S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has Codex Alimentarius written all over it. By now, this much should be apparent. Besides the cumbersome regulations accompanied with traceability provisions which are merely a cover for surveillance to prevent small or local farmers from providing food outside of the corporate system, the bill gives unprecedented power over food production to FDA, HHS, and DHS.
Overbearing regulations aimed at small food producers that provide larger facilities with an unfair advantage are a hallmark of Codex guidelines. Likewise, the ability of the FDA, HHS, and DHS to implement various standards independently, or as a result of executive decrees, signals the coming Codex principles to the American food supply. This much has been well documented in recent publications.
However, there is yet another aspect of S.510 that has yet to be discussed, which also relates to Codex guidelines. Section 113 , titled “New Dietary Ingredients.” It is unfortunately as much of a Codex wish list as the previous provisions. This section alone gives a great deal more discretionary power to the Secretary of the HHS and FDA regarding dietary supplements. Under the guise of an attempt to reduce the access to and usage of anabolic steroids, the result of section 113 would give the Secretary the authority to ban any “new” dietary supplement that he/she sees fit.
This is not the first time that this has been attempted. In early 2010, John McCain and Byron Dorgan introduced the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010, which would have done essentially the same thing. This is a true signal that there is a higher force at work here. In fact, the DSSA of 2010 was submitted under the guise of preventing anabolic steroid use as well. This bill would have given the FDA the authority to establish a list of acceptable dietary supplements, without grandfathering in supplements from pre-1994 (the enactment of the famous Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act), and subsequently remove those supplements if it saw fit in the future.
While not a carbon copy of the DSSA, the intent remains the same in section 113 of S.510. The bill states:
If the Secretary determines that the information in a new dietary ingredient notification submitted under this section for an article purported to be a new dietary ingredient is inadequate to establish that a dietary supplement containing such article will reasonably be expected to be safe because the article may, or may contain, an anabolic steroid, the Secretary shall notify the Drug Enforcement Administration of such determination.
Although the language of the bill at first seems to be specifically aimed at anabolic steroids, subsequent statements cloud the focus of the section and leave it more open to interpretation. This is because this section cleverly gives the HHS and FDA the responsibility of creating a mechanism to identify acceptable dietary ingredients from the unacceptable ones.
Although nowhere in S.510 are “positive and negative lists” discussed in those specific terms, it is nonetheless mandated in this section. Common sense mandates that this be the case since regulatory agencies would necessarily need some sort of standard to reference in future policy considerations and decisions. That being the case, the bill states:
Not later than 180 days after date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish guidance that clarifies when a dietary supplement ingredient is a new dietary supplement ingredient, when the manufacturer or a distributor of a dietary ingredient or dietary supplement should provide the Secretary with information as described in section 413(a)(2) of the Federal, Food and Cosmetic Act, the evidence needed to document the safety of new dietary ingredients, and appropriate methods for establishing the identity of a new dietary ingredient.
There should be little doubt that the guidance specified here will eventually come in the form of a positive and negative list of vitamin and mineral supplements. Such a list would likely begin in the same manner as the positive and negative supplement lists currently existing in Europe with the passage of the European Union Food Supplements Directive. Of course, the EU Food Supplements Directive was merely the beginning of the implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines in Europe, specifically those dealing with vitamins and minerals. The EU Food Supplements Directive has and will continue to cause serious damage to the natural supplement industry as well as the health of millions of Europeans since its passage.
Codex has proven to be much more successful with their attack on vitamin and mineral supplements in Europe than in the United States. Likewise, it has been more successful in promoting the proliferation of genetically modified foods in the United States than in Europe. Because of this, it often appears that the Codex fight is isolated to one country, yet this idea is far from the truth. We are witnessing the implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines by stealth on a worldwide scale. It is a fact that whenever the same laws and policies are being enacted in very different places at the same time that there is another more hidden agenda behind the laws than the one being presented to the public.
Codex Alimentarius is a hydra with many different heads and it is important to view much of the domestic food- and supplement-related legislation with this in mind. Unfortunately, Codex is merely a symptom of the greater problem of an emerging world government and total domination of the individual through every means available – especially food.
 Directive2002/46/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Of 10 June 2002 of the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to food supplements. “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” Ed. Scott Tips. FHR. 2007. Pp. 237-243.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom