Talk:Codex Alimentarius/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

fact?

It has just been edited to describe "Alliance For Natural Health Website" as "lobbying against Codex Alimentarius." (in External Links.) Is that accurate? Or, is the group lobbying against having certain specific regulations passed within the Codex framework? Perhaps a citation is needed to support this claim. --Coppertwig 01:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bridging the Great Divide

In the 19:21, 9 February 2007 edit [1] by MastCell mentioned above, the link to the article "Bridging the Great Divide" was deleted. This looks to me like a relevant external link directly to an informative article. Please explain, MastCell, what part of the WP:EL policy applies to this in your opinion. --Coppertwig 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead link?

The "HealthFreedomUSA" link appears to be dead. --John Nagle 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It loads for me. Anchoress 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

There is growing controversy about this Codex. A google search for "Codex Alimentarius" returns hits that range from the official site to sites titled "Stop Codex". If it becomes law in the USA, almost everything sold in health food stores could only be sold by prescription and most health food stores would go out of business. Chinese medicine uses large amounts of herbs, too. In the guise of "food safety", it could require a medical prescription for garlic and other common herbs. Here is a link about some of the controversy [2]. Why don't we create a "Controversy" section in the article and include one of the hundreds of thousands of links that a google search brings up? Jim Bough 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article already covers the controversial aspects of the Codex. It is extremely unlikely to become law in the USA, given the lobbying power exerted by the supplement industry, but if it does (or if there is even a notable proposal that it be enacted in the USA), then at that point we'll cover that. As to the thousands of Google hits, we need to be a bit selective about what we cite, as required by WP:V and WP:RS. This is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a forum to uncritically rehash every jackbooted-federal-agents-are-coming-for-your-vitamins piece of propaganda out there on the Internet. I believe the health freedom movement's objections to the Codex are already discussed in the article. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough information under the controversy about Codex Alimentarius. The site I am referencing for a link provides more in depth details and yes it does have a huge chance of being adopted in this country since our politicians are selling us out piece by piece. People need to know the dangers and this site is on the cutting edge of the truth about the Codex. - UN Owen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unowen7 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It matters not whether CA becomes legal or not in the USA. The act itself is an international one and wiki is not exclusively a USA encyclopedia (see wiki enteries on Common Law and Tort Law for example). Thus, whether or not it take effect in the USA is of no importance and anything relevant to legislation needs to be included. You are also making an assumption that it "will probably not be introduced in the USA.

The site does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's guideline on external links. It does not offer reliable and encyclopedic information. It offers nothing reliable and encyclopedic that could not be incorporated into the article if it is improved further. And it contains significant amounts of advertising. If your goal is to insert information opposing Codex, or detailing opposition to Codex, it would be worthwhile to review the policies on verifiability and reliable sources and find adequately sourced information to incorporate into the article, rather than spamming an unencyclopedic external link. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the title of the 'Authority' section to 'Controversy'. Based on its content I think that this is a far more suitable title for it.Vitaminman (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

POV-section tag

The article's section labeled "controversy", after its first few sentences, lacks anything even approximating the level of rigor I'd like to see in a Wikipedia article. For example, stating that one cannot consume 500mg of Vitamin C were these restrictions in place is patently absurd; you would presumably be able to buy 100mg (or 50mg, or whatever) pills and consume them in whatever quantity you wish. Both the tone and presentation of the "controversy", as it stands, are heavily weighted against the Codex. While it might be reasonable to include these concerns, we need to at least attribute them to WP:RSs and modify them to ensure WP:WEIGHT. Jouster  (whisper) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some good sources there, but also some WP:OR. I'd encourage any effort to cut back the OR and stick more closely to the sources, or to find more reliable sources for the section. MastCell ^Talk 20:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the material from this section that contravenes WP:OR and have added a citation needed tag to indicate that a WP:SOURCE is needed concerning the "speculation that Codex Alimentarius is an infringement on human rights." Frankly though, at the current time, I doubt very much that there is a reliable source for this claim. As such, for the time being, it effectively constitutes a POV and contravenes WP:OR. Vitaminman (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations sought on oft heard complaints of CA not yet in the 'Controversy' section

- In what way is the CA compulsory? Does the WTO just say "you cannot say you will adhere to our standard, unless you will adhere to the whitelist criteria we set forth" or does the WTO go further and actually want to force countries directly or indirectly to make every product fall under these standards? Will the sanctions only come in effect when a company or country law falsely says it adheres to a standard?

--> CA is effectively compulsory because, when there is a dispute between countries, the one more closely following the rules [restrictions] of CA, automatically wins. It is in essence, a race to the bottom. S2s2s2 (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

- Where does the CA talk about compulsory bovine growth hormone treatment and antibiotics for cows? While I found recommendations to minimize germs in dairy products (http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/more_info.jsp?id_sta=10087), I cannot find anything about compulsory use of antibiotics or hormones.

- Compulsory irradiation and use of pesticides. Again, I can only find recommendations, not strict rules about use of these measures.

Those fearmongering articles on the CA never cite anything, so lets dig up the specifics on these claims and put them to rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.27.159 (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

International Numbering System

International Numbering System redirects here, so assuming that's a valid redirect, it would probably be a good idea to mention the System somewhere in the article. (I don't know anything about it, myself.) - dcljr (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Explaination of Standards and revisions on Contravery (July 2008)

I am doing a major rewrite of the contravery page to verify sources as to provide a better overall arguement of the contravery.

The first thing I am doing is verifying sources. On July 12, 2008, I removed reference to the magazine "The Ecologist" because I could not find the 1996 article previously mentioned. The Ecologist posts all their articles online and made available all articles to 1995. The article in question has not been found. Refer to http://www.theecologist.org/index.asp

I added clarification on the voluntary nature of the standard because there is a belief that a standard is a regulation. The wikipedia page on standards has a great explaination of the variety of different standards that exist. If you want a practical example, think of the Chicago Manual of Style, which is a writing standard that is voluntarily followed by universities, newspapers, and magazines but has no legal authority to enforce writing standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

By "contravery" do you mean "controversy"? Regardless, I've reverted this edit on the grounds that the Guardian is a major British newspaper and easily qualifies as a reliable source WP:SOURCES with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.Vitaminman (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin, I see that you've immediately reverted and are claiming that "this is not a quality reference." You also ask me to see the talk page, and yet have not added any explanation as to why you think a major British newspaper that easily qualifies as a reliable source WP:SOURCES with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy does not constitute a quality reference. Please explain.Vitaminman (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this reference was removed either. Joanna Blythman's article in the Guardian appears to meet WP:RS for this information. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I too just looked at this reference and see it as WP:RS. I say it should be put back into the article. The Guardian is a reliable source for use in this article. DivaNtrainin, please give reasons for its removal if you would other than stating "this is not a quality reference." It looks like the other editors here do not agree. I suggest returning the source to the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As originally stated, the opinion-based editorial printed in "The Guardian" states that "The Ecologist" printed something related to the Codex in 1996. Since "The Ecologist" posts online all their articles as far back as 1995, why are we settling for a sub-standard reference when a better reference is available? If someone could tell me the name of the article in "The Ecologist" that was printed in 1996 relating to The Codex, I will find it myself and re-establish the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin, if you read WP:RS you will see that the Guardian reference clearly and easily meets these rules. Please therefore refrain from editwarring and going against the consensus here when the use of this reference is supported by one of Wikipedia's most important rules.Vitaminman (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, the following is stated: "How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." The fact that something is published in "The Guardian" doesn't mean it is reliable. In fact, if you look at the source, it isn't an article. It is an opt-ed pice. The opinions expressed on op-ed reflect those of the individual authors, not the paper and are not fact-checked in the same way that any other article in the newspaper.

However, there is a way to end this debate. If there is another source that supports the claims made in "The Guardian", then post both that source and a link to "The Guardian" opt-ed piece. For example, if you know "The Ecologist" article that is mentioned in "The Guardian", then post a link to that page IN ADDITION to "The Guardian" opt-ed piece. If you know the name of "The Ecologist" article, the author of the article or even the issue that this article appeared, then I will search "The Ecologist" website and post the article.DivaNtrainin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry DivaNtrainin, but your logic is highly flawed here. If you think that a major British newspaper like the Guardian would just print any old rubbish in an op-ed piece, then you're very mistaken. For a start, before Joanna Blythman's piece could be published, it would have been read, checked and edited by a senior editor. If he/she found anything in it that could not be validated it would have been removed. This is the way that major newspapers work and is the very reason why they are treated as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Also, with particular reference to the Guardian, you should also note that its stated policy is to correct significant errors as soon as possible. [3] So far as I can ascertain, the statement in question has never been withdrawn.Vitaminman (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin, if you feel you need another source then please add it to the WP:RS next to the Guardian. A consensus from other editors say that the Guardian is a reliable source. Four editors now have reverted you. I think you need to understand that the Guardian is a reliable source, if you want more sources like 'The Ecologist' then it's up to you to locate the source and show it to the editors here not the other way around. I think Vitaminman has explained the rest in detail to you. Please stop reverting to get your own way, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason that I don't provide another source is because I can't find another source. If you had read my original statement, then you would realize that I disputed "The Guardian" opt-ed source because I couldn't find anything to authenticate it. There have been a number of authors who are claiming that the statements within the article are authentic. Why aren't they providing any sources for their statement? The only justification for allowing "The Guardian" opt-ed piece is "it's reliable, that's good". We could also resolve this dispute by just eliminating the statements regarding 1996 and the German deligation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DivaNtrainin here. Since The guardian is a secondary reference, DivaNtrainin's action served as a verification of facts. If the facts or the so-called references were not there, the source cannot be used, no matter how "reliable" that source is. Verification is the ultimate check. It is not like "reputable" newspapers don't publish retractions or made-up stories. Having the primary source is always better as well. 71.106.169.231 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, DivaNtrainin's actions were simply repeated attempts to enforce his/her point of view and ignore one of Wikipedia's central policies. We've dealt with this issue already, repeatedly, on this page and the arguments you make here don't add anything new. Inferring that the story was simply "made-up" is neither helpful nor credible (as too, some might argue, is your posting of this comment anonymously). But you are right on one thing, in that "reputable" newspapers do publish retractions. So far as I am aware however, the Guardian has never retracted this statement. Vitaminman (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't depend on newspaper itself for verification of the facts (such as Wen Ho Lee story by NYT). DivaNtrainin asked a legitimate question: can you find the article in the Ecologist referenced. There, he did a legitimate WP:Verification of the reference. You can prove him wrong by giving a Ecologist article link and end this argument, but shutting him out otherwise is improper as in withholding the fact. It doesn't matter if he repeatedly did so, could be because you repeatedly denied or failed to answer this question. I am neutral in this case. I don't necessarily believe in DivaNtrainin, but as a reader, he did raise a question which now I started to wonder. Primary source is always better. I hope you guys could resolve this issue not by arguing back-n-forth on some nonsense which will never be productive, but actually check if the article exists. 71.106.169.231 (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is also not a valid argument. Given that DivaNtrainin states that "The Ecologist posts online all their articles as far back as 1995", where is the evidence that this is the case? Can you point us all towards a page on the Ecologist's website that unequivocally and definitively proves that this is the case? Unless you can, your argument is clearly invalid. Personally, despite an exhaustive search of the Ecologist's website just now, I could not find any such proof. So far as I can see, a significant proportion of the Ecologist's output is only available to subscribers.[4]Vitaminman (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I check the ecologist website. While the search let you search with starting year 1995, so far I've only able to locate articles as early as 1998. Articles shows up in google scholar for the ecologist year 1996 do not appear in the search. That search did not seem to return all the articles for other years either. 71.106.169.231 (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning of supplements

The article says: "The text [of the codex} does not seek to ban supplements, but to subject them to dosage, labeling and composition requirements." This is not entirely accurate. It is important to understand that the Codex Alimentarius is not based on Common Law, wherein that which is not explicitly permitted is not necessarily illegal. The codex is instead based on the Napoleonic Legal Code, wherein "anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden." According to Dr. Rima E. Laibow, M.D, who has studied more than 16,000 pages of the Codex Alimentarius, the "Napoleonic Code allows the banning of natural health options by default."

Also, as stated below, the codex uses the toxicological, rather than the biochemical method for regulation. For instance, Vitamin C would be restricted to a few milligrams per dose. Although this is not technically a ban, this does restrict its usage to a point where it becomes a ban. An average dose of Vitamin C can be about 200 miligrams, but about 1000 mg is what is usually recommended. While I respect the need for NPOV, the true nature of the codex must be explicated.--207.81.87.20 03:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You understand, of course, that any hint of regulation of dietary supplements results in a hysterical backlash from supplement manufacturers, their affiliates, and their lobbying arm, along the lines of "they're taking away your vitamins!" So if your goal is to claim that the Codex is some sort of Trojan Horse, then the sourcing needs to be solid and it needs to be presented carefully. MastCell ^Talk 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon 207 is making a point about law. In general, we pass law to declare illegal acts. "Don't cross the street on the red light", "Don't carry a gun"; law defines illegal acts. But all other actions, any action not specified, is legal. Common and criminal law starts with the huge playing field of human interaction and puts up specific barriers, calling out specific illegal acts. But the Codex operates differently. The whole playing field of the Codex is illegal to begin with. There is NO legal action until the Codex specifically says an action is legal. The whole field is one solid, illegal black mass. Then, the Codex lays out a few legal areas; "200 milligrams of Vitamin C (or less) can be manufactured and sold". But 250 milligrams is not specified and is, therefore, illegal. This is a remarkable difference. This difference is very rare, its concept is very different from the law most of us know. Surely it is worth mentioning. Jim Bough 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

207.81.87.20 is correct; these statements are in error and should be removed from the article unless some support for them can be found. This has already happened in the EU in countries where these rules have been adapted. Agalmic (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Vitaminman, your reason for reverting the edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Codex_Alimentarius&diff=235449161&oldid=235446551) is flawed, as you claim the rewording contravenes [Wikipedia:RS]. WP:RS has to do with a SOURCE, not with rewording. The current version is uncited, so according to your logic it should be removed altogether, there is no controversy :) Of course the source is biases, but that's partly the nature of the issue. A source for explaining the opposition to the Codex would by default be more likely to be biased. If you don't like the source, fair enough, find a better one. But it might help to focus on improving the article rather than applying an inappropriate policy. The current controversy section is a mangled mess, which is no of use to anyone actually trying to find out what the controversy is about. The changes help clarify this. Further improvements can be made by citing more reliable, neutral sources, and rewording the final section, which is equally messy. Greenman (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's see what others say. In the meantime, by way of a compromise, I've removed your reference to the Health Freedom USA website but left your text unchanged. The Health Freedom USA website in no way even comes close to meeting the bar for WP:RS and because of this has previously been removed from this article on numerous occasions by admins and regular editors alike. I agree that reliable, neutral sources are needed, but Health Freedom USA simply ain't one of them. Vitaminman (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The controversy section is very much POV. It is not "voluntary" when codex alimentarius is being used as the reference point for trade disputes, no matter how you put it. You either continue to pay the fines or to be non-compliant, which is not feasible. The "controversy" section supposedly to point this thing out, but here it served more as an advertisement for it rather than criticism. If congressmen (Ron Paul et al) as shown in the youtube have such concern, isn't this an indication of the problem?

Sure one could do the study, but when was the last time a scientific study carried out cheap? Without addressing these concerns which seems to be the major reason behind why vitamins / herbs controversy, this controversy section is superficial. 71.106.169.231 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your point of view. The reason I mentioned that other scientific studies and other reference points can be used during dispute resolution is to show its voluntary nature. If a small company wants to argue that the food products are safe, they are allowed to use other references or scientific testing. More and more governments are requiring that companies demonstrate the safety of their foods through scientific evidence. The Codex Alimentarius helps small businesses by providing an inexpensive scientifically sound reference as a justification for their actions. In a sense, companies that voluntarily follow the Codex Ailmentarius get all the scientific backing of some of the best food scientists in the world at a very very affordable price. However, if a company chooses not to follow the Codex, then they need to spend the money to demonstrate that their food product is safe.

You mention that scientific studies are not carried out on the cheap. I agree, but where is it mentioned that if a small company is disputing a claim on its safety, that the company has to run a study from scratch? The public can access a HUGE amount of articles for free on the following websites.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ http://findarticles.com/

Those that aren't available in its entirety could probably find it at your local university library. The total cost of this may be a few dollars in photocopying. That is definitely affordable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your logic absurd. The freely available articles come from scientific studies funded by someone, i.e. NIH / NSF / big corporations. It doesn't change the fact that small business could not afford to perform such study. Making the study results publicly available doesn't mean the study really needed by the small businesses are going to be in the library. It doesn't change the fact that not all food / vitamin etc are studied either.

Also, toxicology is the wrong science regarding food safety. Heck, even over drinking water is bad for you, resulting in water poisoning, so should we treat water as toxic? That would be absurd. Not to mention herbal medicines (like traditional Chinese medicine which is sanctioned by the Chinese government, but not necessarily by other governments) typically do not have studies as mentioned in Codex Alimentarius.

Lastly, even without regard to these studies, having Codex Alimentarius as the reference point means it is NOT voluntary. One has to pay the fines for failing to harmonize to this standard. Tell me, why pay the fine if it is voluntary?! It is mandatory to adhere to it (unless you get a prove otherwise), or one has to pay the fines. You keep avoiding this point. 71.105.106.222 (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You state "Toxicology is the wrong science regarding food safety." That statement is 100% wrong. Toxicology is probably the most important science regarding food safety. People eat food for basic sustainance, not to treat a medical condition. One of the most important reasons to have food science is to ensure food is safe and toxicology is at the forefront with that.

So since water can cause water poisoning, so tell me how you can apply toxicology to food safety for water and juices?

I don't think you understand the purpose behind toxicology. You are absolutely right that a lot of food has been evaluated for its toxicity. That's the EXACT reason why it is SOOOOO essential for food science.

You ask for an example, here goes. There is a scientifically recognized value for the toxicity of sugar and it is considered very, very non-toxic. A small candy company determines that in a completely improbable situation where if their candy was 100% sugar and a small child eats 50 packets of their product, that child wouldn't even come close to consuming the amount of sugar that is scientifically recognized to be toxic. That company then uses the scientifically recognized toxicity of sugar to justify NOT spending money to laboratory test their candy for sugar. One of the major benefits of toxicology is to determine what laboratory testing is reasonable for food companies to test for and what is completely unreasonable.

One of the most oddest statements you make is in reference to herbal medicinces. Herbal medicines for the most part are viewed as non-food by most governments. Since the Codex Alimentarius was written as a reference standard for food, discussing herbal medications are REALLY REALLY off-topic. One last point, there are a LOT of scientific studies on traditional chinese medicine, and if you want another reference standard refer to Bencao Gangmu or any homeopathic pharmacopeia.

I don't think that you realize that Chinese medicine does cover treatment via diet (see Chinese food therapy). Note the content of the wiki-link is quite superficial as it merely covers exotic ones. A large amount of herbs used in Chinese medicine are food / vegetables people eat.

There are a number of medical conditions, like Coeliac disease, where the only available treatment is a change of diet. That being said, I wouldn't catagorize gluten-free bread as a drug. Europe, U.S.A. and Canada do not catagorize products being advertised as treating a medical condition as food. You may personally choose to catagorize Chinese Medicine as food, but that doesn't mean the world has to follow your example. Since we are discussing the Codex Alimentarius, let's look and see how the Codex treats products like fungi, which is common in TCM. If you look at CODEX STAN 38-1981, it talks about definitions of fungi, quality, handling, and treatment. It does not exclude the use of fungi in TCM. The Codex Alimentarius completely avoids the reason people consume food. The Codex is completely about safety and has no part in the argument about what can and can not treat a medical condition.

Second, you just proved my point with "most governments". Now here lies the dispute with "most".

Third, some studies doesn't mean ALL studies. Chinese medicine / herbal medicine covers a wide range areas. You kept using some existing studies to indicate that it covers all studies.

My point was not that every single study that has ever existed to man is available at absolutely no cost to everyone on the face of the planet. My overall point is that scientific studies, reference material, and a multitude of resource material is available to small businesses at an affordable price. No company or country has to follow the Codex but they need to be able to defend themselves in cases of dispute.

A company needs to have scientific, verifiable evidence to defend itself in a dispute. In any dispute, if one party has verifiable evidence supporting their position, and the other party has no evidence then the party with evidence wins the dispute. This is the reason why the Codex is SOOOO good for small businesses. It allows small businesses to compete with major corporations. The Codex is an inexpensive, scientifically-based resource that small food companies can use in a dispute to prove that their product is safe. The Codex gives small businesses the expertise of some of the best food scientists in the world.

Lastly, in regard to the comments about fines. I've tried to find any references on being fined for not following the Codex, and I can't find any and I've looked at a number of anti-Codex websites. If there is fining involved, answer these questions: Who gets fined, companies or countries? Who enforces the fines? Who does the fines get paid to? What is the regulatory body that one can go to in order to appeal the fine? How much is a typical fine? What is the legislation or treaty that the fines are based on? Who issues the fines?

If you can't answer any of these questions, at least give a SINGLE example of anyone or any country or any company that was fined for not following the Codex. DivaNtrainin (talk August 29, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding fines, if congressmen of GOP and Democrats ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3273956447915041292 ) have considers Codex Alimentarius dangerous, isn't it quite indicative of the controversy? It doesn't matter for "known" cases since countries try to avoid fines.

If it is fairly publicized controversy, it should be documented with their reason. It is NOT up to you to judge or decide if such controversy is real (and you obviously have a strong bias). YOU need to provide credible sources countering these concerns and not just your own words. 71.105.106.222 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Attacking me personally because you can't find a source to justify your point of view is very rude. I've looked at the video you submitted, and it does NOTHING to support your point of view. I ask again for even an example where some person, country, or company was ever fined for not following the Codex. I ask you to find an example, because I looked, and I don't believe it has EVER happened or will happen.DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it becomes very fragmented and indentation of your statements is a bit inconsistent, so I will address all your replies here.

What did I attack you personally? Calling you having a strong bias? Sorry if I insulted you by calling that. If you meant the statement "absurd" regarding the logic you presented. I stand by that statement. It was not regarding you, but your statement.

1. (seriously I am tired of it) you did not address the issue of being voluntary when Codex Alimentarius is being used as reference point. I believe that this is a crucial point but you never addressed this issue. It doesn't matter if Codex Alimentarius is 100% right or helpful, it doesn't change the fact that having it as a reference point instantly making it mandatory.

Strangely enough, you kept calling it "voluntary" despite this fact. It is like saying the speed limit "voluntary".

It is a perpetual fact that scientific studies are never complete. It is a perpetual fact that different countries would have different standards. It is a perpetual fact that even the same food / medicine are prepared and processed differently (say cheese). Raw milk is another example which is controversial. Like I said, you are not aware that a significant portion of Chinese medicine are food. Many spices used in Chinese cooking are herbs normally found in Chinese medicine stores (in fact Chinese often go to Chinese medicine store to purchase spices used in cooking). Are you telling Chinese to prescribe these spices before they could eat Chinese food?

On the other hand, people do not necessarily want to eat everything that is absolutely healthy. For instance, preserved egg isn't necessarily healthy, but nevertheless people eat them. Likewise for Coke which has an acidity that can be considered toxic. Codex Alimentarius eliminates the choice of people.

2. You ignored the fact that there exists controversies. This fact doesn't matter if there are any countries (since according to that video countries have tried to harmonize their laws already, AND global implementation is not until 2009) paid fines. These controversies are NOT for you to judge or erase. The controversy section is to document these well publicized controversies.

It is ok for you to believe that these controversies are lies / propagandas and such, but you cannot erase / discredit these controversies with your own words, which would be WP:OR. Instead, you should cite reputable sources that clarify the matter, AFTER documenting these controversies. That is how NEUTRALITY works.

I didn't come to Wikipedia to create trouble, but after the video above made me concerned. I was a bit skeptical, but if the two congressmen from two parties both raised such concern, then that becomes quite serious. Coming to this web site, I found the controversy section seriously lacking. No references etc but beliefs. It did not address any of the real controversies, but repeatedly made propaganda (doesn't matter correct or not) for Codex Alimentarius. Hence, the POV tag. I'd suggest you to read over WP:NPOV. 71.105.106.222 (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

DivaNTrainin says: I've addressed the voluntary nature of the Codex several times. There are NO consequences for a country, company or person for not following the Codex. There is no legal structure whatsoever for fining anyone or anything for not following the Codex. No one has been fined or could be fined. I've tried to find links that support your point of view. There are none. There is an overall requirement for food companies to be able to produce evidence that their product is safe if someone accuses them of unsafe food handling practices. However, this requirement is based on common law. There is ABSOLUTELY no requirement that the Codex has to be the only resource to decide disputes.

The following paragraph is taken from an article written by the National Health Federation. You can find the original article at http://www.thenhf.com/codex/codex_89.htm

"Nominally, compliance with Codex guidelines is voluntary. Since the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995 however, any country that does not comply and finds itself in a trade dispute with another country, runs the risk of being subjected to trade sanctions. This is because the international court that decides in matters of trade disputes is bound to use international guidelines, where they exist, as their basis of law. So in real world terms, Codex Alimentarius guidelines are international law. "

So there ARE in fact consequences for non-codex compliance. Sylv86 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DivNtrainin says: You state that different products are prepared in different manners and there are different food standards throughout the world. I agree. That's my point. If Codex is such a totalitarian power that is forcing countries to adopt unsafe food standards, then how can your statements be true?

DivaNtrainin says: You state "Are you telling Chinese to prescribe these spices before they could eat Chinese food?" I am saying that the use of spices as a medicine is something that is not covered in the Codex. The Codex does not cover the reasons why people eat food. It does not exclude or include or catagorize food as a medicinal product. The Codex avoids the concept that food can be medicine entirely. My overall point is the fact that some people choose to eat certain food for medicinal purposes is not relevant in anyway to a discussion on the Codex.

DivaNtrainin says: In terms of how to handle contraversies in general, I agree that we need to show a balenced approach. That's why I edited the section by recognizing that some people view the Codex as being mandatory, but is in fact a voluntary reference standard. If you want to present an opposing point of view, don't just post a video and expect the world to wade through a 15 minute video to find the one minute of the video relevant to the discussion. You need to summarize the contaversy in a clear concise manner and post a link that supports what you are saying. However, in any contraversial topic there are a lot of links that really poor. That's why Wikopedia has guidelines on choosing relevant references. This is not the activity that you have demonstrated. If you want to edit the contraversy section, go ahead. However, be aware you are going to need to back up your statements.

DivaNtrain says: I feel you don't have a good sense of what the Codex Alimentarius is about. I invite you to take a look at the Codex website and look at the section on Official Standards. I've included a link for your reference.

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

DivaNtrainin (talk) 22:50, 01 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit tired of your logic, and I feel that we are simply repeating things. Please read over ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/008/ad819e.pdf , which mentioned the very first case of trade dispute involving hormone treated beef product using Codex. 71.105.106.222 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Health Freedom movement

I am proposing to remove the following statements from the Contraversy section:

"The Guidelines have attracted concern from both consumers and industry due to a perception that there may be restrictions on vitamins and minerals as dietary supplements. The health freedom movement has pointed to greater concerns related to restrictions on dietary supplement ingredients in Europe [7] via the European Union's Food Supplements Directive [8] (which utilizes approved lists of ingredients and ingredient forms) and potentially restrictive dosage limits to be based on a Codex model via the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) Nutrient Risk Assessment Project. [9]"

The rational being that this wikipedia page is on the Codex Alimentarius, not on the "health freedom" movement. This paragraph does not fully explain how the "health freedom" movement's position is related to the codex or how people being concerned about the vitamins and minerals that they put in their body will lead to restrictions. Two of the references (reference [7] and [9]) do not reference the Codex in anyway and reference [8] is not in english. All these references are very old.

I am giving the other authors till the end of January to respond to my request or modify the statement, and then I'm removing the paragraph. If someone disagrees with my removal, we can always revert the edits and discuss it at a later point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.89.73 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (written by DivaNtrainin on January 1, 2008)

I disagree, on the grounds that your proposal is demonstrably irrational. If the health freedom movement has concerns regarding the Codex Alimentarius then, by definition, such concerns are clearly relevant to this article.Vitaminman (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you believe the "health freedom" movement raises some good criticism against the Codex. However, the way the Wikipedia article is written, there is no clear linkage between the Codex and the "health freedom" movements position. In short, the paragraph needs to be rewritten. Why don't you rewrite it and include some links that directly explains how the Codex is related to the "health freedom"'s position.DivaNtrainin (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just did. The mention of the health freedom movement is now reworded and has an appropriate reference.Vitaminman (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues re. use of word "recommended" to describe Codex Vitamin Guidelines

I've reverted the following edit of DivaNtrainin:

"The text does not seek to ban supplements, but recommends labeling and packaging requirements, recommends manufacturers use scientific data to determine the quantity of vitamin and mineral doseage, and recommends that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources."

My grounds for rverting this edit are as follows:

• The labeling and packaging requirements section in the Codex vitamin text uses the words "shall" and "should." EG "The product shall be packed in containers...". "The containers, including packaging material, shall be made...". "Vitamin and mineral food supplements should be labelled...". "The name of the product shall be "food supplement"...". "The amount of the vitamins and minerals present in the product should be declared...". "The amounts of the vitamins and minerals declared should be...". "Information on vitamins and minerals should also be expressed as a percentage of the nutrient reference values mentioned...". "The label should indicate how the product should be used...". "The label shall contain advice to the consumer not to exceed the maximum one-day amount." "The label should not state or imply that supplements can be used for the replacement of meals or a varied diet." "The label shall contain a statement that the product should be stored out of reach of young children." In other words, the text does not say that it "recommends" these actions, but instead that they "should" or "shall" be taken.

• The section on dosage also uses the words "should" and "shall." EG "The minimum level of each vitamin and/or mineral contained in a vitamin and mineral food supplement per daily portion of consumption as suggested by the manufacturer should be 15%...". "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...". Again therefore, the text does not say that it "recommends" these actions, but rather that they "should" or "shall" be taken.

• The section on ingredient sources also uses the words "should." EG "Vitamin and mineral food supplements should contain vitamins/provitamins and minerals whose nutritional value for human beings has been proven by scientific data and whose status as vitamins and minerals is recognised by FAO and WHO." "The sources of vitamins and minerals may be either natural or synthetic and their selection should be based on considerations such as safety and bioavailability. In addition, purity criteria should take into account FAO/WHO standards, or if FAO/WHO standards are not available, international Pharmacopoeias or recognized international standards." Yet again therefore, the text does not say that it "recommends" these actions, but rather that they "should" be taken.

Vitaminman (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for replacing "shall" with "recommended" is because the Codex is a voluntary reference standard. I appreciate that you are simply copying what is in the Codex, however,the terms "shall" and "should" suggest that people are forced to follow the Codex. DivaNtrainin (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I am of course simply copying what is in the Codex. I also agree that the terms "shall" and "should" suggest that countries are effectively forced to follow it. Your own words here actually sum up the controversy fairly well, LOL.Vitaminman (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The traceability of the content in Codex Alimentarius standards

I have just looked at the following standard and find difficulties to track what the document has instructed

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/313/CXS_182e.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.16.153 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, in the sections of 7.1 Heavy metals and 7.2 Pesticide Residuals, There are no references for its readers to find what the specifications of these two items are. --222.64.26.23 (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall I open every files in the following search results to find what I want?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&ei=DvDKSf_WHs2GkQWjl9XUCQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=pineapples+%22heavy+metals%22+OR+%22pesticide+residues%22+site%3Awww.codexalimentarius.net&spell=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.16.153 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that the standard documents are different from other written formats in that the traceability is crucial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.16.153 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Traceability again....

This time I tried to find pesticide residual limits of Litchi at their website and to be honest, I'm very frustrated

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Lichi+pesticide+residue+limits+site%3Awww.codexalimentarius.net&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

--222.67.209.134 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus ... microbiology of Litchi

Where can I find it...???--222.67.209.134 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is a mess

1.How the Codex defines nutrients.

Rather than using LD50 or other toxicology tests to determine a lethal dose, the Codex pretty much just goes ahead and defines all but a few nutrients as poisons. Then to get an upper amount - or maximum safe dosage - a controversial method of testing is used, animals are exposed to small doses until in impact is discernible . They then take the first sign of impact, at which point a safety margin for the poison can be calculated by dividing the amount of poison by 100.

It appears you've never even looked at the Codex Alimentarius. The entire Codex is available online at the following [5]. The vast majority of Codex standards relate to things that no one would define as 'nutrients', such as canned pears, beans, milk, corned beef, and raisins. I am assuming that you are referring to the single codex standard that has recieved any contraversy, Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. This is what the Codex says about setting an upper limit to vitamins and minerals:

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 levels 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.

So basically it says that the manufacturer can set any limit he wants as long as it is scientifically based. Why do you have a problem with that? (signed DivaNtrainin)

2.Sounds mandatory to me

In 1995, the FDA (The U S Food and Drug Administration) issued a policy statement saying that 'international standards such as Codex would supersede U.S. laws governing all food' (Yes, this also includes everything that could be perceived as relating to food from the 'Dietary Substances Health and Education Act' (DSHEA) ). Also worth noting is that in the case of a trade dispute between two WTO member countries, if one of them isn't applying to the Codex's guidelines they would automatically lose (in such a case, the Codex-compliant country is found to be in the right by default)

Wikipedia is a worldwide reference source. The fact that one country decides to adopt the Codex as a reference does not mean its mandatory. Other countries haven't adopted the Codex as a reference standards. Every country has the choice to adopt whatever standards they want for their food. However, the government has to justify to their people why they enacted the laws that they did. If Americans are so unhappy with the current laws, why aren't Americans protesting over its inaction?

I'd love to debate and make comments to the US FDA's policy to adopting the Codex as mandatory WITHIN ITS BORDERS over that of US law, but I can't find any source. I'm not even sure whether it was a policy enacted, or a treaty enacted or a regulation passed. If you want this put on the Wikipedia page, provide the name of the policy/treaty/law involved. DivaNtrainin (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the texts being referred to here may perhaps be this one...

FDA has been a strong supporter of, and participant in, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). Codex is an international standards-setting organization for food safety composed of national governments from more than 150 countries. The work of Codex is increasingly important with the recognition of Codex as the relevant international standards-setting body for food safety in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) resulting from the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Since its inception, Codex has developed in excess of 200 Commodity Standards, more than 40 codes and guidelines, about 2,500 pesticide/commodity maximum limits, and has reviewed the safety of over 500 food additives and contaminants. FDA, through its participation on most Codex Committees, provides scientific and regulatory expertise and forcefully presents U.S. views at the committee meetings.

FDA plans to amend its regulations and procedures for consideration of standards adopted by Codex. This action is being taken to provide for the systematic review of the Codex Standards in order to enhance consumer protection, promote international harmonization, and fulfill obligations of the United States under international agreements.[6]

...and this one...

The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners is important to food safety and requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establishing a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.[7]

Vitaminman (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

3.Apparently not mandatory

Over the years, the WTO has accepted Codex standards as presumptive evidence of the rules of trade between countries. However, several times in history, the WTO has refused to make Codex the single and only standard to be used in trade disputes. Under Codex’s own statutes, their guidelines are claimed to be advisory and nations are able to set up their own guidelines. Since compliance with Codex standards is simply presumptive evidence, and not finally determinative, a nation can opt out of the guidelines in an effort to protect its traditional foods and remedies.

4.(opting out)

Step One, the country develops its own food and health guidelines that may be at variance with Codex guidelines.

For example, it may be much stricter on the issues of toxins in the food supply, or on the issue of genetically modified foods. It may, for example, require that companies using GM ingredients or pesticides be required to indicate them on food labels.

So, the first step is for a country to set up its guidelines. The Second Step is to adopt a national law that implements those guidelines on a sound scientific basis. The NSF (apparently something do to with (healthfreedomusa.org) is preparing models to be used for doing this that are available to any country. There is a model vitamin and mineral guideline, and a model of a food and health statute to implement that guideline.

Normally, in a trade dispute before the WTO, the country that has adopted Codex guidelines will be the winner of that dispute based on those guidelines being presumptive evidence. However, when countries have gone through the two step process to create their own guidelines, there is no such presumption, and the WTO will look at the science behind the guidelines.

92.10.29.34 (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Bock's editorial in the Orange County Register

The piece by Alan Bock, Senior editorial writer in The Orange County Register, is without doubt a useful source for this WP article.[8] Whilst it would appear that inclusion of the specific sentence referring to the statement by former US presidential candidate Ron Paul is seemingly disputed by some, the fact remains that this source easily meets the bar for WP:RS and contains some useful summaries of the various issues.Vitaminman (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't dispute the source - for me, he could've written an article in Time magazine, have an interview for Fox, The Guardian or El Pais, but he still remains a minor politician. Allowing this entry here, you open the gate for anyone who would like to put statement of his favourite politician on this or any other subject. Opinions of non specialist seeking for publicity in any controversial subject are common, as their and their supporters need to include this in articles in Wikipedia (in many languages). Why you don't put Ron Paul's opinion on chicken breeding, theories of oil formation, TCP protocol etc? You should divide encyclopaedic information from opinions circulating in the internet. I am not going to revert you, but I'd like an honest discussion on necessity of this type of entries. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, it seems you perhaps misunderstand me on this issue. Whilst I obviously accept that some people, for whatever reason, might object to the citation of a politican's opinions in a WP article, that is neither my point nor my concern here. Instead, what I am saying here is that Bock's editorial in the Orange County Register is a useful source that can be helpful to us in this WP article. To me, his summaries of the various Codex Alimentarius controversies and the international issues relating to the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements are easily the most informed of any that have appeared in a publication that conforms to WP:RS. Moreover, Bock also very skillfully discredits some of the various "Kiss Your Vitamins Good Bye" internet claims that have appeared in recent years. As such, what I am suggesting here is that we use Bock's piece to craft something for this WP article that summarises these issues.Vitaminman (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Just to add that, on the specific issue of Ron Paul's opinion, as cited in Bock's editorial, we should bear WP:BRIEF in mind: "Articles may state, neutrally and factually, which people hold what opinions, but must not judge."Vitaminman (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The irony in this is that anyone that knows about Codex is against it (sadly a few people), anyone that doesn't know about Codex is indifferent. Those propagating for Codex is getting money for it. Truly this is nothing but a corrupt way to regulate the health of the people of the world, and most people have no idea (undemocratic). I have read the classifications of codex,[9] i eat vitamins and food that contains multiple more dozes than what they regulate. I am the healthiest person i know. So now i can't do this anymore due to Codex regulations, not even take vitamin D3 which is essential to add here in Sweden (due to the dark winters) (except a doze so small it's not even working) So Codex stands between me and my health, just as all other people that knows anything about this knowledge. Therefore people who knows about Codex are against Codex Alimentarius. End of debate doubters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.159.67 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)