Codex Alimentarius

Focus on true threats, not disinformation

Codex Alimentarius, certainly in alternative circles, is often claimed to be the single greatest threat to our continued access to natural health products and wholesome foods. Robert Verkerk challenges some of the misconceptions and explains both what Codex is really about and what else we should be concerned about.

If adopted in the UK, Codex Alimentarius will ban all effective vitamin, mineral and herbal food supplements and restrict them to ‘prescription only’. This viewpoint forms the basis of a No 10 Downing Street e-petition that, at the time of writing, is supported by nearly 18,000 signatures. Such views are rife on the Web and are causing great concern and confusion among an anxious public.

As I will show, elements of such views are well founded, whilst others are less so. Most importantly, for those of us concerned about the threats posed by Codex, the parts that are unfounded give governments free rein to do nothing in response to concerns raised.

Among the diversity of viewpoints around the impact of Codex, some correctly allude to a much broader impact, one that goes well beyond the realm of food or dietary supplements. The problem here is that much of the detailed information often used to support the claims is incorrect. Such carelessness gives governments further reasons to ignore concerns. It also allows the misinformation to act as a smokescreen, concealing the real issues that need our attention if we are truly committed to helping reinstate natural approaches to healthcare as the dominant and rightful heir to existing mainstream, pharmaceutical-centred medicine.

Some of the misinformation on Codex appears to be deliberately disseminated, while other parts are unwitting reproductions of the misinformation by concerned yet naive individuals.

The full article appears in issue 72.