Codex Alimentarius

[Double K]

Not really sure where would be the most appropriate for this thread, but I wanted to open up discussion about it as it something that will affect every single one of us in some way regardless on which country you are from.

 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

 

Here is a list of participating countries.

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/members.jsp?lang=EN

 

The interesting thing about this commission is that it is not a public health commission & is not a consumer protection commission.

In 1994 Codex Alimentarius with no notice in any country, declared nutrients to be "toxins". Effectively "poisons/toxins" (clinically effective and proven)

are now illegal in the way that illicit drugs are illegal.

 

Furthermore all meat products (animals) must be treated with sub-clinical anti-biotics and must be treated with exogenous growth hormones. It also stipulates that all food be irradiated unless eaten raw & locally (including organic food!)

 

The trade commission has allowed POP's (Persistant Organic Pollutants) which are on worldwide banned list to be re-introduced. 7 of the 9 Forbidden POP's Which were considered to be so bad that not one country could disagree they should be banned, have been brought back under this Codex.

Things such as

Dieldrin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieldrin

Hexachlorobenzene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexachlorobenzene

just to name two nasty ones from that list.

Food that contains these substances, can no longer be stopped at your borders, because that would constitute a "trade violation"

 

In the WHO/FAO epidemiological projections (diet nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases - http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/who_trs_916.pdf) they(WHO/FAO) estimate that just the vitamin and mineral guideline alone

will result in a minimum of 3billion deaths, 1billion thru simple starvation.

The next 2B will die from preventable diseases of undernutrition.

 

This codex came into effect GLOBALLY on Dec 31 2009.

 

I'm trying not to be alarmist here, but it's not really very easy.

This document came into effect globally without any notice to anyone effectively. Why the need to sneak it through?

 

As far as political discussion goes, why do non-governmental organisations have so much power in our society today?

Why can these privately funded, ethically compromised organistaions dictate on such a grand scale with such dire projections?

 

These guidelines are being enforced by World Trade and World Health organisations - so are effectively directive.

 

I would love to list the private organisations involved in the funding of this codex, but I think if you do your own research you will discover for yourself how underhanded and how much of a conflict of interest exists.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I see anything sneaky or underhanded here, but perhaps you can expand on that. Also, it doesn't really stand to reason that the UN would support the direct elimination of three billion human lives just to establish some guidelines for future safety regulations in developing nations. Their whole purpose is helping developing nations, so why would they want to hurt them?

 

I support irradiated food and genetic manipulation. I also support global safety standards.

[Double K]

I support irradiated food and genetic manipulation. I also support global safety standards.

 

Sure, I also support global safety standards, but why are they being dictated by NGO's, implemented in secrecy, and enforced via trade agreements?

 

Edit: I'm not sure if you are familiar with the terms common law, and napoleonic law.

In basic terms, common law means that unless it something is explicitly forbidden within the law, it's ok to do. Napoleonic Law is unless it is specified as legal, then it is forbidden. Codex operates under napoleonic law. It also creates an environment where it is so expensive and difficult to get approval for a food substance that the only ones capable of fulfilling an application are the large companies such as IG Farben and Monsantos. Since the introduction of the Magna Carta - we haven't been under napoleonic law...(end edit)

 

When a company such as Monsanto is implicit in this codex the water becomes quite murky. When "GM" crops are created not to germinate UNLESS they are treated with a specific pesticide/herbicide (as are the terminator crops) and these type of crops are FORCED into use by the codex, surely that points to conflict of interest, not only that but extreme danger in regards to eliminating farming techniques and keeping of any seed from your crop for the next season. These seeds are in some ways hardier and can exist in harsher climates, but the flow of supply will be completely and utterly controllable, and, ensures a requirement for a product to be in use for - essentially, generations. There is also evidence suggesting that organic crops and animal products are higher in vitamins and nutrients (the same ones declared as poisons in the codex) than are in GM crops.

 

GM has been around for a long time, if you consider things such as splicing and grafting as GM techniques, and in a sense they are - but the creation of seeds that will not germinate unless treated by a specific product is far removed.

 

"According to estimates by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (ERS), five common foodborne pathogens were responsible for an estimated 6.9 billion dollars worth of lost productivity in last year alone![30] The Center for Disease Control (CDC) carefully tracks the reported incidence of food-related illness and makes estimates for unreported cases based on those statistics. From the CDC estimates, foodborne pathogens kill as many as 5000 Americans every year"

http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/403/Prejeanpap.html

 

Ok, whilst destruction of certain bacteria and pathogens via radiation is not bad in theory, I question the need to reduce the importance of this to a dollar figure based on lost productivity. foodborne pathogens responsible for 5000 deaths in america per year is hardly a large figure and hardly requires all food be treated this way, again I wonder at the purpose behind it as even according to their own figures it's not a large problem. More die to the common flu each year than to this.

 

"According to Pomeranz's research, he estimates that 2,216,000 hospital patients experienced serious adverse drug reactions (side effects) and 106,000 died from these reactions in 1994 alone. This astounding number accounted for 4.6% of all recorded deaths in the U.S. in that year."

http://www.livingwellchiropractic.com.au/templates20/article/1449.html

 

So why don't we regulate out all pharmacy as it's causing in excess of 21 times that death rate of foodborne pathogens?

 

"the FDA essentially told the public that the meat and milk from cloned livestock are safe for human consumption. FDA's action flies in the face of widespread scientific concern about the risks of food from clones, and ignores the animal cruelty and troubling ethical concerns that the cloning process brings. The approval also goes against the will of Congress, who voted twice in 2007 to delay FDA's decision on cloned animals until additional safety and economic studies can be completed, and ignores the feelings of the American public, 150,000 of whom wrote to FDA opposing the approval during last year's public comment period. What's worse, FDA will not require labeling on cloned food, so consumers will have no way to avoid these experimental foods."

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/cloned_animals.cfm

Edited May 25, 2010 by Double K

[JohnB]

DoubleK, could you produce some hint of where these things are in the standards, because I'm reading them and haven't found substantiating evidence yet.

 

In particular Clause 22 of the "Recommended Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding" states quite clearly;

Antibiotics should not be used in feed for growth promoting purposes in the absence of a public health safety assessment.

 

I also note that in reading the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements", it makes no mention of toxins. It states;

3.1.1 Vitamin and mineral food supplements should contain vitamins/provitamins and minerals whose nutritional value for human beings has been proven by scientific data and whose status as vitamins and minerals is recognised by FAO and WHO.

 

I can't see a problem with this, nor can I find anything that says all meats/foods have to be irradiated.

 

Could you be more specific as to what exactly bothers you about the standards? To save the rest of us reading 5,000 pages to try and find out?

[John Cuthber]

According to this

 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/09567135/1996/00000007/00000002/art00004

 

"There is only one commercial food irradiation plant operating in the USA."

It's going to be busy, or the claim in the OP is wrong.

[Double K]

DoubleK, could you produce some hint of where these things are in the standards, because I'm reading them and haven't found substantiating evidence yet.

 

In particular Clause 22 of the "Recommended Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding" states quite clearly;

 

They refer to these as "Food Additives" so it's sneakily hidden away

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/jecfa/monographs/en/

 

It's not easy going, but it's in the "Veterinary Drug residues in food" section.

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/vetdrugs/data/vetdrugs/index.html

 

I draw your attention to some items from that large list Streptomycin, which is a nuerotoxin...

http://www.rxlist.com/streptomycin-drug.htm

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/vetdrugs/data/vetdrugs/details.html?id=24

 

Sulfadimidine

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v33je07.htm

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/vetdrugs/data/vetdrugs/details.html?id=57

 

“Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus

Head of Unit for Dietary Foods, Nutrition and Allergies and Deputy Head of Department for Food Safety at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin.

 

According to the WHO "Working principles for risk analysis for food safety for application" (page 5 section 22.)

"Experts involved in risk assessment including government officials and experts from outside government should be objective in their scientific work and not be subject to any conflict of interest that may comprimise the integrity of the assessment"

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&vid=ISBN9789250059112&vid=ISBN9250059116#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

I also note that in reading the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements", it makes no mention of toxins. It states;

 

It does this by using "toxicology" testing on nutrients, in effect how they determine an acceptable amount of nutrient is to test on lab animals, find the smallest amount possible that causes an effect, and then divide that number by 100 (as you would with a toxin, such as Streptomycin) which means you get 1/100th of (in the case of a toxin) a toxic dose. In the case of a vitamin/nutrient, you are getting 1/100th of an effective dose... To test nutrients in this manner effectively declares their effect toxic.

[JohnB]

Mate, I asked for a specific and the first link is to a list of 76 pdfs? Where in that list is the problem?

 

Drugs and antibiotics are used to treat illnesses in farm animals, just as they are in humans. Your second link is to the maximum allowable residue in food for sale. Again, where is the problem? Most of the limits are in picagrams per kilogram. Don't you think that there should be upper limits for such residues?

 

Streptomycin , according to your first link is a strong intra muscular antibiotic.

To reduce the development of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the effectiveness of streptomycin and other antibacterial drugs, streptomycin should be used only to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by bacteria.

 

It's used to fight infections, ffs.

 

Your second link for the drug simply lists the maxmum dosage allowable for food animals. Specifically .05 mg/kg of body weight per day. Where is the problem with having a set maximum dosage for a drug? BTW, that is the only reference to the drug in the entire pdf.

 

Sulfadimidine.

 

Again, what is the problem? The first link is to test results. Note that some of the rabbits were given 1800 mg/kg bw per day for two weeks.

 

The second link is to the maximum allowable residue. 25 picagrams/litre in the case of milk. How much Sulfadimidine residue do you think is appropriate? The amount used in tests, amounts 100s of times lower?

 

Next point. How is being the head of food safety a conflict of interest when sitting on a board on food safety?

 

Last point. Yes, even vitamins and minerals can become toxic above certain levels. So it is reasonable to find out what those levels are.

 

From my reading last night following a number of links about food additive regulations, vitamins and minerals added as a supplement to food for the increase of nutritional value are not covered by the regulations provided that they do not exceed 25% of the RDI.

 

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing a problem.

[Double K]

I tried to address your questions obvisouly I didnt get what you were after, I will have to attempt to respond to those when I have more time to find what you are after exactly.

 

However, as stated earlier in the thread, my main problem with it is that it's a non-governmental organisation, who makes up this board that dictates food standards? Big Pharma does.

 

Secondly the codex has been slipped through as a trade agreement. This is NOT a public health document, this is for food trade and what passes as acceptable between countries engaging in trade, however a close look at anything in this document clearly shows that it IS enforcing public health.

 

Thirdly, inalienable human rights covered under security of person, such as;

prohibition of a person being subjected to medical treatment against his or her will.

the right to not take medical treatment.

 

An NGO certainly does not have any jurisdiction to dictate and mandate these standards.

 

Lastly, why has it been slid through without any knowledge. Had you heard about this codex before now? Why so secretive?

 

What is dictated as directive under this codex will actually impact those human rights, much as adding flouride to water as a directive. It's not the government (or NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION'S) decision to force medication on me (or anyone). This is an inalienable human right - and yet the agenda presses forwards. Obviously there is far too much there to read, for you and I both, however just take a look at the companies involved that make up the head of these NGO's and then consider the possibilities.

 

Director-general FAO

Jacques Diouf

Diouf was the Secretary-General of the Central Bank for West African States

 

"In October, 1996, Codex met in Bonn, Germany to make radical changes in the rules governing dietary supplements for member nations. The proposals of greatest concern were those made by the German delegation (see the proposed Draft Guidelines for Dietary Supplements) and is being sponsored by Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. These are the three drug companies formed when the Nuremberg War Trials disbanded I.G. Farben, manufacturer of the poison gas used in Nazi concentration camps. This is not the first time that the UN has been linked closely with Nazi war criminals. Ostensibly, their purpose is ". . . to create a set of international standards to guide the world's growing food industry and to protect the health of consumers."

 

Can reports from 4 different, totally unrelated sources, be ignored? I think not!

 

The pharmaceutical company backed proposals for all of the following:

1. No vitamin, mineral, herb, etc., can be sold for prophylactic (preventative) or therapeutic reasons.

2. Natural remedies can be sold as food but they must not exceed the potency (dosage) levels set by the commission. This means that consumer access to dietary supplements will be limited to the RDA dosage as a maximum limit for vitamins (Vitamin C - 60 mg. Vitamin E - 15 mg., etc.) Supplements without an RDA (e.g. coenzyme Q10) would be illegal to sell because they would all become drugs.

3. Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding, eliminating the escape clause within the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that allows a nation to set its own standards. This applies to all member countries of the UN. Any nation that does not accept these new standards will be heavily fined by the World Trade Organization (WTO) creating the potential for crippling entire sectors of that nation's economy.

4. All new supplements would be banned unless they go through the Codex approval process. Five steps have already been taken in the Codex process over the past few years. Remember Canadian Bill C-7 which was passed eventually in Canada as C-8? The similarity of the process, the secrecy, and the wording between the Codex proposals and the Canadian laws is uncanny. Voting in favor of adopting the German proposals has been overwhelming (16 for 2 against in the most recent vote). The Codex process is now at Step Five - formalization and debate concerning the specific features. In two years, Codex could jump from Step 5 to Step 8 to finalize these restrictions."

http://ahha.org/codexbuchanan.htm

(Very interesting article that one... well worth the read.)

Edited May 26, 2010 by Double K

[JohnB]

You're making a lot of accusations. How about some specifics in the documentation.

 

However, as stated earlier in the thread, my main problem with it is that it's a non-governmental organisation, who makes up this board that dictates food standards? Big Pharma does.

 

Show me where. Demonstrate where Pharma is setting the standard.

 

Thirdly, inalienable human rights covered under security of person, such as;

prohibition of a person being subjected to medical treatment against his or her will.

the right to not take medical treatment.

 

Those rights are not "inalienable", they are simply prohibited under UN Human Rights Conventions. Where in any of the pages you have linked to are people being experimented on? Where are people being subjected to medical treatment against their will?

 

Where in the documents and pages you are linking to is this being suggested?

 

There are national laws concerning medical treatment, but that is a local matter. Can you show where this is going to be mandated by the Commission?

 

An NGO certainly does not have any jurisdiction to dictate and mandate these standards.

 

They do not mandate, they suggest and recommend. Can you show the relevent documents that demonstrate how these advisories are to become law? Where in the International agrrements is it stated?

 

Lastly, why has it been slid through without any knowledge. Had you heard about this codex before now? Why so secretive?

 

Where's the secrecy? It's a Commission of the WHO. They have a website for crying out loud. Their actions are so secretive you can post links to them. Just because something isn't in the MSM every day, doesn't mean it's secretive. And yes, I heard about around 15 years ago.

 

As for your last 4 points, (copied from your link);

The Codex process is now at Step Five - formalization and debate concerning the specific features. In two years, Codex could jump from Step 5 to Step 8 to finalize these restrictions."

In two years? The article was written 13 years ago! Seems like they are bit slow in moving up their agenda.

 

Can you give me something more substantive than vague accusations and conspiracy theories? The one about Pharma shutting out alternative therapies has been around for years. So far it hasn't happened.

[Double K]

You're making a lot of accusations. How about some specifics in the documentation.

 

Firstly, I'm not accusing anything. All the things said are true, I'm not forcing you to accept them, I will provide info where I can, but to demand info that I don't have access to is going to impede things, and I can't just wade thru entire legal documents in a day to find the one phrase you're looking for.

 

Those rights are not "inalienable", they are simply prohibited under UN Human Rights Conventions. Where in any of the pages you have linked to are people being experimented on? Where are people being subjected to medical treatment against their will?

 

I'm sorry but by setting limits on nutrients in foods, putting flouride in water supplies, or even a nationalised immunisation protocol (which by the way has never been implemented for this very reason regarding human rights) in fact inadvertantly you are dicatating levels of "medication" this is a human right.

If you forcibly put anything in food set out in a directive without labelling it accordingly (such as GM food, milk with rBGH (which thankfully is banned in some countries, but not in America) rBGH milk does not require labelling to inform the consumer it is present. I'm sorry but if you don't think this is forced medication then there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

 

They do not mandate, they suggest and recommend. Can you show the relevent documents that demonstrate how these advisories are to become law? Where in the International agrrements is it stated?

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/codex_wto.html

"The legal basis for enforcement of the various different Guidelines and Standards created by Codex comes from the ‘Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ (SPS Agreement) and the ‘Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade’ (TBT Agreement). Both the SPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement were included among the Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods, which was annexed to the 1994 Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO. (11). Although Codex standards and guidelines are theoretically voluntary, a new status has in effect been conferred on them by the SPS Agreement, in that any WTO Member adopting them is presumed to be in full compliance with the SPS Agreement. (12).

 

The net result of this is that even when a country decides not to use a Codex standard the measure that it operates in place of that Codex standard remains subject to a range of conditions set out in detail in Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. (13). The most important of these conditions is a requirement to take into account risk assessment techniques developed by “the relevant international organizations”. (14). As it turns out however these “relevant international organizations” actually include Codex itself, and in this respect it is notable that the CCNFSDU is already considering a document entitled ‘Discussion Paper on the Application of Risk Analysis Applied to the Work of the CCNFSDU’. (15). In other words, in the event of a country choosing not to implement a Codex standard the measure that it operates in place of that standard still remains subject to Codex guidelines."

 

Where's the secrecy? It's a Commission of the WHO. They have a website for crying out loud. Their actions are so secretive you can post links to them. Just because something isn't in the MSM every day, doesn't mean it's secretive. And yes, I heard about around 15 years ago.

 

In two years? The article was written 13 years ago! Seems like they are bit slow in moving up their agenda.

 

Actually DSHEA and GATT have somewhat slowed their progress, but these are being circumvented slowly.

 

Can you give me something more substantive than vague accusations and conspiracy theories? The one about Pharma shutting out alternative therapies has been around for years. So far it hasn't happened.

 

Well whipping out the ol' "conspiracy theory" label will sure shut down any kind of critical thinking on the topic, well done.

Simple fact is that WTO, WHO, FAO, are all members of the UN assembly, which is a NGO, which - dictates directives to the international community. Members of the UN are well known and documented I dont think I need to list this, you can easily find this for yourself.

 

http://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Dir2009_39.pdf (pp 22)

(16) This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations

of the Member States relating to the time limits

for transposition into national law and application of the

Directives set out in Annex II, Part B,

 

(pp23)

1. The specific provisions applicable to the groups of foodstuffs

for particular nutritional uses appearing in Annex I shall

be laid down by means of specific Directives.

 

(pp24)

1. Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the

laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation

and advertising of foodstuffs ( 1 ) shall apply to the products

referred to in Article 1 of this Directive, under the conditions

set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article.

 

Annex II part B.

 

( 1 ) In accordance with Article 15 of Directive 89/398/EEC:

‘1. Member States shall amend their laws, regulations and administrative provisions in such a way as:

— to permit trade in products complying with this Directive not later than 16 May 1990,

— to prohibit trade in products not complying with this Directive with effect from 16 May 1991.

They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not affect those national provisions which in the absence of the Directives referred to in Article 4 apply to

certain groups of foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses.’.

( 2 ) In accordance with Article 2 of Directive 1999/41/EC:

‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with this

Directive not later than 8 July 2000. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

These measures shall be applied in such a way as to:

— permit trade in products complying with this Directive by 8 July 2000,

— prohibit trade in products not complying with this Directive by 8 January 2001.

When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by reference on the

occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.’.

 

Way too much to bother pasting it all.

This is DIRECTIVE 2009/39/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 6 May 2009

on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Right, finally I found something that seems quite objective. I have to say it's not easy trying to work out which of this information is true or not, but for clarification (and to rebutt some of my own points unfortunately) I have found this which seems quite on the money. This still doesn't cancel the fact that multinational corporations get to have a say in the guidelines, that is actually my main concern, not most of these points, however in the spirit of balance I present these.

 

http://www.anh-europe.org/campaigns/codex#Misinformation

Misinformation about Codex

Some of the misinformation on Codex appears to be deliberately disseminated, while other parts are unwitting reproductions of the misinformation by concerned yet naive individuals. Among the common erroneous facts are:

 

•All nutrients (eg. vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to ‘prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease’.

• All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, thus removing all ‘toxic’ nutrients from food (unless consumers can source their food locally).

•Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex; it will include such ‘beneficial’ nutrients as fluoride (3.8 mg daily), sourced from industrial waste.

•All nutrients (eg. vitamins A, B, C, D, zinc and magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal in therapeutic doses under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to health, with maximum limits set at 15% of the current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). You will not be able to obtain these nutrients in therapeutic doses anywhere in the world, even with a prescription.

•It will most likely be illegal to give any advice on nutrition (including in written articles posted online and in journals as well as oral advice to a friend, a family member or anyone).

•All dairy cows on the planet are to be treated with Monsanto's genetically engineered, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

•All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones.

•Use of growth hormones and antibiotics will be mandatory on all livestock, birds and aquacultured species meant for human consumption.

•The worldwide introduction of unlabelled and deadly GMOs into crops, animals, fish and plants will be mandated.

The problem is that these claims are not all true. Some are actually quite far off the mark, yet most contain elements of truth.

 

All Codex country members are permitted to attend each annual meeting or ‘session’ and the meeting is facilitated and closely managed by the Committee’s chair and secretariat that sits at the top table facing the delegates.

Behind the country delegates, which typically comprise between three and five members, are the international, non-governmental organisations (INGOs). Depending on the meeting, these might include large consumer groups such as Consumers International, but they tend to be dominated by industry interests. That tends to mean the various international associations representing the food, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

Decision-making in committee meetings is by so-called consensus among governments. INGOs are not allowed to vote, but they can certainly interject during meetings and therefore have the potential to influence decisions.

 

While INGO’s purportedly reflect all interest relevant to a given committees activities (e.g. GMO’s, food additives, pesticide residues, food hygiene, etc.), the reality is that INGO influence is disproportionately in favour of trade associations representing the largest trans-national cooperations in the food sector. While excited debates during the course of Codex meetings may often occur between various INGO’s, governments and the Secretariat, it seems much of this is for show as a demonstration of Codex’s consensus process. The reality is somewhat more stark; in most situations, the primary decisions have already been made prior to the meeting and INGO’s voicing a contrary opinion will effectively find that its views have little or no traction.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Double K

[JohnB]

Well whipping out the ol' "conspiracy theory" label will sure shut down any kind of critical thinking on the topic, well done.

 

I couldn't think of any other word. You were making a lot of claims about what is going to happen and I read a lot of links and papers, none of which backed up a word you said.

 

Firstly, I'm not accusing anything. All the things said are true, I'm not forcing you to accept them....

Yet not one of the links backed you up. It's not a matter of me not accepting them, you failed to show that they are true.

 

I'm sorry but by setting limits on nutrients in foods, putting flouride in water supplies, or even a nationalised immunisation protocol (which by the way has never been implemented for this very reason regarding human rights) in fact inadvertantly you are dicatating levels of "medication" this is a human right.

If you forcibly put anything in food set out in a directive without labelling it accordingly (such as GM food, milk with rBGH (which thankfully is banned in some countries, but not in America) rBGH milk does not require labelling to inform the consumer it is present. I'm sorry but if you don't think this is forced medication then there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

 

If it was the case, then I would agree with you. But let's get a few things straight. Putting flouride or anything else in the water is a National decision, the Commission has no say in the matter. Bringing it up is irrelevent.

 

Concerning GM food, I will quote from the Commissions "General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods", link from here.

4.2.1.4 The following foods and ingredients are known to cause hypersensitivity and shall always be declared:2

• Cereals containing gluten; i.e., wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt or their hybridized strains and products of these;

• Crustacea and products of these;

• Eggs and egg products;

• Fish and fish products;

• Peanuts, soybeans and products of these;

• Milk and milk products (lactose included);

• Tree nuts and nut products; and

• Sulphite in concentrations of 10 mg/kg or more.

 

So the standard is that the above items will always be declared.

 

The standard also says;

4.2.2 The presence in any food or food ingredients obtained through biotechnology of an allergen transferred from any of the products listed in Section 4.2.1.4 shall be declared.

When it is not possible to provide adequate information on the presence of an allergen through labelling, the food containing the allergen should not be marketed.

 

So the standard quite clearly states that rather than being forced to include GM foods, packaging must clearly show that anything containing GM foods must be clearly labelled as such.

 

So the standards really say the exact opposite to what you have claimed.

 

Further;

5.2 Irradiated foods

5.2.1 The label of a food which has been treated with ionizing radiation shall carry a written statement indicating that treatment in close proximity to the name of the food. The use of the international food irradiation symbol, as shown below, is optional, but when it is used, it shall be in close proximity to the name of the food.

5.2.2 When an irradiated product is used as an ingredient in another food, this shall be so declared in the list of ingredients.

5.2.3 When a single ingredient product is prepared from a raw material which has been irradiated, the label of the product shall contain a statement indicating the treatment.

 

So again, the standard is the exact opposite to your claims earlier. Rather than mandatory irradiation, radiated foods must be clearly marked as such on the packaging.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oops, hit the wrong button without finishing the post.

 

Now then, you next set of quotes was from the "EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL". It therefore applies only to EU nations and not everybody else. The "Commission" referred to in the document is an EU commission and not the one we have been talking about and the point is again irrelevent.

 

The last link you gave cancelled out every accusation you had made earlier in the thread to the extent you are left with only one complaint.

 

To your last point;

This still doesn't cancel the fact that multinational corporations get to have a say in the guidelines

What did you expect? Really? Do you have meetings on International Air Travel standards and not have the Airlines and Aircraft Manufacturers there?

 

Do you have commissions into national transport strategies and not have the transport companies there?

 

So I ask again. Where is the problem?

[Double K]

It's too time consuming to read all this and try to show anything.

The purpose of the post was more to talk about it, I brought up things I had read about which I found out were not accurate but there are still aspects of this that I have suspicions about. I'll do more reading in my own time about it all, but to me some of it seems odd.

 

Thanks for your responses they led me to read more cheers

[JohnB]

but there are still aspects of this that I have suspicions about.

 

Please do so. I must admit that I found following the trail and reading some of the standards to be quite enlightening.

 

If you find things that do tend to confirm your suspicions I'd love to read them. There is always the possibility that any commission that includes "interested parties" will have trouble excluding the "ruled by self interest" parties.

 

I take it that that is the main area of concern for you? It's something I tend to look at a lot. Who makes up the commission, do they gather evidence from all sides, what potential conflicts of interest are there, that sort of thing.

 

Cheers.