bill c51?


anyone care to discuss ?

___________________
It is time

Here is the Codex standard "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements":
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/do...06/cxg_055e.pdf

This is the key paragraph:


3.2 Contents of vitamins and minerals

3.2.1 The minimum level of each vintamin and /or mineral contained in a vitamin and mineral supplement per daily portion of consumption as suggested by the manufacturer should be 15% of the daily intake as determined by FAO/WHO.

3.2.2 Maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in vitamin and mineral food supplements per daily portion of consumption as recommended by the manufacturer shall be set, taking the following criteria into account:

(a) upper safe limits of vitamins and minerals established by scientific risk assessment based on generally accepted scientific data, taking into consideration, as appropriate, the varying degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups;

(b) the daily intake of vitamins and minerals from other dietary sources.

When the maximum levels are set, due account may be taken of the reference intake values of vitamins and minerals for the population. This provision should not lead to setting of maximum levels that are solely based on recommended nutrient intakes (e.g. Population Reference Intake or Recommended Daily Allowance values)

Two questions to ask yourself:
1) What the hell are "varying degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups"?

2)On what assumptions do they base "the daily intake of vitamins and minerals from other dietary sources"?




Conclusion
As a result of the SPS Agreement, Codex texts, guidelines and standards are effectively mandatory for all WTO Members. Also, because the WTO do not distinguish between guidelines and standards, and the fact that the WTO uses Codex texts to resolve international trade disputes, a finalised Codex text would have the ability to override the dietary supplement laws of all countries

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/.../codex_wto.html

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sep...supplements.htm
It's a little off the wall....but not completely.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscodex.html
I found it interesting that they kept typing Guidelines when they know that Codex doesn't distinguish between guidelines and standards.
It's a bit of a FAQ site....catch this one....

If the U.S. is not trying to harmonize its regulatory framework for dietary supplements with Codex, what are the benefits of our country participating in the process of developing these Codex Guidelines?
Our participation in the Codex process is important to encourage the development of guidelines on vitamin and mineral supplements that are based on sound science and not on arbitrary criteria. For example, encouraging the use of science-based risk assessment for determining the maximum levels of vitamins and minerals in supplements reduces the chance that arbitrary standards will be used for determining maximum levels.

Sure sounds to me they are following Codex's use of science-based risk assessment for determining the maximum levels of vitamins and minerals in supplements.

When "world bodies" can write guidelines that can supersede the laws of countries via "dispute mechanisms"....(trade barriers, et al)....it makes one wonder if countries have any meaningful control over themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaya007 bill c51? anyone care to discuss ?

if you wanna talk bill c45, i'm your homeboy