USA :: Freedoms and Liberties
September 17, 2010-The Internaut
Information has recently been posted on various internet sites claiming that Obama's Executive Order 13544 opens the door to Codex Alimentarius within the U.S. This concerned me since I am a big user of vitamins and supplements. (My motto is "Thousands for vitamins and supplements but not one cent for pharmaceutical drugs.") I did some research on the Internet and found the following press release on the National Health Federation web site:
THE OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER - MORE HEALTHCARE BUREAUCRACY, BUT NOT BACKDOOR CODEX
Here is a key excerpt from the end of the press release:
Some well-intentioned persons - hyper-sensitive to the threat of Codex to our health freedoms, a threat with which we agree - have claimed that this Executive Order is a backdoor attempt to adopt Codex Alimentarius "science-based" guidelines in the United States. These people point to Order Section 6(g), where it says that the Council's report shall "contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under subsection (d) of this section." But does the use of the words "science based" mean that these guidelines are synonymous with Codex guidelines?
Not really. While the Executive Order is real, it is not imposing Codex rules on the United States. As NHF lobbyist Lee Bechtel correctly points out, "There is no direct policy link between this Council and Codex, or with the way in which the FDA regulates food and food supplements."
Consider also that Section 6(d) (to which Section 6(g) refers) states: "(d) contains specific science-based initiatives to achieve the measurable goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services regarding nutrition, exercise, and smoking cessation, and targeting the five leading disease killers in the United States." These "science-based" rules are to be issued by the CDC, not Codex. In addition, the above deals with exercise and smoking cessation, which are outside the subject area of Codex guidelines, which only govern food.
Having said that, this 6(d) language does mention the word "nutrition" as well (albeit within the context of the Healthy People 2020 program of the DHS); and nutrition is a subject of Codex. As such, "science based" guidelines applied here could allow a smoother interface between domestic and international food guidelines at a small contact point that they might possibly have in the future. It would be akin to saying that panty-hose manufacturing techniques are related to food because the nylon fabric might someday be used in straining soup. So, in a broader and greatly-more-general context, there is a very-small kernel of strained logic to support the belief that this is another small step towards the Codex "door." But is it the Door itself, backdoor or otherwise? Absolutely not.
Scott C. Tips, the author of this press release, has actually attended Codex meetings as a member of the National Health Federation. Therefore, he should know what he is talking about. Sepp Hasslberger is another National Health Federation member who has attended Codex meetings. Sepp is a well-known health freedom activist who has an excellent health related news site. His site can be accessed at the following link:
Codex is certainly something to be concerned about; however, I do believe that those who are fighting for health freedom will ultimately prevail.