Archive for CODEX Industries – Page 17
Nutricide (noo trih side):
1. Intentionally bringing about our causing the death of a body of knowledge and information concerning the health promoting and curative attributes of herbs, food and food components
.
2. Intentionally bringing about our causing the death of large numbers of people through nutritional manipulation
.
Codex Alimentarius (the international food standard organization) and multinational corporation collusion together impair and gravely threaten world health. If Codex has its way, its deadly standards and guidelines will be implemented in the United States by 2010 significantly impairing the health and health prospects of all Americans, killing those with chronic illnesses who depend on therapeutic dose nutritional supplements for survival.
.
Read More … download the full PDF.
I’ll admit it. I got scooped! I was planning to blog, e-blast, write press releases, do a series of interviews and generally focus attention on a burning question that could save your life or your child’s (or someone else’s): “Drugs: What are You Taking and Why?”. But a wonderful campaign got there first and is doing a spectacular job of providing information about the serious, and potentially lethal, disconnect between psychiatric drugs, psychiatric diagnoses and biochemical reality.
I want to tell you about this campaign and urge you to consult the first class information provided on their site, their radio shows, articles and tools for empowerment and choice-making. Psychiatric drugs can be dangerous, they are largely untested, their efficacy is unproven, and they are powerful toxins which can have lasting, and often highly damaging, impact on the brain and behavior. Their long term effects are little known in adults and virtually unknown in children. None the less, they are quick and easy to use: they provide an initial damping of disturbing or irksome behaviors in many patients. True, the distressing and dangerous downward spiral of more symptoms, more drugs, more symptoms, more drugs, more symptoms, more drugs is a well established cycle rooted in biochemical reality. Unfortunatley, the use of these drugs is not rooted in any such biochemical solidity. The much-vaunted “Chemical Imbalance” has never been shown to exist. Treating it with expensive, life-threatening drugs whose efficacy is more a matter of glossy, but brilliant, media than of of non-commerically-tainted science is highly questionable at best and may be a lot worse. The system is broken (see below), drugs are highly questionable and should only be taken with full knowledge of the risks and benefits, and of all other options available (including questioning any diagnosis made so that you understand completely why you [or your child]) should, or should not, take the drugs offered by a harried, time-compressed, well-meaning, but well-indoctrinated physician or other prescriber.
What to do? Go to “The Truth About Psychiatry” and spend some time there. The information is sound, good science and, where there are only questions instead of answers, clearly and simply stated. While the site is not yet complete (the bookstore, for example, is yet to come), the information is top notch as are the experts who have banded together to get the word out: if YOU do not know what, and why, you are taking medication, it is your right and your responsibility to find out. Their radio archives, currently contain 11 easily downloadable archived interviews which are uniformly high quality, non technical and riveting. Each one is more potent, and more empowering, than the last. And each one prepares you to ask the right questions and evaluate the answers you get from your doctor or any where else.
The “Just Say Know” site is not about drug bashing. It is about ignorance busting.
To help you be in the know so you can make truly informed decisions, there is a very elegant, simple, clear (and clearly useful) form which you can download at www.psychtruth.org/justsayknow.htm. Working through it with your doctor you can see what you are taking and why. And, whatever your decision about the drugs themselves, as an informed consumer you are “doing a body good!” — Yours!
October is “Just Say Know” Month. I salute this initiative and will support it. And oh, by the way, the alternatives to drugs are all natural items (including a clean diet and high potency nutrients) which would become a thing of the past – world wide – if we do not preserve our right to health and health freedom. Donate now to the Natural Solutions Foundation to keep health freedom alive and well — so you CAN “Just Say ‘Know'” this month and every month using your choice of nutrients, supplements, clean food, detox, etc. Don’t let Codex take that away from you and those you love!
If you choose drugs, then let it be a knowing, understanding and well-informed choice. Just Say KNOW!”
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
This is a long, detailed fly-on-the-wall look at what Codex is actually like when you are sitting here in the room. I thought you might like to get the feel of these meetings so here you go. REL
First of all, General Stubblebine and I want very much to wish all of you a happy Independence Day. Amidst the fireworks and the fun, give a moment’s thought to what independence really is and what we must take care to keep as our precious freedoms. Health freedom must be high on the list if we are to be really free.
Switzerland has no reason to celebrate our Independence Day, of course. The only lights we saw in the sky this evening were strikes of summer lightening over beautiful Lac Leman (Lake Geneva) as we walked home from dinner. But there were plenty of fireworks today: they were all about health vs. trade during the Codex Alimentarius Commission session today. It was pretty hot and heavy for quite a while (and hot physically, too, since the air conditioning is not very adequate way high up in the peanut gallery where groups like ours get to sit.
However, we are not here for creature comforts.
Oh, by the way, we JUST got invited to participate in an African Regional Health Policies Meeting later this month. More airfare, more hotel costs, more impact on more countries! Won’t you help us with generous support? Your dollars are building a real pro-health constituency at the international level. The seeds for this particular contact were sown last February and the fruit is now beginning to ripen!
Before I go into the specifics of today’s session (which were quite significant), let me share a fascinating slip made by Chairman Mosha yesterday . Do you recall the discussion about the mandatory vs. the advisory nature of Codex? The Codex Secretary made the point abundantly clear that Codex texts, whether standards or guidelines, are NOT mandatory but voluntary. Well, Dr. Mosha ended the whole discussion by summarizing it saying, “Well, it is now quite clear that Codex guidelines and standards are mandatory!” The attendees gasped and began calling out. Dr. Mosha caught his error and said, “uh…er… I mean mandatory!” I don’t believe that we were the only people in the room who wondered what he actually DID mean.
Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (Chaired by Dr. Grossklaus, CCNFSDU) and Codex Committee for Food Labeling (Chaired by Ann McKenzie, CCFL) items were very prominent during the morning’s deliberations.
Finding an acceptable definition of trans fats has absorbed a great deal of energy in Codex. Trans fats like CLA found in grass fed beef and free range dairy products can have important benefits in weight and cancer control, for example. Their presence in these foods varies in amount. There is no way (or reason) to eliminate them. Yet synthetic trans fats from hydrogenation are highly toxic to every cell in the body and cause devastating increased in heart, vascular and neurological diseases and conditions. So how to define them, whether to differentiate between natural and synthetic trans fats and how to quantify them is very significant to food technocrats. In fact, their definition has been considered in two sessions of both CCNFSDU and CCFL.
CCFL’s Dr. McKenzie noted that “Although a very comprehensive discussion ensued, no fundamental changes to definition took place with committee members reaching consensus that it [the definition of trans fats] could be advanced to step 8 with a proviso that a footnote be added. This was the only way a consensus could be obtained.” Consensus? It’s a consensus when countries disagree so strongly that they add a footnote that changes the meaning of the definition? Just what DOES consensus mean? Stay tuned for tomorrow’s wild discussion on that one.
Next the US blandly described what happened at CCFL concerning one of its hobby horses: unlabeled Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). You will recall that the US is the only country in the world which allows the use of GM foods without labeling them. That means that unless your food is labeled “Organic” or “GMO Free” you must assume that it contains GMOs. If it has corn, soy or any products from them, if it has canola oil, increasingly if it has potatoes or an increasing number of fruits, it contains GMOs whose safety is, at best, unknown. If you want to be part of a grand, although uncontrolled experiment, go right ahead. Eat GMO food. Perhaps we’ll be able to sort out how many “excess” cases of cancer, auto-immune disease, lethal allergies, brain tumors, etc., were caused by this contamination. Or perhaps not. Only time will tell.
The US has worked hard to bully, cajole, convince and bribe the nations of the world to accept its biotech food. By the way, we learned from the Afghani delegation that new, improved biotechnology-improved high yield, newly robust larger plant-producing opium poppy seeds are being provided free of charge to the same farmers who are officially urged to abandon growing opium. Biotech opium? Sure! Why not! It’s all about trade. This one’s illegal, but it’s still trade, right?
For 8 years the US has been stymied by about 43 countries that will NOT have unlabeled GMO foods and have kept the US from getting what it wanted. (This, by the way, is a wonderful example of what countries can do to protect their people’s health if they choose to work together and put in the necessary energy to accomplish this excellent outcome.) Excellent, that is, until the US said that there was no need to continue deliberating this any longer. What that would have meant is that unlabeled US GMO foods could have been traded into countries of the world one at a time. This would have been another kind of win for the biotech forces. Picking countries off one at a time is another strategy for them.
When the US suggested this option, Norway immediately said, “NO! Let’s keep on talking and a plan quickly emerged for a special Working Group this coming January in Norway co-chaired by Norway, Ghana and Argentina. This development was reported upon and noted in order to help CCFL find the way forward on this issue. The only comment of the Chairman? “This is not a procedural issue” and we moved on to the next item. Just like that!
Not long after that we got to sugar and cereal for infants, but not in the same bowl.
One of the areas CCNFSDU deals with is infant and baby foods. The WHO GS recommends that the energy (calories) from sugar form no more than 10% of the total energy in any person’s diet. CCNFSDU has consistently permitted much higher levels of sugar in these foods while Thailand, India, Norway and other countries have just as consistently opposed these standards and guidelines. Not only do these high levels of sugar contribute to a child’s life long taste for simple carbohydrates (leading to many dangerous health problems later), the amount of nutrition available in the food is diminished by the empty calories so these levels actually make the global malnutrition of children worse all by themselves. Despite years of vigorous protest, somehow, autocratic “consensus” gets declared and the standards which will kill children (now or later, through malnutrition today or disease tomorrow) keep getting propagated forward as if they have been agreed upon. The trick is that the industry guys conspire to keep something in committee for years and then bring it forward to the CAC saying “This has been in committee for years so it must have been discussed fully and we therefore don’t want to waste all that good work so we should pass it” Believe it or not, CAC buys that illogical nonsense. What is the “good work” and time spent in committee compared to the life, health and longevity of a child? Not much, if you ask me, but, then again, I am not a Codex mover and shaker. I am just a health freedom advocate. That makes all the difference, unfortunately. Thailand stated again that it opposes moving this standard forward and wants the CCNFSDU to reconsider the whole standard. No one paid the least attention to that demand. Consensus? What does that word mean?
On to cereal for babies: Suppose you are a consumer and you want to give your baby or toddler cereal which is specially formulated for a child that age. How much cereal do you think it should contain? 50%? 75%? 95%? Well, because cereal is expensive and fillers are, by definition, cheap, Codex says that 25% will do just fine, thank you. India, on the other hand, fighting as she always does, for the nutritional adequacy of her babies and children protested that if only 25% of the product is cereal, 75% is therefore not cereal and so the product sold as a baby cereal product misleads the consumer.
Not only that, but the WHO Global Strategy which Codex is obliged to implement as well as the UNICEF “Report Card on Nutrition” says that over 50% of world’s children are malnourished. This leads to 5.6% of the deaths in developing countries and this childhood malnutrition is mostly in the developing countries. Since the foods under consideration here are the main components of infant diets, says India, they should compose at least 50% of cereal.
Such a low cereal content translates into tragically low energy densities meaning that even while children are eating these foods they are starving to death. Never mind, India. After all, a cereal-less cereal is a whole lot more profitable and, as the CCNFSDU Chair, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, was kind enough to point during the 2005 Bonn meeting, “It would be nice if Codex were about Health [he shouted at South Africa] but it isn’t. It’s about trade!” So, since it’s about trade, it’s no wonder that CCNFSDU advanced a cereal-less cereal standard despite India’s vigorous objections.
India was by no means finished, however, and pointed out that the CCNFSDU standards being pushed to the next level did not require sufficient protein to keep children from suffering from protein malnutrition. These cereals could easily provide more protein and would therefore support a growing child’s known protein needs but the standards do not protect children’s protein needs. In fact, CCNFSDU is actually LOWERING the standards of required protein density. And the response of the Dr. Mosha, the supposedly neutral Chairman (?) Dr. Mosha rudely and abruptly cut off the Delegate from India, representing one out of every 3 people on earth. What was that word? Oh, yes. Consensus.
Singapore, frequently a voice for health, noted that it shares the concerns of Thailand that in these foods the carbs and sugar are too high and is concerned, too, about the energy issue which concerns India. Singapore is concerned because 30% of the food’s total energy, not the recommended 10%, comes from added simple carbs.
Norway expresses, as it did during the CCNFSDU meetings as well, her grave concern about the level of added sugar. Norway noted, “We raised this in the CCNFSDU because of the GS. We should like the paragraphs concerning carbs reconsidered by the CCNFSDU. If there is no consensus in the CAC we will have our concerns reflected in the [final] report.”
But here’s how it works: the EU stated “We would like to support the recommendation of the chair [i.e., Dr. Grossklaus] of the committee [i.e., CCNFSDU] to go ahead with the adoption of the standard. We have been talking about it for a long, long time and I think that the concerns have been discussed in the committee but the committee recommended that these standards should be adopted. Of course, it is not the place here to talk about individual concerns [emphasis added] but I would like to note that the concerns of the WHO for sugar is an overall recommendation for diet, not for individual products and here we are talking about an individual product.”
Of course, not stated is that the individual product mentioned forms virtually the whole of the child’s diet for a vulnerable period during which childhood malnutrition, if established, will set up a child for lifelong disease and death.
Uganda joined the ranks of the publicly discontented sharing the sentiments expressed by India and Thailand. In fact, Uganda noted, “The issues are raised are of a technical issue and were not discussed in committee [CCNFSDU]. These are valid concerns and Uganda will not support approval of this standard.”
Next, the Philippines says that it shares same concerns as Thailand and Singapore.
But wait! It’s time for the Big Dog to weigh in. Dr. Ed Scarbrough, US Codex Manager, takes the floor and says, “Mr. Chairman, the US supports adoption of these standards as proposed by the chairman. These standards have been under consideration for a long time [did you catch that?] and the committee discussed them item by item. We do not believe that recommendations for the total diet can be imposed on a single item so we support the adoption of the standard.”
Sudan goes several steps further in raising questions saying, “Sudan endorses the points raised by those members (e.g., India, Thailand, Uganda, Norway, Philippines] who referred to these standards in regard to excess consumption of sugar. But what about cereals and what about GMOs in this framework. This is of concern to us and I thought we were going to talk about it! I know that GMOs are being used in producing cheese. Are there any GMO items used in producing foods for children?”
Dr. Mosha takes this opportunity to cut off discussion saying, “I don’t know but perhaps CCNFSDU would speak on this” and then not allowing time or opportunity for CCNFSDU to do so.
Switzerland joins the US and EU in “fully supporting” this standard with too much sugar, too little protein and too little energy in the cereal fed to babies world-wide, noting that this standard should be adopted since the standard “has been under discussion for a long time and we support German secretariat and the Chair of the CCNFSDU who has done a very good job.” So now we know that the issue is not only about trade, but it is a popularity contest, too. How very nice. Tell be sure to tell the mother of the dying baby that Switzerland, where the baby’s cereal was made, allowed the baby to die because the Chairman did such a good job and the item stayed on the agenda for such a long, long time!
The Chair weighs in by dealing with structure, but never with content. He says, “We are out of time: now I will close the list to more than the following countries: Canada, Egypt, Ireland, Qatar.’
Canada fully supported the adoption of the standard.
Egypt notes that” The sugar content is extremely important in this type of product since it is meant to be ingested by infants and children. Sugar is a source of diabetes and hypoglycemia and I would request these amounts to be reviewed before they are adopted.”
Ireland supports adoption of the standard. Korea supports adoption of standard as recommended by CCNFSDU noting “If we respect the experts from CCNFSDU we have to rely on their recommendation.”
China perplexingly says, “This standard has already been discussed for a long time and China supports some delegates opposition and we support its adoption as soon as possible.” I have no idea what that means. None.
Qatar states that it “Fully agrees with the standard and suggests that it be adopted. We also agree with the point made by the Egyptian delegation with regard to the high sugar content.” I guess whatever the Chinese comment means, this one means the same thing. If you can figure out what that is, exactly, please let me know.
Dr. Mosha, the Chair says the document has been accepted at Step 8 (now ready for ratification) but with the reservation of India, Norway, Singapore, Thailand, Qatar and Egypt noted.” Philippines and Sudan, China and the rest just disappeared. He goes on to ask, “Is there any strong opposition that we adopt text but note reservation?” and Thailand responds, saying, “As this standard is very important to health of young children and many countries oppose it we would like to propose that the CCNFSDU reconsider this text portion.”
“The chair is really getting hot!” says the Chairman.
Note to the reader: Hang in there. This is the mind numbing nature of Codex where the life and death of anonymous people are played with by processes which work hard to make it very difficult to keep their real needs in the forefront and I wanted you to have a little taste of it. We are almost done on this one issue.
Dr. Grossklaus, the CCNFSDU Chair uses the twisted logic of Codex and says, “there were no objections in our committee to forwarding the recommendations up to step 8 and no government sent any comments about this and according to procedural manual if India has not sent any comments, then it is too late. Guideline 11 is very old and is the basis for the revision of this standard (downward for protein, upward for sugar). This gives the countries the opportunity to use not only cereals but roots and other materials in the developing countries. Again, to the restriction of sugars, I mention that the GS mentions that a 10% restriction is for the whole diet and not a single food. We have discussed it extensively and you can read it in paragraph 84 and so I think all these things had full discussion. Thank you”
Dr. Mosha: “Thank you, Chairman. I noticed the flag of India.”
India: “This is a response to the concern expressed by the Chairman (Dr. Grossklaus). These concerns were raised there and are on the record of CCNFSDU [raising these concerns over and over again]. We are raising this because we feel that it has not been given due consideration. We would be willing to prepare a technical paper on this subject if this matter is referred back for further consideration.”
Netherlands: “Speaking as Vice Chair of the commission, on the issue to continue deliberations particularly related to sugar, the CCNFSDU, from the perspective of proper standards setting, has still on its plate the draft revised standard for infant formula. This has been under consideration for some time. I ask the committee to expeditiously finalize its work on that standard and as the concerns related to sugar, we ask to not open the issues and refer it to a later date and ask the committee to move expeditiously to finalize and only come back to certain issues when they have finalized the issues at Step 5.” Take that, India!
Thailand says, “In the spirit of moving forward we support India’s proposal [to prepare a technical paper if the matter is referred back for further consideration.”
Would you call the foregoing discussion a good example of anything you would care to define as consensus? I would not. None the less, the Chair, Dr. Mosha (who was elected during this session as the Chairman of the CAC for a second term) says, “We adopt the standard at Step 8 as presented… and ask CCNFSDU to consider [some items in the document] in light of GS and concerns of Thailand, India, Sudan, Egypt.” But the power has been left in the hands of the fox who is guarding the hen house. The hens raising alarms have either been mollified or stupefied. In any event, it’s getting close to time for a little chicken fricassee for the boys from Industry Land!
.
Afternoon: More of same for levels of aflatoxin (the second most deadly carcinogen known) in almonds, hazelnuts and pistachios. Iran wants to raise the levels. Trade, trade, trade.
Then back to Dr. Grossklaus, this time for the sections on infant formula and special formula intended for sick infants. Those who submitted technical comments on these standards are Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, etc. and the World Sugar Trade Commission.
Take a guess:
1. High Sugar
2. Low Sugar.
You Win!
Then somehow we morph into the following discussion:
Cuba: “We are concerned in view of the structure of the standard where the whole structure has been changed. This has raised a number of doubts concerning indicators which are still between brackets [i.e., not yet resolved]. In my country we import and use a lot of infant formula and I suggest that we work on this standard as soon as possible in order to be able to finalize this standard.”
India: “In order to promote and protect the practice of breast feeding we feel there should not be a standard for medical conditions as breast milk is best under all conditions and there should be a statement that substitute feeds should be discontinued as soon as possible.
We have other comments but in the interests of time will supply them in writing but we are very concerned.”
Chile: “We support the points made by Cuba. There are many facets and figures between brackets and we suggest that the committee work as fast as possible to find a solution.
Vice Chairwoman (New Zealand): “I suggest we adopt at Step 5 and move on.”
Now suddenly we are dealing, sort of, with GM products.
Sudan: “We are worried about anything having to do with GM products. They have not been fully assessed and we know from lab experiments on rats that some extreme negative effects result from the ingestion of GMOs. .I am sure that there are many things, including carcinogenic effects that have not been discovered. Needless to say, we need to find ways to increase crops without messing around with the genetic material.”
Iran: “We support Sudan’s proposal”.
Argentina: “We firmly support the work given to the new task force. We are fully convinced that this is the best way to protect the safety of the consumer. This is the best way to find the safety of DNA modified plants and animals. These products have been on the market for 5 or 10 years and yet some of these foods have not been assessed fully and DNA modified plants need more work. We wish to increase production, protect the environment and assure safe foods for our consumers.”
Benin: “In our countries, developing countries, the people in charge of food safety and plant safety are confronted with these problems on a daily basis as they are confronted with the problem of Genetically Engineered products. I believe that it is a good thing to do further work. In Benin we need this work to get done so that we can take the right decisions based on proper information and research. Allergies have been mentioned, effects on reproduction and infertility have been reported so far. I believe if we continue this research we will find the solutions. Benin is therefore fully supporting the committee and the new work.”
Cuba fully supports Argentina. Biotechnology is a fact of life, I believe that the impact and consequences of such methods should be fully assessed and therefore we back this new work fully.”
Philippines: “We support the elaboration for new work.”
Mali: “I shall not repeat all of the points made by my colleague from Benin. Mali is short staffed and suffers from financial constraints. We need further scientific support to assure safety and therefore we fully support the new work.”
Chairman: “The proposed draft annex to the Codex Guidelines is approved taking into account the concerns of Iran and Sudan. The whole purpose of this exercise is to gain experience in how to assess the risks in biotechnology.” Huh?
A quick example of double speak, double think, double science.
Ethylene Dioxide used to ripen fruits such as kiwi fruit. Countries want to be able to use it to ripen fruits which are then called “organic”
An NGO opposed it saying that that is not what people expect when they go to buy “organic” products.
Cuba opposed it: Organic products should be devoid of any chemical or additives. This is contrary to the expectations of the consumer and the ethics of producers. Economic objectives should not be the only aim of this committee even if it means the ripening of Kiwis.” [!]
EU came around a bit on this one and noted “We have a reservation if this work is extended beyond kiwis.” I guess fake organic kiwis are OK in the EU.
Let me point out that the discussion also made it clear that no one knows what the impact of high levels of ethylene dioxide on fruit for ripening might be. Does it cause the production of dangerous or even different compounds? Does it change their nutritional content? Make them toxic? No one appears to know.
Philippines expressed reservation that this proposal be elaborated at all.
The Natural Solutions Foundation is with the Philippines, by the way!
Mali noted that it had not, in fact, “expected to have a reservation but the intervention of the Cuban delegation has created a confusion in my mind. I learned that it was a natural product but Cuba says it is a chemical.”
Chair: natural products can be chemicals but maybe we can refer this to New Zealand.
Costa Rica: Ethylene is a natural chemical which appears in the ripening of products and we support this proposal.
Egypt: there is great apprehension regarding the use of chemical products. Ehtylene may be equivalent to a natural product. The plant itself may produce it. We should not be too scared or wary of ethylene.
Sudan: We are fully in favor of what was stated by the Cuban representative. This is not in line with what is expected by the consumer and we enter a reservation.
Egypt: We should be consistent. There are other natural products that have been reviewed by this committee and since this is natural it should be reviewed by the commission for further study.
Benin: Ethylene is naturally used. When you add it to accelerate ripening it would be desirable that research be carried out. It is possible that if the dosage is not natural certain substances may be formed which should be troublesome in certain circumstances. We would like to understand what happens when you add a greater dose.
Chair: This piece of work is adopted taking note of the specific reservations of the countries.
I won’t go on in this detail but by giving you a close look at what actually goes on in a Codex meeting I think you can see how important the Natural Solutions Foundation’s emphasis on nations working together to make sure that the use of bogus “consensus” does not override and destroy any and all objections, reservations and concerns which countries have. Reading the above you can easily note many points at which countries could have worked together to make sure that either items were not adopted, sent back for further consideration or sent back at an earlier stage for more discussion at the Committee level.
Another discussion like the ones I have detailed took place on the nature and meaning of advertising and whether it was appropriate for Codex to get involved. The multinational corporate interests (represented, of course, by the US and its friends) did not want Codex involved saying it is a matter for each country to deal with.
There was a strong push to allow Codex to deal with advertising only as it pertained to health claims and to note that advertising was ONLY a national concern for each country. Morocco, however, made a very good point which was totally ignored: “We believe that advertising is no longer a national matter that comes under government purview: it is a world wide phenomenon which spreads from country to country. I believe not only a definition but a code of ethics would also be necessary”
Argentina was on the multinational ‘leave me alone to advertise anything I want’ side but did note, “It is the role of government to rule by law and regulation and that the Codex guidelines no way are binding…” once again underscoring the strength of the Natural Solutions Foundation’s International Strategy which you can read an application of in our Codex eBook.
I don’t think another such exhaustive report is necessary but for those of you who have never been at Codex, I imagine that you now get the picture in some gruesome detail! The sheer weight of the proceedings offers us tremendous opportunities for impact! More to come. Stay tuned.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Today was a thrilling day here in the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) meeting in Geneva. Several developments took place which, if properly exploited, can be of major significance for our side. For some real fun, read all the way down to the end of the post: things you will really find fascinating took place today.
The day did not start off so well, though. The first item we were hoping to see go our way was a move by the health freedom coalition nations to move the discussion of the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health (GS) up from last on the agenda to much earlier to allow significant discussion. You may remember that at Dr. Grossklaus’s Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU, Bonn, Germany) last November that item was moved by the Chairman from item No. 2 on the agenda to item No. 11, the last item. It was carefully allotted no meaningful time and therefore there was no discussion about it at that meeting.
The same tactic is being used here: although Codex is required to come up with a strategy for global implementation of the GS at this meeting (based on national comments given since the last CAC meeting (Rome, Italy, July 4-9, 2005) and the discussion that the item was supposed to receive at CCNFSDU and Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL, Ottawa, Canada May, 2006). You may recall that South Africa introduced their excellent pro health strategy consisting of 11 points for the implementation of the GS and it did receive discussion although the US spoke out against including optimal health as a goal and against banning the advertising of junk foods, known to increase life threatening diseases and death, to children. But SA fought and managed to get the 11 points back into the final records so they are on the docket for discussion.
A report made available by the World Health Organization and the FAO on the discussion so far, by the way, was handed out yesterday. SA’s excellent points were sort of in there, kind of, a little. Basically they were buried and nearly invisible so any pro health advocacy for them will have to wait until there is a discussion, IF there is a discussion, of course! We are already running at least 1 hour behind time and we have only had one day of proceedings.
No one spoke for moving the item earlier in the agenda, however, and the proposed agenda was adopted without demurral by the entire CAC.
But there was plenty of fun, none the less!
Early on, when the obligatory opening remarks were being given it was noted that “several Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have applied for observer status which shows growing interest in Codex. Codex is doing well, certainly better than in the past” and “in light of the joint WHO/FAO consultation [that’s the one presented at CAC 2005 that said ’18. Codex should determine whether it has a relationship to nutrition and, if so, what that relationship is.] Codex is becoming an organization which can continuously review and update itself”. In those same remarks, it was noted that “it is necessary to adapt the mandate of Codex to make Codex more efficient.” FAO noted with pleasure the steps which Codex has been taking to bring about improved efficiency and noted an “important reorganization” despite budget cuts within FAO. In fact, FAO noted, Codex had received a 4% increase in their allocation from FAO. It is not clear that the same was true of WHO’s response to Codex and it was WHO which last year chastised Codex so heavily for its failure to produce a benefit to human health during its existence. (That statement by Dr. Kirsten Leitner, by the way, appears to have been edited out of the audio record available on the internet of last year’s CAC meeting. Somebody REALLY didn’t like that bit, it would appear!)
Now that seems to me a really fascinating statement. I will leave it to you to ponder why the world’s food standard setting body needs to worry about its rep. Could it be that the awareness is growing among its constituents, the nations of the world, that Codex is a troubled, perhaps even an invalid, organization and process? Could it be that the damage which standards and Guidelines based on poor science and multinational corporate agendas, not health, are beginning to attract enough attention to tarnish that rep? It certainly looks like it to us as we go from country to country and make friends with the regulators and responsible persons of a wide swath of countries.
Then things got really interesting. Along the way, Dr. Claude Mosha, the CAC Chairman (yes, the very same Dr. Mosha who wrote a letter to an African National Department Head prohibiting the Codex participation of a pro health Codex Delegate under our sponsorship who is, by the way, NOT here) reporting on the deliberations and activities of the 57th Codex Alimentarius Commission Executive Committee session noted the importance of the “Use of Codex standards and texts at national and regional levels… to increase cooperation with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and increase the use of Codex standards at national levels”. Read that as “Codex is trying to compel every country in the world to adopt Codex standards and Guidelines as their national laws.”
The position of the Natural Solutions Foundation is that every Codex standard or Guideline which is based on junk science and which will degrade health through widespread and comprehensive contamination of the food supply and mandated under nutrition through the impact of the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline and the companion definition by the WHO Workshop on the Application of Risk Assessment to Nutrients of an adverse event which is defined as “any change in a bio marker”. Did you notice that it is ANY change, not just changes in the wrong direction?
In his report on the 58th Executive Committee Meeting (the EC meets twice each year), the Dr. Moshe repeated the fact that “Codex has embarked on a series of reforms based on the WHO/FAO consultation”. You may recall from our reports from last year’s CAC that there were 20 suggested reforms in that report. Our unconfirmed, but reliable, information is that the joint Consultation they are talking about originally came back suggesting that Codex be killed. Industry got into the swimming pool and the result was 20 deeply watered-down recommendations. Number 18 (referred to above) was about nutrition (the only one which dealt with it, by the way) and, as soon as it was reached, Dr. Slorach, last year’s chairman abruptly cut off discussion saying that the CAC was out of time. So what the reforms dealing with nutrition might be are unclear to us here at the Natural Solutions Foundation.
Moving right along, however, the Secretary wanted to determine if there were a quorum present to take care of a procedural item. In this fancy, state of the art Swiss conference center the only way he could do that, despite the fancy microphones, lights, translation devices, etc., was to ask the national delegations to hold up their country signs and count them. We found it interesting that there were a bunch of countries that, while present, obviously did not hear the instructions and failed to hold up their signs. When the Secretary counted, there was no quorum and the matter was deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, since not enough country flags were held up. It was noted that there were a lot of countries here at the CAC on Codex Trust Fund “scholarship” or support (the Trust Fund is designed to support bringing the developing countries to the meetings) were not present. That is apparently often the case.
Now for the really interesting part:
When the next item came up in which words were being deleted from the Codex Committee on General Principles (CCGP) regulations which clarified that Codex texts (i.e., standards and guidelines) were completely advisory what happened next might be seen as early shots in a CAC revolution.
Malaysia noted that it was not comfortable with the deletion. Singapore joined Malaysia in objecting to this change saying “Every country is supposed to go through risk assessment for appropriate levels of consideration. But CCGP is trying to force mandating of these standards and guidelines…. A Codex standard is no longer advisory.” Both made it clear that they did not want to adopt the proposed language adopted since the changes under consideration made the adoption and use of Codex texts compulsory.
To the distress of us who are here representing the Natural Solutions Foundation and health freedom advocates everywhere the United States’ Dr. Ed Scarbrough (our Codex Manager) spoke strongly for the change. Why not? The US, continually abdicating its responsibility to protect consumer health and health freedom, supporting all of the multinationals’ trade and commercial interests, once again embarrassed us and showed what its colors actually are: green, not red, white and blue. The EU, whose money may be different colors, but whose interests are just the same, followed like a baby duck after its momma duck.
But there was quite a response: the ordinarily placid, polite and calm delegates began to speak in strong terms to oppose the US and EU. Singapore and Malaysia’s strong opposition to the change were joined by
Egypt who said they “Have to register strong reservations over the amendment.” and concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
China concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Nigeria concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Bhutan concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
India concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Indonesia concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Natural Health Federation, the only other health freedom advocate organization (and an official Codex Observer) here, concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Philippines concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Sudan concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Dr. Mosha, the CAC Chairman, clearly tried to quash and quell the revolution by suggesting that the issue be sent to CCGP to deal with.
Singapore came back into the debate swinging, stating that “Codex should not transfer the review [of this matter] to another body”.
Tanzania, despite the fact that Dr. Mosha is from Tanzania and the Tanzanian representative had told us when we visited him in his own country that “Tanzania would not do anything to conflict with or embarrass the Chairman since he is from our country” apparently forgot its resolve to note “Tanzania supports Malaysia and Singapore” [!]
Comoros noted that they concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Uganda concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Iran concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Ghana concurred with Malaysia and Singapore against the US and EU
Other than the Great Parmesan Cheese Debate which had raged for a decade until Singapore called for a vote at the 2005 CAC and the whole thing was dropped, such sustained dissent is unheard of. Country after country participated in what amounted to nearly a role call vote AGAINST the change.
Next, the Secretary of Codex was said by Dr. Mosha to “have a new idea” [sic]. He was given the floor by Dr. Mosha and said, “No sentence provides that Codex standards and related guidelines are mandatory, and this is especially true after acceptance of standards [we presume that he means after acceptance of standards by countries which adopt revised standards which differ from those of Codex — this is our position exactly, and what we have been telling countries around the world to help them focus on how to protect themselves from Codex’s damage to their people’s food and nutritional security and to their health. You can imagine how thrilled we were to hear this “clarification”!]
The Secretary went on to say “Every thing the [Codex Alimentarius] Commission is adopting is a recommendation to the governments. Everything is advisory and there should be no distinction between standards and other texts [e. g., guidelines].” He mentioned that this equivalence of standards, guidelines or other texts as a change which WHO and FAO supported and which was brought about in the last years. This is a strong endorsement of the Natural Solutions Foundation template which was developed in collaboration with the Citizens’ Codex Working Group and others. You can see how it applies by downloading the Codex eBook which elaborates the process as it applies to the restrictive and deadly Vitamin and Mineral Guideline ratified, as you know, with such strong and, to us, distressing, US jubilation one year ago today at the 2005 CAC meeting in Rome.
Now for the kicker: Dr. Mosha, the Chairman who refused to meet with us in Tanzania before the CAC because he wished to remain “neutral and not be pressured by any group [sic] on any position”, the same Dr. Mosha who bullied a National Department into not allowing our sponsorship of an experienced Codex delegate to represent his country’s health interests, that same Dr. Mosha said, “the change is adopted by consensus [!!!!] with the reservations of those countries noted who have expressed them!”
What that means is that this “neutral” Chairman sided with the US and EU despite heated, sustained and articulate opposition to it. What that tells you is that although we are beginning to have an impact, the fight for health is an uphill battle which is going to take time, resources and sustained effort. And we will be here for this battle as long as you want us to be here.
By the way, if you want to understand what Codex is really all about, and why it acts as it does, get a copy of “Nutricide: the DVD” and find out why, how, and by whom Codex was born. If you don’t already know, it will certainly attract your attention, I can promise you!
And now for the very best: While the cadmium standard for rice and mollusks was being discussed again, while the standard was being raised for this very, very dangerous heavy metal from 0.01 (a common national standard), 0.02 ppm (the current US standard) to 0.04 (an industry-friendly standard which allows industrial sludge to be used as “fertilizer” thus saving companies a great deal of money they would otherwise have to spend in expensive appropriate disposal). Last year at the CAC, Kenya and Malaysia noted how many children would die from kidney disease if the cadmium standard were doubled in their staple food, polished rice. Kenya noted that at least 65,000 children would die PER YEAR in Kenya alone if the standard were double. Well, somebody got to Kenya (can you guess whom that might have been?) and this year Kenya, sweet as butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-your-mouth, spoke in favor of 65,000 kids dying for somebody’s profit: “Kenya supports the 0.04 ppm standard.” Bye, bye kids (or perhaps that should read “Buy buy!”
Nigeria was not about taking it any longer. Nigeria, one of our friendly countries that we successfully and extensively visited during our most recent African trip, articulated what we intend to make the rallying cry of Codex countries who value health more than they value corporate interests: the Nigerian Head of Delegation said that “Codex should please consider the issues of health as opposed to the issues of trade!” YES!
Oh, yes. One more thing: In discussing the trade of radioactive food which has been contaminated by a radiation accident (or fallout from a non-accidental source): Codex proposed a table of standards for amounts of radioactive particles (“radionuclides”). The usual suspects thought that was a fine idea. Sure. You’ve got radioactive food. Just dilute it or wait a bit and then sell it internationally. Great idea. Of course, radioactivity is NOT labeled. Health? Consumer protection? Consumer choice? Fuggedaboutit!
However, Indonesia said that it was completely unacceptable to sell radioactive food. Sudan, Egypt, Singapore strongly objected.
Don’t be surprised that IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Commission, which attends Codex (think about that: why do they need to be here? Because of the mandated irradiation of internationally traded food, that’s why) said, “Mr. Chairman, we have had guidelines on radionuclide contamination of foods since 1989. Codex uses the same standards.” Somehow that was supposed to make it all OK.
Apparently it did for the Chairman who declared that that the radionuclide standard advanced by Codex was adopted noting the strong reservations of Indonesia, Singapore, Egypt and Sudan. Well, given the fact that Codex has declared itself to be advisory only, if every country in the world had advanced laboratories that they use to detect radiation in every single lot of food coming into their country, and if they have the international trade muscle to demand changes in the food shipped to them, then any country in the world can protect its people against radioactive foods. Yeah. Right. If you believe that is a meaningful solution, there is a bridge I am sure you would be interested in.
There’s a lot of work ahead of us but you can see that there is a growing body of vigorous discontent and dissent representing world-wide opinion and interests, not just the multinationals any longer!
More tomorrow. This promises to be a lively session and we will keep you closely posted. After all that’s why we are here.
By the way, if you like what we are doing, how about making a contribution on an ongoing basis to keep us doing it?
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Mercury is not a good thing to put in your bodies. That much is clear to any open minded person who does not have a conflict of interest clouding his/her thinking (or speaking, at least).
I believe that heavy metal toxicity is one of the major factors accounting for the epidemic of that tragic and largely preventable disease, autism. So does Dr. David Ayoub, the director of the Prairie Collaborative for Immunization. Dr. Ayoub, a radiologist, believes that the evidence linking mercury with the deep tragedy of a perfectly normal child becoming a struggling, damaged human being through an unnecessary poisoning is irrefutable.
Four out of 5 vaccines for flu contain mercury, as much as 25 micrograms per dose. Since the EPA’s “safe limit” is 1/250 of that (0.1 microgram) every person who allows themselves to receive a flu vaccine shot gets an overdose. In fact, only an adult who weighs 550 lbs or more would receive a mercury dose in line with The Center for Disease Control recommendations.
But they are taking the mercury out of vaccines, aren’t they? Nope, they are not. Many vaccines still have mercury (thimerisol) and there is no indication that the mercury is scheduled for removal. (Of course, the next generation of vaccines contains squalene, which is much worse. More of that in another blog).
Here’s the kicker: mercury is known to pass the placental barrier. Fetuses are known to be particularly sensitive to heavy metal poisoning, especially mercury and could, with a single shot to their pregnant mother, receive several hundred times the EPA recommended dose (which I believe is not safe even at that lower level).
Astonishingly, however, in 2004 CDC specified that young infants and pregnant women should receive the flu vaccine, exposing more babies and fetuses to much more mercury although there is little or no benefit to the pregnant woman. The risks to the fetus, however, are considerable. In the case of pregnant women, the benefit of flu vaccination was minimal, yet the risks to the unborn infant could be significant.
Vaccine manufacturers admit that adequate testing has not been carried out on flu vaccine for mothers and babies. The Fluzone insert says:
“Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Influenza Virus Vaccine. It is not known whether Influenza Virus Vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity.”
What do you need to avoid the flu? Many people rely on homeopathic flu prevention. Homeopathy has an outstanding record in the prevention of epidemic diseases. But many more use common sense and nutritional sophistication to make sure that their immune systems are in tip-top shape.
In any epidemic, some people get sick and some don’t. Of the ones who get sick, if the epidemic is a killer, some will die and some won’t. The difference: the immune systems of the survivors and the people who did not get sick were in better shape.
Codex will damage the immune systems of every one on the planet. Because of that , people will sicken and die who otherwise would not have just as autistic children sicken who otherwise would not have it they had not been given vaccinations.
The message: guard your immune system carefully. Choose your prevention strategies carefully. And if it has mercury in it, choose another option!
Yours in health and mercury free freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
PS: please make sure that you urge your Congressional Delegation to attend the vitally important Codex Briefing on September 20, 2005, Room
2220 Rayburn.