Natural Solutions Foundation
The Voice of Global Health Freedom™
Codex as a Science Based Organization –
Or, Fake Science in the Service of Special Interests
by Maj. Gen. Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army ret)
President, Natural Solutions Foundations
I was priviledged, among my commands in the US Army, to serve as the Commanding General of the US Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command (ERADCOM). As the Commanding General of 7 major laboratories, I was very interested in the differences between wish, denial and science. That interest has continued over the years I have been observing, as Natural Solutions Foundation’s President, what passes for science at Codex Alimentarius, the so-called “World Food Code.”
Sitting here in the 33rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the decision-making body of the supposedly “Science-Based” organization purporting to set standards which protect consumers’ health around the world, I am struck by several questions pertaining to the quality and depth of the supposed “Science-Based” nature of Codex’s decisions. The strong push of the US and its agents (and its Big Biz backers) to overcome the resistance of the 160 countries (which all ban Ractopamine), forcing the use of Ractopamine in cattle and hogs, turkeys and other animals despite the known dangers of this substance and the unknown ones as well, brings the entire nature of the supposed “Science base” of this dangerous organization into focus. One way Codex seeks to present itself as science-based is with its “expert” committees. Among these is the Joint (FAO/WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives – JEFCA.
JECFA science is based, in the case of Ractopamine® (the veterinary drug used to fatten pork faster in the US, but banned in China), on misstated science which does not answer urgent questions. First of all, who paid for the study which JECFA conducted on this dangerous drug material? Did they, in fact, conduct either their own studies or a review of the scientific literature? If they had, their recommendation for safe use in animals destined for human consumption could not possibly be “science-based”. The real science on this drug is clear: it is not safe for the use they intend. How much money was provided for this study or series of study and what were the terms of that/those study/studies?
Were JECFA’s findings of safety of Ractopamine based on the fraudulent and defective studies the FDA used to determine that Ractopmaine was “safe”, data which were deemed fraudulent by the FDA itself?
What connections with industry did the persons carrying out the analysis at JECFA have? Are they, as FDA/USDA and other regulators in the US riddled with conflicts of interest? If not, to what standard is their lack of conflict of interest held?
Did the JECFA either study, or review, how Ractopamine is processed in the human body and how it is eliminated from it? What about the build up, and detrimental effects of Ractopamine when ingested, including cardiac symptoms, testicular atrophy and leukemia? How were they able to determine which humans are susceptible or that no wash out period following ingestion by the animals needed to be introduced before slaughter to protect human ingestors?
Did they determine a daily Ractopamine intake in humans free of observed effects? If so, what is it? How much or little of this drug is “safe” for the use in question, bringing pork to market faster?
These questions are, alas, rhetorical because the determination JECFA made that Ractopamine is “safe” is no more “Science-Based” than a belief in the Easter Bunny. The data, which are known, are clear.
Ractopamine is NOT safe for human ingestion or contact. The US FDA may say it is, leading to JECFA to say the same, but that is economically and politically based, not Science-Based. It is a “science excuse” for a policy determination; policy determined for the benefit of special interests, not the general public.
This is, however, not the first time that this same lack of scientific rigor has been publicized as science. An outstanding, and outstandingly dangerous, example is what Codex has done to nutrients.
You can see Dr. Rima’s video about the insane “Daily Reference Values” Codex seeks to impose on us here:
Codex considers nutrients to be dangerous toxins which have to be limited to “protect” stakeholders. Indeed, since the stakeholders here are the Pharmaceutical interests, they are well protected by treating nutrients as toxins.
Too few nutrients will lead, inevitably, to profitable conditions like cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity, as the World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization themselves document. Qui bono? Who profits? Big Pharma, Big Medica. Who suffers? Little people all over the world.
Codex now defines itself, in the words of Codex Chair Karen Hulebek just today, as “Risk Managers” . Risk Management, a technique derived from toxicology, should, indeed, be applied to toxins. Increased toxins require increased nutrients.
Many countries laud, believe in and depend upon the idea that Codex is, indeed, “Science-Based”. Yet the “science” which treats nutrients as toxins, down regulating them through mechanisms like the Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) which guarantee under-nutrition for the teeming billions of the earth, and equally guarantee their disease, infertility and death.
That is not science, unless it is the pseudo-science of eugenics!
Under US law, nutrients are foods. Under US law, nutrients may NOT be “HARMonized” with Codex standards. Yet the US pushes both at Codex and in the US regulatory context, for controls and limitations on nutrients, despite our legal standards and protections.
Poor health is supported and maintained by poor nutrition. That is the biochemical and physiological reality. Nutrients are necessary in high levels to combat poor health, poor development, shortened life spans and preventable human misery. Take them away and the results are totally predictable.
Under Codex/WHO/FAO plans, every country will have a Nutrient Risk Manager to make sure that high potency nutrients never get near their population. `And who pushes this nutritional holocaust hardest? The United States Codex delegation.
To my mind, the logical response to this out-of-control and illegal regulatory stance both in the US and in Codex is to remove the US from Codex, which adds little or nothing to our nutritional and health status. The US, like every other country, can raise the standard of its food above Codex standards without World Trade Organization penalty if they follow the Codex Two Step Process.
Getting the US out of Codex, where its dangerous policies are damaging food around the world, and at home (since Codex standards are imposed over US law) is a logical, workable and necessary response to the genocidal and non-science-based actions of the US in Codex and Codex itself.