b'claim of scientific consensus.Moreover, I reminded the delegates that the Codex Procedural Manual very clearly statesthat:Riskassessmentshouldbe based on realistic exposure scenarios, as stated in Section IV, Risk Analysis, 2(e). This means that one or more risk assessments should have been done on Zilpaterols synergistic effects with the other drugs, toxins, endocrine disrup-tors,hormones,andchemicalsthatanimals and humans are directly exposed to in the real World. This was not done. So, no one can say that the risk assessment conducted on Zilpaterol was complete and robust.With only two minutes at a time allotted for each delegation to speak, I was pressed to make all of my arguments, but I did referScreenshot of the Chairmans compromise wording advancing the Zilpaterol standardthe delegates to NHFs extensive written comments at CRD 43 (see https://thenhf. things because you are a genuinely nice man,of the procedural requirements or else we com/safety-issues-for-zilpaterol-still-ex- but I dont think you are hearing the substantialwould not be at this impasse and unable to ist/). NHF reminded the delegates that theyopposition to these MRLs [Maximum Residueadvance the standard.were the Risk Managers here and, as such,Levels]. We dont see any flexibility on yourIn the end, the Zilpaterol standard did not could accept or reject any risk assessmentpart here and it is no compromise to advanceadvance even one step. This is at least the presented to them. this standard. third time that NHF and its allies have de-The Australians and a number of otherIn the end, and after three attempts tofeated Merck and its nave or bought-and-delegates were again in dreamland as theypressurethepro-health(anti-Zilpaterol)paid-for Zilpaterol supporters at Codex, but continued to blindly argue that clear con- delegates into accepting his compromise,it was a very close victory. sensus existed, or that scientific consen- the Chairman and the head table had theStill,asWinstonChurchillfamously sus had been achieved and that was all thatweekend to read and digest the newly sub- quipped,Victoryisneverfinal.The counted. These delegates had lost all sensemitted written comments (including NHFsUnited States and some of its Codex allies of reality, as even the Chairman struggledCRD 43). The verbal opposition combinedhave threatened to call for a vote on the Zil-with the obvious lack of consensus and thewith the oppositions new, written submis- paterol standard and I am certain they will newly minted term scientific consensussions must have had their intended effectdo just that at the next CAC meeting. In the isnt even a concept mentioned once in thebecause the Chairman gave up his push forend, this maneuver could prove as divisive Codex Procedural Manual. Some delegates,the Zilpaterol standard to advance to Stepand disruptive to the Codex Alimentarius includingtheUnitedStates,mumbled5. In remarks made on Monday, NovemberCommission as the forced vote on the simi-threats about forcing a vote on the issue. 15th, the Chairman even gave an unsolic- lar vet drug Ractopamine in July 2012.The Chairman and the Codex Executiveited compliment to NHF by stating that he Committee clearly had their own plans forhad read and considered NHFs CRD 43.Russia to the Rescuethe Zilpaterol standard and that was to ig- The final Conclusion adopted at the meet- OnNovember17th,theCommission nore the lack of consensus and advance theing was still biased in favor of the standard,read the Report, which means that the standard up one step towards completion asbut at least it generally reflected the realitywording for the minutes of the meeting a compromise. Several days of this biasedof the multi-day discussion at the meeting. were carefully considered and generally conduct, coupled with the Chairmans re- At the last minute, the Merck front groupagreed upon. NHF had made two com-peated attempts to impose his written con- misleadingly named Health for Animalsments that should have been included in clusions on the Codex delegates, continuedtried to insert language into the all-import- the Final Report, but which were specifi-until I could not stand it anymore, and withant Conclusion incorrectly stating that allcally excluded by the Chairman and the no one else saying anything about it, I askedprocedural requirements for advancementnownot-so-friendlyCodexSecretariat. for the floor and told the some 600 partici- had been met; but as quickly as a game- NHF had mentioned on two separate occa-pants that One of the things that we at NHFshow contestant, I hit the buzzer andsions the antimicrobial-resistance problems admired so much about the CCRVDF ChairmanNHF was given the floor immediately aftercaused by the use of glyphosate and Zilpa-was that he never let his personal views interferethe wording was inserted in the on-screenterol, respectively. In the former instance, with his role as an impartial chairman. We hadtext. In less than one minute I was able tomy arguments for its inclusion fell on the hoped that that tradition would be carried onknock that wording out of the text by point- deaf ears of the head table, despite the kind here. But it hasnt been, and you Mr. Chairmaning out that it was an untrue statement inassisting arguments made by fellow INGO, seem to have an agenda. Its hard to say thesethat the Zilpaterol standard had not met allthe European Network of Childbirth Asso-8 H ealtHF reedomN ews /w iNter2021'