care Department at the Wedge.