Category: 1

Codex Ailementarius: Hype? 05/12/2009

Linked from http://www.iamonemind.com/codex.html

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS: HYPE?

By David A. Burgess
onemind@iamonemind.com

Written: May 03, 2009
Last Updated: May 09, 2009

After hearing and reading about Codex Alimentarius and Bills C51/C52/C6 and all the alleged abuses of our rights and freedoms being perpetrated against Canadians as well as humanity as a whole in the name of power and profit, I thought, “maybe this is all just a lot of hype”.

So what is the Codex Alimentarius, exactly? According to the Commission itself,

"Simply stated, the Codex Alimentarius is a collection of standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations. Some of these texts are very general, and some are very specific. Some deal with detailed requirements related to a food or group of foods; others deal with the operation and management of production processes or the operation of government regulatory systems for food safety and consumer protection" (Understanding the Codex Alimentarius, Page 10)

Doesn't sound so bad. Global consumer protection, international standards, regulations to protect us from dangerous things. That's good, right? That's how it reads the first time around, anyways. Check it out:

The official Codex Alimentarius site:
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/

Understanding the Codex Alimentarius (PDF)
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/understanding/Understanding_EN.pdf

So then why are people saying things like this?

Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&ei=OSP6SbKEA6GgqQPSouDaAQ&q=nutricide&hl=en
(Copy the link location above and paste it into your browser's address bar if clicking the title doesn't work)

I decided to check back with the official Codex site to see if they can refute some of the stuff I've been reading and watching online. They have an FAQ section that at first glance seems to answer a lot of the allegations... but after closer examination, they don't really refute anything. One interesting example... Hexachlorobenzene. How does this chemical affect life? Well, according to Wikipedia:

(quote)

Hexachlorobenzene, or perchlorobenzene, is a chlorinated hydrocarbon with the molecular formula C6Cl6. It is a fungicide formerly used as a seed treatment, especially on wheat to control the fungal disease bunt. It has been banned globally under the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants.[1] Not to be confused with benzene hexachloride, another name for lindane.

Safety
Hexachlorobenzene is an animal carcinogen and is considered to be a probable human carcinogen. After its introduction as a fungicide in 1945, for crop seeds, this toxic chemical was found in all food types. Hexachlorobenzene was banned from use in the United States in 1966.

This material has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Group 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans). Animal carcinogenicity data for hexachlorobenzene show increased incidences of liver, kidney (renal tubular tumours) and thyroid cancers.[2] Chronic oral exposure in humans has been shown to give rise to a liver disease (porphyria cutanea tarda), skin lesions with discoloration, ulceration, photosensitivity, thyroid effects, bone effects and loss of hair. Neurological changes have been reported in rodents exposed to hexachlorobenzene. Hexachlorobenzene may cause embryolethality and teratogenic effects. Human and animal studies have demonstrated that hexachlorobenzene crosses the placenta to accumulate in foetal tissues and is transferred in breast milk.

HCB is very toxic to aquatic organisms. It may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. Therefore, release into waterways should be avoided. It is persistent in the environment. Ecological investigations have found that biomagnification up the food chain does occur. Hexachlorobenzene has a half life in the soil of between 3 and 6 years. Toxic to aquatic organisms. May cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. Risk of bioaccumulation in an aquatic species is high.

Toxicology

Oral LD50 (rat): 10,000 mg/kg
Oral LD50 (mice): 4,000 mg/kg
Inhalation LC50 (rat): 3600 mg/m3

Material has relatively low acute toxicity but is toxic because of its persistent and cumulative nature in body tissues in rich lipid content.

(end quote)

Liver, kidney, and thyroid issues (including cancer), skin lesions, bone effects and loss of hair. Banned in the US in 1966, banned globally in 2004.

Sounds pretty nasty.

Now go back to the Codex website, Click Official Standards/Pesticide MRLs, and search for Hexachlorobenzene in all foods. Guess what it says?

"No MRLs (Maximum Residue Limits) established or prior MRLs revoked"

What does the Codex FAQ have to say about the that?

"W3: Why does Codex list some substances that are banned by the Stockholm Convention? The Stockholm Convention deals with Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). POPs are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes. These substances also bioaccumulate in human and animal tissue and biomagnify in food chains, and thus can have a significant impact on human health and the environment. Many of the first generation organochlorine insecticides such as DDT had these characteristics.

The Stockholm Convention entered into force on 17 May 2004 with ratification by an initial 128 parties and 151 signatories. Parties to the convention committed themselves to outlaw nine chemicals, to limit the use of DDT to malaria control and to curtail inadvertent production of dioxins and furans.

Banning the use of POPs does not automatically and immediately remove their residues from the environment, agricultural commodity, animal feed or food (because they are persistent and still present due to previous use). It will take some time until they will degrade to undetectable levels in the environment.

As many POPs were used as pesticides, the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues has dealt with them. There are two kinds of maximum residue limits that the committee may set:

maximum residue limits (MRLs) are established for pesticides which are currently intentionally used to protect agricultural crops; and
extraneous maximum residue limits (EMRLs) are established for compounds that are no longer used as pesticides but residues are arising from environmental sources as a result of previous use.

Codex has established safe EMRLs for some POPs and future sessions of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues will consider this matter further and eventually decide if these EMRLS are still needed."

This is a chemical that has been banned in the US since 1966, and banned globally since 2004. The toxicology reports are pretty clear, and they already have the LDs (LD50 = the dose required to kill 50% of the tested population) worked out. Considering this is one of the big 9, why wouldn't they have come up with SOME kind of EMRL by now? Particularly since it only has a half-life of 3-6 years in the soil?

Unless of course someone stands to make more money if there are no limits on the stuff any more.

Point of interest: the "Host Country" for the Committee on Pesticide Residues is China, who only agreed to "monitor" POPs, not necessarily do anything about them. (http://www.pops.int/documents/implementation/nips/submissions/China_NIP_En.pdf - page 139, "Specific actions").

Ok, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and postulate that maybe there's some scientific reason why they have not yet been able to come up with an EMRL for this particular POP. How about a really easy "rumor" to dispel?

According to Dr. Laibow in Nutricide, Fritz ter Meer was the President of IG Farben and he's the one who came up with the concept of using Codex to control the world food supply. A brief bit of Wikipedia research turns up that Fritz was actually NOT the president of IG Farben, but rather "Head of dept. II, which was in charge of the chemical plant in Buna near Auschwitz". Hmm, she was slightly off about the position. Ok, what else does Wikipedia have to say about the guy?

"Fritz ter Meer ( July 4 1884 – October 27 1967 ) was a German chemist.

He was the son of Edmund ter Meer the founder of a chemical company later becoming part of Bayer. Fritz ter Meer also worked for Bayer and later IG Farben. He was involved in the planing satellite camp of KZ Auschwitz Monowitz concentration camp. He was sentenced to seven years prison by the Nuremberg Trials in 1948. After he was released in 1951 he became supervisory board chairman (Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender) of the Bayer AG. He retired in 1961. In 1962, he became one of the architects of Codex Alimentarius."

Some other interesting comments I came across:

"Just fifteen years after they were convicted in the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Bayer, BASF and Hoechst were again the architects of the next major human rights offences. In 1962, they established the Codex Alimentarius Commission."

"In 1962, ter Meer was one of the architects of the 'Codex Alimentarius Commission' and one of the main designers of the schemes that would profit from human suffering."

"The deceptive title "Codex Alimentarius" is no accident. It was devised by the same companies and indeed the same individuals, who gave the Auschwitz concentration camp inmates the deceptive slogan "Arbeit mach frei" ('Work makes you free')."

(Remarks made by the Dr. Rath Health Foundation - http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/)

OK, so she was wrong about his title, but the rest seems to hold up. Now, wouldn't it be really easy for the Codex commission to dispel this myth by simply naming the people who actually did originally bring Codex onto the world stage? Shouldn't they be launching libel and slander lawsuits and bury the people who say these things in lawsuits up to their eyeballs? Well, here's what they have to say:

"R2: Is it true that Codex was created by a former war criminal to control the world food supply? No. It is a false claim. You just need to type the words "Codex Alimentarius" in any search engine and you will lots of these rumours about Codex. Usually the people spreading them will give no proof but will ask you to send donations or to sign petitions against Codex.

Truthful information about Codex is found on Internet (www.codexalimentarius.net) - there is nothing to hide from our side - we are a public institution working in public for the public - we are happy if people want to know more about our work and ask questions. There is an official Codex Contact Point in each member country (www.codexalimentarius.net/web/members.jsp) who will be pleased to answer your questions on Codex."

Nothing to hide? Interestingly enough, a fairly exhaustive search of CodexAlimentarius.net reveals nothing about the individuals who created it, or even who runs it now. The only place I could find names listed were the contact points for each of the individual member countries (Canada: Mr. Ron Burke, Codex Contact Point for Canada, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada).

There are some very vague statements about the origins of Codex in Understanding Codex:

"In the Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911, a collection of standards and product descriptions for a wide variety of foods was developed as the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus. Although lacking legal force, it was used as a reference by the courts to determine standards of identity for specific foods. The present-day Codex Alimentarius draws its name from the Austrian code." (P. 6-7)

Interestingly, the Austo-Hungarian empire was in crumbling ruins at that point, and died completely in 1918. Pretty impressive that a small nation embroiled in all the chaotic domestic and international politics that resulted in WW1 could possibly have come up with such a fine bit of work (according to traditional history it was the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, that started WW1)... but hey, those Austrians are pretty smart. It's possible. So how did this defunct commission get wound up into global trade standards? Well, according to Page 9:

"Two landmark years in the foundation of the Codex Alimentarius were 1960 and 1961. In October 1960, the first FAO Regional Conference for Europe crystallized a widely held view when it recognized:

'[t]he desirability of international agreement on minimum food standards and related questions (including labelling requirements, methods of analysis, etc.) ... as an important means of protecting the consumer’s health, of ensuring quality and of reducing trade barriers, particularly in the rapidly integrating market of Europe'.

"The Conference also felt that:

'... coordination of the growing number of food standards programmes undertaken by many organizations presented a particular problem'.

"Within four months of the regional conference, FAO entered into discussions with WHO, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Council of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus with proposals that would lead to the establishment of an international food standards programme. In November 1961, the Eleventh Session of the FAO Conference passed a resolution to set up the Codex Alimentarius Commission. In May 1963, the Sixteenth World Health Assembly approved the establishment of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme and adopted the Statutes of the Codex Alimentarius Commission."

In other words, the Codex went from Austro-Hungarian to global in less than 60 years, via Europe, and yet almost none of the "consumers" it is supposed to be protecting knows anything about it. We don't know who oversees it, or whether there are watch-dog groups in place to ensure that big business isn't interfering with the process. We still don't know who's idea it was in the first place, or how it became to be associated with the WTO. We also still don't know how this Commission with no legal powers has suddenly become the global standard that will overrule all local food and health laws, empowered by the threat of trade sanctions and massive fines.

"Now wait", you may say, "how does this impact me, anyways?"

1) It takes away your right to know and control what you're eating by removing labeling requirements. For instance, whether or not you want to eat genetically modified foods. (Did you know Doritos contain genetically modified corn, which is proven to make livestock infertile?)

Shut up and eat your clones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENIB917yXRE

Genetically Modified Food (GMO) DANGERS
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4852099791430441066&ei=zgD9SYiJJ52wqAPshIi-Dg&q=genetically+modified+food&hl=en&emb=1&client=firefox-a

The Dangers of Genetically Modified Food - Jeffery Smith
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4147551008386395793&ei=qP_8SfG3IZayqAO3wOWADw&q=genetically+modified+food&hl=en&emb=1&client=firefox-a

2) It changes how nutrients, vitamins, and minerals are classified. For example, any vitamin or other supplement becomes classified as a "drug" rather than "food", making it illegal to grow, purchase, sell, or consume them without a license or perscription. Yoga props, pilates machines and weight machines will be regulated as "medical devices" and require FDA approval before being sold or used. Even the fingers of a massage therapist are to be considered "medical implements" and thus must be certified, regulated, and licensed!

Mel Gibson Encourages Americans to Speak out

3) It impacts personal property and privacy rights, by giving government inspectors and officials the right to search and seize your property without warrants or due process. This has already begun here in Canada.

Restricting Our Freedoms - Shawn Buckley on Bill C6 (Part 1)

Restricting Our Freedoms - Shawn Buckley on Bill C6 (Part 2)

Organic farmer Michael Schmidt charged with selling raw Milk

Glencolton Farm Raided

In short, Codex will control your food "from farm to fork":

1. Vitamins, minerals and nutrients,
2. Genetically modified organisms,
3. Toxic residues,
4. Antibiotics, drugs, growth stimulants, and other hormones in food animals,
5. Organic foods, and
6. Irradiation of food.

But wait... don't we have laws protecting us from these kinds of things? Sure we do... except they are being changed, slowly, to "harmonize" with Codex (in Canada - Bills C51, C52, C6, and others). As of December 2009, Codex regulations will become binding internationally. Any nation that has entered into trade agreements through the WTO (153 nations so far!) and its adjunctive treaties will eventually be forced to adopt Codex standards (or face massive international trade sanctions and fines).

It is important to note that Codex Alimentarius operates under the system enshrined in the Napoleonic legal code, under which anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. In contrast to the Napoleonic legal code, the U.S. and Canada operate under the more sensible English-based Common Law, wherein anything not specifically forbidden is permitted.

The plan started way back in the 60's is about to come to fruition. The date when all WTO members are expected to be Codex compliant is not years away, it is months away (December 2009). I'll bet you haven't seen anything about that on CNN or CBC, or read about it in your local paper.

Shouldn't something this big, that affects the very food we eat, and our rights as citizens and human beings, be brought under closer public scrutiny?

Fortunately, there are some very intelligent people who are looking at the local applications of these things, and they are doing their best to raise awareness about how legal changes being made to harmonize us with Codex are also being used to affect us in other, even more sinister ways. Researching the folks featured in the videos linked above and below will help you connect with some of those people, and the groups which they have decided to create or support.

Most of us are not legal experts, food safety experts, or politicians. Most of us are simply trying to achieve the universal dream:

1 - adequate food and water
2 - adequate shelter and clothing
3 - a basic sense of freedom, and security
4 - time to enjoy life with our friends and family

Do you feel that you have all four of those things?

Based on what you have read, do you feel that this Codex Alimentarius, and the resulting legal haggling here in Canada (bills C51-52, Bill C6, etc) are going to provide you with more of any of those four things?

If not, then who DOES benefit from these changes?

Do your own research. Talk to other people. Find out what's going on, and whatever you learn, please share it with others.

If what you find seems to contradict the "rumors", then by all means, publish that information! One voice speaking with truth and clarity can cut through a thousand misunderstandings and lies.

If what you found seems to confirm the fears of so many, then now is the time to do something about it. Find out if there are any local movements dedicated to stopping this profit-driven madness. Join them, support them, tell your friends about them.

Or in the very least, pass this on to others, in order that they too may have the opportunity to make up their own minds.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Add Comment

All News

Archives

Categories