Talk:Codex Alimentarius

When does Codex Alimentarius become Foodcopeia ...???
Have noticed that some of the standards have not been reviewed and revised for more than 20 years. We can imagine that how many biological bugs and mycotoxins will be stacked on those standards... hah....???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Ron Paul comments
The Ron Paul comments are WP:UNDUE. Or, more broadly, the random comments of any given politician about the Codex are WP:UNDUE. Paul is not a recognized authority on the subject, he is not directly involved in major legislation related to it, and thus his opinion simply isn't important. As such, it violates WP:NPOV to include the comments here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument, as this clearly runs contrary to the approach on other WP alt-med related articles. To take but one example, in the Alternative Medicine article, we find the anti-alt med opinions of an Australian comedian, Tim Minchin, being quoted. Many people have tried to remove these comments, quoting essentially the same grounds as yourself, but without success. I'd therefore be interested in your thoughts on this. Vitaminman (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just read Vitaminman's comment. I thought it was inappropriate for the opinions of comedian Tim Minchin, who is not a recognized authority on anything remotely relevant to medicine (neither alternative, complementary, integrative nor orthodox traditional) to be quoted in the Alternative Medicine article. I confirmed that there is no such citation in the Alternative Medicine article at the present time, nor does the article link to any page associated with Mr. Minchin. The article on Mr. Minchin quotes a single statement he made, acknowledging the possible effectiveness of reiku therapy, but nothing else specifically pertaining to medicine that I could find (I emphasize that that was on Mr. Minchin's own biographical article, NOT on the Alternative Medicine article). --FeralOink (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, but bear in mind that my comment was made back in March. At that time, the Alternative Medicine article did contain the Minchin quote: Fortunately, and sensibly, it has now been removed. Vitaminman (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Guardian articles cited in Controversy section
There was an article from the Guardian UK, Nil by mouth, that was cited as a reference. I read the article. The gist of the article was that Britons would be deprived of life-saving dietary supplements and minerals because of EU legislation: "'For thousands of Britons battling the debilitating effects of cancer, depression, even eczema, diet is crucial. They view the vitamins and minerals they take as vital in their fight against sickness. So why does the EU want to cut off their supply? To those using herbs and supplements to manage chronic pain or life-threatening disease, it must seem like sabotage. Beata Bishop's book - now, sadly, out of print - is a testament to the value of a nutrient-rich diet, boosted by supplements: 'I should have died of malignant melanoma... around June 1981. When my secondary cancer was diagnosed in late 1980, I was suffering from diabetes, incipient osteoarthritis, frequent knockout migraines and dental abscesses.' Today, she is free of these and attributes her recovery to Gerson Therapy, the radical regime under which the body is detoxified and activated with ionised minerals... Not the least depressing aspect of this whole debate is the orgy of vivisection it could unleash.'"

Subsequently, there were three follow-up articles in The Guardian UK, see [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/30/vitamins-antioxidants-supplements-cancer Keep taking the fruit and veg: Vitamin pills do not reduce cancer risk. Science, Guardian UK, Dec 2008]: "'Anti-oxidant supplements do not reduce your risk of developing cancer, according to a trial involving more than 7,500 women. Beloved of health food shops and alternative therapists, anti-oxidant pills have been marketed as preventive therapies to ward off everything from cancer to the signs of ageing. Numerous studies have shown that people who eat a healthy balanced diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables are less likely to develop cancer and one benefit of these foods is thought to be the anti-oxidant chemicals they contain. Why not get that benefit directly in a pill? Several large studies have now compared the benefits of supplement pills against placebos and have conclusively shown that the benefits of a healthy diet are not shared by vitamin pills — and in some cases they have been shown to be harmful.'" and [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/16/medicalresearch Vitamin supplements may increase risk of death. Medical Research, Guardian UK, April 2008]: "'Vitamin supplements taken by millions of people do not increase life expectancy and may raise the risk of a premature death, according to a review of 67 studies with more than 230,000 subjects. The review... found supplements vitamin A, vitamin E and beta-carotene are detrimental to health. In 47 trials with 180,938 people and a low risk of bias, the 'antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality', the authors wrote. The evidence suggests it would be safer to obtain the chemicals not as supplements but by eating plenty of fruit and vegetables.'" and Vitamins do not reduce cancer risk, says study: "'Taking vitamin C and E supplements does not lower your risk of cancer, according to the results of a large clinical trial involving nearly 15,000 men in the US. Both vitamins are powerful antioxidants... However, the study shows that taking the vitamins in supplement form has no effect at all on cancer... Vitamin supplements did not prevent the risk of cancer... having a healthy diet was more important.'"

If the Guardian article from 2004, that advocates Mrs. Bishop's out-of-print book, and Gerson Therapy to cure everything from dental abscesses to malignant melanoma to migraines with ionized minerals, is acceptable as reference for Wikipedia, then the subsequent articles from 2008, that cite a combined total of 70 scientific research studies, with a quarter of a million people as research subjects, both men and women, globally, must also be acceptable references for Wikipedia. The latter articles were removed, on the grounds of No Original Research, while the article from 2004 was retained. I chose to revert the change. At the present time, the 2004 citation as well as two of the three 2008 citations are present as references. --FeralOink (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edit particularly contravened WP:SYN, as well as WP:NOR. This is why it was removed. Vitaminman (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I put a comment on FeralOink's page before I saw this discussion. Vitaminman is correct, because the Guardian article doesn't in any way discuss the Codex. What you are doing is called synthesis, which is where you combine one or more sources to imply something neither says. While that article is a reliable source, it can't be used here to imply some sort of conclusion about the Codex or its workings. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, Qwyrxian. I understand, and apologize for my error in comprehension of WP:NOR, and WP:SYN.  The key was the "Synthesis" part. That makes sense to me. I will revert and remove those Guardian UK articles. I remain puzzled then as to the applicability of the Guardian article of 2004, by Rose Shepherd. It is a several thousand word article, and makes only a single reference to the Codex Alimentarius, specifically, to the "Draft Guidelines". Also, it predates the Guidelines, which is of course why it refers to them as "Draft Guidelines". It has been over seven years since the Guidelines were passed and made effective. It is a speculative article, in the sense that it identifies possible scenarios that would result from the approval and implementation of the Guidelines, which were put into effect for quite a few years now. I don't know if any of the concerns have become realities as a result of the Guidelines. If they have, they should be included in this article. If they have not, why is the Guardian article of 2004 still cited now, in 2012?


 * Also, Slow Foods really doesn't belong in this article any longer. Apparently Slow Foods was opposed to some of the tenets of the EU sponsored food guidelines as of 2004 or so. At this point in time, in September 2012, Slow Foods acknowledges with gratitude its acceptance of financial support from the EU on its landing page. I could not find any mention of Slow Foods being opposed to the Guidelines.


 * Another thought, re the PDF from the organization in Tuscany that is referred to at the very end of the article: I read the entire document, and word searched for the passage that was quoted. The Codex Alimentarius is referenced as an adversary to the public good, and serving the interests of agribusiness instead. However, it is listed in the same sentence as the following entities: the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The World Bank is a widely acknowledged advocate for the public good, is it not? Also, the date of publication was 2003, at which time the Guidelines were a future possibility. In the reality that has since come to pass, have the concerns come to fruition? Some may have, and if so, they need to be cited. If we leave this article the same way as it is now, it seems very out of date.


 * In other words, many of the items under the "Controversies" section are speculative as they are sourced from documents and authorities that predated the implementation of the Guidelines. The article does not inform about the Codex Alimentarius nearly as much as it focuses on the potentially negative consequences of its passage.


 * Finally, I noticed certain references in this talk page to Napoleanic law. I don't know how that pertains to Western Europe, within the EU or EEU. I do know that in the U.S.A., there is only one state, Louisiana, whose statutes are based on Napoleanic law. None of the other states are. Thus any of the concerns about the Guidelines impacting the U.S.A. adversely due to Napoleanic law would not seem a concern, if they are limited to that context. That might not be relevant any longer, but I recall that the Guardian article mentioned the impact of the Guidelines on the U.S.A., and the earlier talk page entries here mentioned the broad applicability and power of the Guidelines under Napoleanic law. However, I don't think that Napoleanic law would be how the Guidelines would be effected in the U.S.A.


 * I would rather focus on other parts of Wikipedia where I have subject matter knowledge, e.g. financial securities regulation and compliance in the U.S.A., not the Codex Alimentarius. Please have a look at this, Vitaminman and Qwyrxian. I will remove the citations to the later Guardian articles after you have had a chance to respond to my inquiries. Or maybe I should revert now? I don't know what the proper course of action is... --FeralOink (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I'm sorry, I didn't realize until just now. My changes were removed already. So there is nothing further needed from me here, I gather. You have taken care of everything already. Please have a look at the other items I mentioned, and proceed as you feel is best. My work is done here, no? --FeralOink (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Rose Shepherd/Guardian article contains a whole paragraph about the Codex issue. It's a good source and conforms to WP guidelines (no pun intended). The links to the Slow Food website are a rather different matter, in the absence of any better sources for these I would support their removal. Vitaminman (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Rose Shepherd/Guardian article says this, and only this re the Codex:
 * "The fight doesn't end there. Today Europe, tomorrow the world. Similarities have been noted between the EU's Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements. Codex is about harmonisation on a global scale. US health freedom campaigners are watching nervously, mindful that the US will have one vote, compared with the expanded EU's 25-strong block vote. If the legal challenges succeed, it will pose a potent obstacle to the plan to impose Codex worldwide. If they fail... Well, ultimately you have to ask yourself, cui bono? This is what the Americans term a wake-up call. I prefer the English word 'alarm'. Be alarmed. Be very alarmed."

It was written from the viewpoint of 2004, prior to the passage of the Guidelines. I don't understand the relevance of that paragraph to the status of the Codex, as of September 2012. --FeralOink (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Censorship and vandalism
I have added a new section Vocal concern to Codex Alimentarius and opposition to the article. This contains people in vocal opposition to Codex Alimentarius. Now I have no doubt in my mind that there is an angenda here to censor certain information that relate to certain issues. Having been here for a short time I have had 2 articles deleted. In my opinion, the second one was deliberately and strategically vandalised in a way to make it seem worthless in the eyes of others. Perhaps some people who normally would rescue and improve such an article wouldn't when it was made such a mess. Now I've addeed this section here with the nammes of people that some here may find controversial. I know that some here would do anything to censor this info. Wikipedia should not be censored and if it continues I will take the matter further. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC))
 * I have removed your extreme fringe edit. Per WP:BRD please now tell us why you think it should go into the article, Many editors have told you why not already. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD'' Reply - It is not an extreme fringe edit! Total and utter rubbish in what you say! Are you saying that the Hindu and Financial times are fringe media ???? - Please read the following ...... THIS IS WHAT I EDITED IN: Dr. Rima Laibow has been described by The Hindu newspaper as prominent personality in the anti-Codex alimentarius movement. The newspaper reported that she was to arrive in Mangalore on the 9th of July 2006 to address a select group and then meet President A.P.J. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Renowned doctor, B.M. Hegde said that she was invited by a member of the "Whole persons healing" organisation and that Laibow was heading the anti-Codex Alimentarius movement. The Hindu July 5, 2006 Rima Laibow to deliver lecture in Mangalore also in Financial Times Ltd., 2006 July 5 Rima Laibow to deliver lecture in Mangalore Quote Roxy the dog::  please now tell us why you think it should go into the article Reply: Easy and simple, the edit I did belongs in the article because it shows that there is opposition to Codex Alimentarius and the fact that Rima Laibow went to India and met with the President of India!! Leaving this out is like leaving out some of Kenny Rogers history juet because someone doesn't want others to read it. Quote Roxy the dog:: Many editors have told you why not already Reply - Many editors ???? Besides LuckyLouie there's only yourself and DougWeller. The latter is behaving like a censor and both of you have deliberately vandalised the article to censor certain info. One could be forgiven for thinking that there may be more to these actions.

(Boss Reality (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC))


 * Could you clarify what you mean by "take the matter further"? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do. I see you have also ignored my question, and edit warred your point of view into the article. Honestly, you'll get nowhere this way. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to Roxy the dog, Quote:, I see you have also ignored my question Reply:' I haven't ignored your question. I've answered it already. And when you posted on 12 July 2014, I had other things to do. If you believe that people don't have a life outside of Wikipedia then you'd be in just as much in a fantasy as someone who thinks censoring certain articles is going society a favor. Actually someone who is censoring articles and deliberately blocking info may be doing themselves a favor in the short term but in the long term the benefits don't pay off. Quote:edit warred your point of view into the article Reply: I haven't edit warred anything in here. All I have done was add a credibile and useful edit into the article about the stance against Codex Alimentarius that already exists. To deny this, censor and valdalise this is like having an article about Anti-Apartheid or the Anti-Apartheid Movement movment deleted and censored from Wikipedia. Perhaps you'd like to do that. I know that there are some special interest groups that would thank you for that just as there are some now that would be pleased with your efforts so far!(Boss Reality (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Reply to Dougweller, Exactly that. If you continue the destructive vandalism and deliberate censoring info you don't want here. I'm talking of the edits of myself and others. If you continue this then the matter will be taken further. My advice is for you to discontinue this. For starters you're being reported! (Boss Reality (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC))


 * This is a bit silly. You haven't reported anyone and no one is vandalising. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Real and true! And who said I am the one that will be doing the reporting. ..... Big sigh ..... Like I said, The matter will be taken or is being taken further. And about the vandalising, well it depends on who's doing it and how they view it in their minds. From what I can see, you deliberately damaged the Rima Laibow article in various ways to make a complete mess of it. You have done and have continued to censor information. Sometimes it seems that were doing a rehearsal for a stage play of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four. It's sad that Wikipedia is spoilt by this behavior. (Boss Reality (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
 * BossR. Why have you censored part of one of my comments on this topic? Please explain yourself. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, if I've forgotten to reply to part of something that you said then my good friend, please let me know. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)) Struck comments by sockpuppet Boss Reality. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversy
As it stands now, the critics have been smothered and their claims (which I don't understand) have been smothered. If there is a Controversy section, other editors should respect the right of the critics to speak their minds, however wrong they are.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope that anyone who follows Wikipedia guidelines finds their place here. This happens when people summarize information from a reliable source. Summarizing published criticism is encouraged here. Writing original criticism or using Wikipedia to publish new interpretations is not.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just that the Controversy section is incoherent. It would be better to delete it entirely.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)