Examples of insane "Nutrient Reference Values" (read: nutrient upper limit) recommendations for Codex:
Vit C 45 mg (you need 60 to ward-off scurvy!)
Calcium 1 gr (women need 1.2 gr to prevent osteoporosis)
but lots of toxic fluoride permitted
Malaysia does not want to develop Nutritional Reference Levels for Non Communicable Diseases since they want to work on Vitamins and Minerals as mandated by Codex.
One NGO asked why nutrients should not be considered below 36 months including fetal impact of nutrition. Committee Chairman GK's response was fascinating, including slip of tongue substituting "contraception" for "conception":
GK: the fetal programming begins at the moment of [sic] contraception but it would be inappropriate if we go for anything before 36 months since this is where the child starts to e t what the parent eats so we will not consider that.
Back to Codex: in the process of setting UPPER LIMITS for intake of nutrients that are implicated in Diet-Related Non Communicable Diseases the expert consultations and data of WO/FAO are to be given primacy despite the facts that:
1. Upper limits through Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for nutrients which are necessary for health like Vitamin A are set so low that they are meaningless in health terms (as we said when we were vigorously opposing the passage of the Vitamin and Mineral Guildelines way back in 2005)
2. Upper limits for NRVs for nutrients which are supposedly dangerous and should be eliminated (like Na, which people seem to be in agreement needs to be limited) make no sense wahtsoever as a publiv heath measure since, despite popular belief, there are wide variations in the need for sodium while some types of saturated fats, such as medium chain triglycerides and CLA, are urgently important in health.
Important update: the planned finishing off of Codex is clearly not going ahead as planned: they are making plans for things to happen in 2013, 2015, etc we will have time for Push Back! We can stop this if we all work together.
Although CCFL requires CCNSFDU to come up with the NRVs on sodium and Saturated Fat, there is a lot of disagreement here about doing that. US supports inclusion of sat-fat and Na, in a proposed new work document US gives first priority to nutrients referred by CCFL so including them would be appropriate and US supports it. US supports everything since US, behind the scenes, pre-arranges everything!
International Council for Beverage makers supports the US but wants sodium, not salt, to be included. The Bigs bickering!
Only voice against this is Malaysia and some NGOs
