CODEX Archives

Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels".

[ CODEX Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels".

Posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on July 13, 2005 at 15:08:28:

Hello:

Going through the CODEX website and searching for the exact language regarding "safe upper levels" with respect to supplements, I came up with this from page 45 of Alinorm 04/27/26. I have a problem with what they call "Scientific Risk Assessment".
----------------------------------------------------

ALINORM 04/27/26 page 45
3.2 Contents of vitamins and minerals
3.2.1 The minimum level of each vitamin and/or mineral contained in a vitamin and mineral supplement
per daily portion of consumption as suggested by the manufacturer should be 15% of the recommended daily
intake as determined by FAO/WHO.
3.2.2 Maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in vitamin and mineral 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.
[When the maximum levels are set, due account should be taken to the reference intake values of vitamins
and minerals for the population.]
4. PACKAGING
4.1 The product shall be packed in containers which will safeguard the hygienic and other qualities of
the food.
4.2 The containers, including packaging material, shall be made only of substances which are safe and
suitable for their intended use. Where the Codex Alimentarius Commission has established a standard for
any such substance used as packaging material, that standard shall apply.
5. LABELLING
5.1 Vitamin and mineral supplements are labelled according to the Codex Standard for the Labelling of
Prepackaged Foods (Codex-Stan 1-1985, Rev. 1-1991) as well as according to the General Guidelines on
Claims (CAC/GL 1-1979).
The name of the product shall be “food supplement” with an indication of the category(ies) of nutrients or of
the individual vitamin(s) and/or mineral(s) contained in the product as the case may be.
5.3 The amount of the vitamins and minerals present in the product should be declared in the labelling
in numerical form. The units to be used should be units of weight consistent with the Codex Guidelines on
Nutrition Labelling.
5.4 The amounts of the vitamin and minerals declared should be those per portion of the product as
recommended for daily consumption on the labelling [and if different, the amount per single use].
5.5 Information on vitamins and minerals should also be expressed as a percentage of the nutrient
reference values mentioned, as the case may be, in the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling.]
5.6 The label must indicate the recommendations on how to take the product (quantity, frequency,
special conditions).
5.7 The label shall contain advice to the consumer not to exceed the maximum one-day amount
5.8 The label should not state or imply that supplements can be used for the replacement of meals or a
varied diet.
5.9 The label shall contain a statement that the product should be stored out of reach of young children.



Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". Archive!

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on July 14, 2005 at 08:56:45:

In Reply to: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on July 13, 2005 at 15:08:28:

Thanks, PhillyLady.

This is the ultimate absurdity of the allopathic paradigm having a monopoly for the past 100 years. The politicians are now going to make the rules even though the only information they have is the allpathic monopoly.

What a disaster!

Walt



Re: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels".

Posted by Jan S. [3524.19] on July 14, 2005 at 09:50:19:

In Reply to: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". posted by PhillyLady [1906.1536] on July 13, 2005 at 15:08:28:

Hi Philly. I have a problem with it too. This does not help people, it merely helps a pharmaceutical company justify the high price it will want to charge. Nutrients are not toxins!



Re: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". Archive!

Posted by PhillyLady [1327.1599] on July 14, 2005 at 19:29:43:

In Reply to: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". Archive! posted by Walt Stoll [93.1889] on July 14, 2005 at 08:56:45:

Hi Dr. Stoll:

Politicians should never make medical decisions. That's practicing medicine without a license.



Re: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels".

Posted by PhillyLady [1327.1599] on July 14, 2005 at 20:24:08:

In Reply to: Re: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". posted by Jan S. [3524.19] on July 14, 2005 at 09:50:19:

Hi Jan:

That's right. And, as Dr. Stoll said, it's politicians making the rules. They ought to stay out of medicine.

Follow Ups:


Re: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". Archive!

Posted by Elvis [1165.2150] on July 17, 2005 at 16:29:37:

In Reply to: Re: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". Archive! posted by PhillyLady [1327.1599] on July 14, 2005 at 19:29:43:

Very well said PhillyLady!



Re: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". Archive!

Posted by PhillyLady [2051.1599] on July 17, 2005 at 20:13:36:

In Reply to: Re: Exact CODEX Language Regarding "Upper Safe Levels". Archive! posted by Elvis [1165.2150] on July 17, 2005 at 16:29:37:

Hey Elvis:

Welcome back. Long time no see:-)

Follow Ups:


[ CODEX Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!