Go Back   Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) > Project Avalon Forum > Global Ground Crew Networking > Europe > UK

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-25-2010, 08:56 PM   #1
Malaros
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 53
Default My letter to the department of health R.E Codex Alimentarius

Hi,

This is a letter I wrote to the department of health regarding a part of Codex Alimentarius (read more about if at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_alimentarius and also http://foodcode.blogspot.com/2007/11...onspiracy.html)

This is the part I am refering to, which is about vitamin supplements.

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/dow...6/cxg_055e.pdf

I just got a reply saying that my email was forwarded to the food standards agency. Please add to my email by writing your own and sending it to helpline@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk. With enough pressure, we will get an answer.

Below is my email which I have pasted. You can use bits from it.

I am writing to express my conceran about the vitamin and mineral
guidelines that the Codex Alimentarius seeks to enforce at the
beginning of this year, especially the maximum recommended amounts of
vitamins and minerals needed. All vitamins and minerals are essential
for the healthy growth of people and only a handful of them are toxic
in large prolonged doses (most notably vitamin A). This is important
information to know. However, the Codex guidelines go too far in
their regulation and I am worried that this regulation may lead to
more rigorous regulation which will make vitamins and minerals less
available to the general public and so cause widespread health
problems. Below are some quotes from the guidelines for vitamins nad
mineral food supplements.

3.2.1 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% of the recommended daily intake as determined by FAO/WHO.

Wouldn't that make perfectly good supplements illegal? What about
multivitamins and supplements where there is a secondary vitamin that
is below 15% (for example a vitamin D supplement that contains 100%
RDA of vitamin D but only 10% of vitamin A. People will buy it for
the vitamin D, not the vitamin A. Yet under these guidelines, it
can't be used because the secondary vitamin is too low.) This is
going to stop the sale of a lot of perfectly good vitamin supplements.

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.

The upper safe limit seems to be based on things which will make it
quite low. A lot of people eat red meat which contains a lot of
vitamin A. However, a lot of people are vegetarian and their diets
make it almost implossible to overdose on this vitamin. How is a
label going to be able to guide everybody with such a vast range of
diets? It will not and may give people false and very damaging
advice. Also most vitamins require a very extreme diet for someone to
overdose on to the extent that they have health problems from the
vitamin. This will just make people think that they are overdosing on
vitamins when they aren't and so not get their RDAs.

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).

Due account may be taken of the reference intake values of the
vitamins for the population? Once again, this is an attempt at a 'one
size fits all approach' to advising people on what they should take to
make them healthy. It will not work and will doubtless lead to a cry
for more regulation which will further regulate and therefore reduce
the availability of vitamins and minerals.

5.7 The label shall contain advice to the consumer not to exceed the
maximum one-day amount.

Why? With the case of water soluble vitamins (mainly B and C),
exceeding your RDA menas that they come out in urine. In the case of
fat soluble vitamins, you will need to take a lot over a prolonged
period to suffer ill effects.

5.9 The label shall contain a statement that the product should be
stored out of reach of young
children.

Really? Vitamins supplements should be stored out of reach of young
children? I thought it was important that young children knew how
important vitamins and minerals are to their diet - not that they
should be classed 'out of reach' along with bleach and other actual
dangerous chemicals. If this wasn't in a serious document, I would
have though that it was a laughable attempt at reverse psychology on
young children that if vitamins and minerals were forbidden that they
wouldn't stop taking them.

These regulations are going to damage the health of many people by
making vitamins and minerals less available to them. Vitamins and
mineral supplements need to be classified as foods again.

Thanks for reading this email
Malaros is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Project Avalon