Understanding the Codex Alimentarius
Understanding and Combatting the Codex Alimentarius – Population Control Under the Guise of Consumer Protection
by Gregory Damato, PhD
July 4, 2010
Thanks to Arcanum Dark Secrets
The Codeath, sorry, Codex Alimentarius Commission is a very misunderstood organization. Most people have never heard of it, and those who have heard of it may not understand the true reality of this extremely powerful trade organization.
According to the official Codex website (http://www.codexalimentarius.net), the altruistic purpose of this commission is in “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”.
The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “Food Code”) is regulated under a joint venture between the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Brief History of Codex
The history of Codex began in 1893 when the Austro-Hungarian Empire decided it needed a specific set of guidelines by which the courts could rule on cases dealing with food. 1 This set of regulatory mandates became known as Codex Alimentarius. It was effectively implemented until the fall of the empire in 1918.
At a meeting in 1962, the United Nations (UN) decided that Codex should be re-implemented worldwide in order to “protect” the health of consumers. Two- thirds of funding for Codex emanates from the FAO, and the other third comes from the WHO.
In 2002, FAO and WHO had serious concerns about the direction of Codex and hired an external consultant to determine its performance since 1962 and to designate which direction to take the trade organization. The consultant concluded that Codex should be scrapped immediately. It was at this time that big industry stepped in and exerted its powerful influence. The updated outcome was a toned-down report asking Codex to address 20 concerns within the organization.
Since 2002, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has covertly surrendered its role as an international public health and consumer protection organization. Under the helm of big industry, the surreptitious purpose of the new Codex is to increase profits for the global corporate juggernauts while controlling the world through food.
The most dominant country behind the agenda of Codex is the United States, whose primary purpose is to benefit the large multinational interests of Big Pharma, Big Agribusiness, Big Chema and the like. At the latest meeting in Geneva, Switzerland (30 June to 4 July 2008), the US became the chair of Codex and now will exacerbate the distortion of health freedom and continue to promulgate misinformation and lies about nutrients and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while fulfilling its tacit population-control agenda.
One reason why the US continues to dominate Codex is because other countries falsely believe that it possesses the latest and greatest food safety technology; hence, whatever the US asks for, its allies (Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore and the European Union) follow suit nearly every time.
The fact that Codex meetings are held all over the world is also no accident and allows the US to maintain its tight grip on the Codex agenda because the less economically viable countries are not able to attend. The governments of many of these countries (such as Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan and Swaziland) realise that Codex has been altered from a benevolent food organisation to one that is fraudulent, lethal and illegitimate.
Health Freedom Threats
While the mainstream media are busy with their esoteric agenda of driving fear into the hearts of the world’s populace by focusing on terrorism, global warming, salmonella outbreaks and food shortages, the real threats are surreptitiously becoming a reality. Soon, every single thing you put into your mouth, including water (with the exception of pharmaceuticals, of course), will be highly regulated by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
The Codex standards are a complete affront to people’s freedom to access clean, healthy food and beneficial nutrients, yet these regulations have no legal international standing. Why should we be worried? These soon-to-be mandatory standards will apply to every country that’s a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) (presently there are 153 members). If countries do not follow these standards, then crippling economic and trade sanctions may be imposed on them, although countries may be able to avoid the standards of Codex through the implementation of their own international standards.
Some government-run agencies, like the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia, are informing the public that the vitamin and mineral guideline of Codex will not affect their country. For example, the TGA had this to say: “The proposed Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements will not apply in Australia and will have no impact on the way these types of products are regulated in Australia.”
The bottom line is that no one knows what types of laws will be passed before Codex harmonisation occurs, and no country is safe from these international guidelines, regardless of what government agencies are saying in order to quell pre-emptively any potential public uprising. Many alternative health activists believe this may be a method to confuse and obfuscate the Codex issue until it is too late.
Some Codex standards which are proposed to take effect in the near future, and which will be completely irrevocable once initiated, include:
• All nutrients (e.g., 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). The precursor to Codex harmonisation in this area began in the USA in August 2008 with the clandestine decision to mandate the mass irradiation of all lettuce and spinach in the name of public health and safety. If the safety of the public was the main concern of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), then why were people not alerted to this new practice?
• 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.
…no country is safe from these mandatory international guidelines, regardless of what government agencies are saying in order to quell pre-emptively any potential public uprising.
• All nutrients (e.g., 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 per cent 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.
Potentially permissible safe levels of nutrients under the Codex are not yet set in stone. Some probable examples based on the European Union (EU) system may include:
– Niacin: upper limit of 34 μg (micrograms) daily (effective daily doses range from 2,000 to 3,000 μg).
– Vitamin C: upper limits of 65 to 225 μg daily (effective daily doses range from 6,000 to 10,000 μg).
– Vitamin D: upper limit of 5 μg daily (effective daily doses range from 6,000 to 10,000 μg).
– Vitamin E: upper limit of 15 IU (international units) of alpha tocopherol per day, even though alpha tocopherol by itself has been implicated in cell damage and is toxic to the body (effective daily doses of mixed tocopherols range from 10,000 to 12,000 IU).
• 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). This directive applies to any and all reports on vitamins and minerals and all nutritionists’ consultations. This type of information may be considered a hidden barrier to trade and may result in economic trade sanctions for the involved country.
• 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.
• Deadly and carcinogenic organic pesticides, including seven of the 12 worst (e.g., hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene and aldrin), which were banned by 176 countries (including the US) in 1991 at the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,7 will be allowed back into food at elevated levels.
• The Codex will allow dangerous and toxic levels of aflatoxin (0.5 ppb) in milk. Aflatoxin, produced in animal feed that’s gone mouldy in storage, is the second-most- potent (non-radiation-related) carcinogenic compound known.
• 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.
• Elevated levels of residue from pesticides and insecticides that are toxic to humans and animals will be allowed.
The Population Control Agenda
In 1995, the FDA adopted an illegal policy which stated that international standards (i.e., Codex) would supersede US laws governing all food, even if these standards were incomplete.8 Furthermore, in 2004, the US passed the Central America Free Trade Agreement (illegal under US law, but legal under international law) that requires the US to conform to Codex.9 Once these standards are adopted, there is no way to return to the standards of old, but countries can adopt ones that are considered higher than those of Codex.
An example of this would be the European Supplements Directive. Once Codex compliance begins in any area, as long as any country remains a member of the WTO, it is totally irrevocable: the standards cannot be repealed, changed or altered in any way, shape or form.10, 11, 12 Population control for money is the easiest way to describe the new Codex Alimentarius, which in effect is being run by the US and primarily controlled by Big Pharma with the aim of reducing the world’s population from its current estimate of 6.692 billion to a sustainable 500 million—an approximate 93 per cent reduction. Interestingly enough, before the arrival of Europeans in America, the Native American population in the US was around 60 million;13 today it hovers around 500,000, or an approximate 92 per cent reduction as a result of government policies of genocide, starvation and poisoning.
Codex is similar to other population control measures undertaken clandestinely by governments of the western world; for example, the introduction of DNA-damaging and latent immunosuppressive agents in vaccines (e.g., weaponised avian flu and AIDS), aspartame, chemtrails, chemotherapy for cancer treatment and RU486 (the abortion pill funded by the Rockefeller dynasty).
FAO and WHO have estimated that by the introduction of just the vitamin and mineral guideline alone, within 10 years a minimum three billion deaths will result.14 One billion of these deaths will be due to starvation, and two billion as a result of preventable and degenerative diseases of under-nutrition, e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
The foisting of degraded, demineralised, pesticide-filled and irradiated foods on consumers is the fastest and most efficient way to cause a profitable surge in malnutrition and preventable and degenerative diseases, for which the most appropriate course of action is toxic pharmaceutical treatment. Death for profit is the new name of the game.
Big Pharma has been waiting for Codex harmonization for years. An incognisant world population physically degenerating at an accelerated pace, providing a spike in revenue, is the ultimate goal for the furtive and egregious controllers of this corrupt trade organisation purportedly looking out for the health of consumers.
Fighting Back with Private Standards
Rima Laibow, MD, medical director for the Natural Solutions Foundation, has brought legal action against the US government and continues to attend every Codex meeting as a public observer while fighting for our health freedom. She has also been meeting with delegates from various countries to make them aware of Private Standards, which allow countries to draft food standards which are safer and higher than those mandated by Codex. Obviously, drafting safer standards is not a difficult task, and many countries can seemingly circumvent the flawed and irrevocable guidelines that Codex is attempting to implement.
Battle over GM Labelling
The latest Codex meeting in Geneva concluded with some interesting outcomes. Some long-simmering acrimony began to surface as the US continued to force forward the biased agendas of Big Pharma, Big Chema, Big Agribusiness and the like without considering the input of many other countries. Typically, if the US does not want a country’s input, the host country of the meeting simply denies visas to official delegates. Several countries object to this practice and stated that because of this and other reasons, decisions made by Codex in their absence do not have international legitimacy.
One major point of contention is the US and the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s staunch refusal to allow labelling of GMOs. Japan, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and virtually all the African countries and 26 European Union countries have fought the US for nearly 18 years to introduce mandatory labelling of GMOs. The US fallaciously considers GMOs to be equivalent to non- GMOs, based solely on a 1992 Executive Order from then- President George H. W. Bush. Consequently, no pre- market safety testing is conducted on any GMOs before they are released into the food chain in the US. The FDA refuses to review any safety data except to conduct a single preliminary review early in the organism’s development.
Opponents of the US policy prohibiting labelling of genetically modified food conclude that the US does not want GMOs labelled because of the potential legal ramifications for and liability of manufacturers and the US government if these foods can be traced. If millions of people are harmed or killed due to the instability of the inserted DNA promoter viruses and marker bacteria when interacting with the dynamic and fluid structure of the human body, then millions of lawsuits may result. But if these GMOs are totally untraceable, then corporate or government liability cannot be assessed and the health of the entire population suffers.
Some FDA scientists have repeatedly warned about releasing GMOs into the general food supply because of the dangers, but they have been ignored or routinely overruled. Prior to the Geneva meeting, the Codex Committee on Food Labelling met in Ottawa, Canada (28 April to 2 May 2008). The meeting concluded with several pro–mandatory GMO labelling nations angry that the committee had not objectively analysed the empirical research, prepared by the South Africa delegation, detailing the dangers of GMOs. This document delineated the need for mandatory labelling of GMOs, but was ignored and subsequently withdrawn due to US pressure.
As a result, several countries planned to scrap the requirements of Codex and adopt their own labelling system for GMOs in an effort to curtail the spread of “lethal” food. This became a real quandary for FAO and WHO.
According to Dr Laibow, at the recent Geneva meeting FAO and WHO finally stepped in and decided to undertake a program to identify low-level contamination of GMOs in food.
The definition of low-level contamination will still depend on each country’s standards. For example, the US currently allows for up to 10 per cent (the highest of any country under Codex) of GMO contamination of organic foods and, amazingly, still allows them to be labelled as “USDA Certified Organic”. Some governments, such as the European Union, allow only 0.9 per cent contamination, while others permit merely 0.1 per cent.
However, the FAO and WHO’s use of the term “contamination” simply does not describe the GMOs as being mixed in with normal food. This term is also very noteworthy, as most research on the dangers of GMOs can no longer be denied.
The US, of course, vehemently objected to such a designation, but this time to no avail.
Although FAO and WHO have not gone so far as to require mandatory labelling of GMOs, their recognition that GMOs can contaminate food is a huge win for health freedom.
Expanding that requirement to mandatory labelling is the next logical step, but this is still a work in progress.
Take Action against Codex!
The only way to avoid the death-for- profit agenda is to fight back by disseminating knowledge to everyone you know.
It does not matter whether they are still asleep or hypnotised by the enslavement of daily life or too busy to pay attention: the time to wake up is now.
The US government and the collaborating media have been trying to distract the world while all these egregious and mandatory standards are covertly passed.
It is time to take action, and you can do so by going to the website of the Natural Solutions Foundation, which can be found at http://www.healthfreedom usa.org, and following the latest updates on Codex. You can also sign a legal citizen’s petition at the web page http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ index.php?page_id=184.
It is very important that swift and vociferous action be taken now. Times are changing very rapidly, and unless we all come together on this issue we may have to start thinking about growing our own food in the near future to avoid calculated extermination.
Here are more contacts for action against the Codex:
You can send an email to the Department of Agriculture and Food in Western Australia or the Minister for Agriculture in your respective state. For example, in WA the email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration can also be contacted online via its website http://www.tga. gov.au/contact.htm.
• New Zealand
You can use the NZ Health Trust’s website to send your comments to your Member of Parliament: http://www.nzhealthtrust.co.nz/ email_mp.html.
Emails can be sent to the Food Standards Agency, which represents the UK at Codex sessions. Contact Michelle McQuillan by email at michelle.mcquillan@foodstandards. gsi.gov.uk.
You can get your voice heard by sending emails or writing to your congressperson (go to https://forms. house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml). If you send one email to Congress, it will ostensibly count as 13,000 emails. (US Congress suggests that for each person who takes the time to write or email a congressperson, there are another 13,000 others who share similar views but do not take the time to promulgate them.) You can also contact US Congress via http://www.visi.com/ juan/congress/.
The address for the US Codex is: US Department of Agriculture, South Building, Room 4861, 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250, phone (202) 205 7760, fax (202) 720 3157, email uscodex@fsis. usda.gov. The US Codex official website is http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ Codex_Alimentarius/index.asp.
• Other Countries
The best way to have your voice heard is to determine who your local representatives are and contact them with a unified and vociferous stand. This can be done easily through various online search engines.
1. Laibow, R.E., Nutricide: Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs (video), Natural Solutions Foundation, 2005, at http://www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
2. Laibow, Rima E., MD, “‘Nutraceuticide’ and Codex Alimentarius: The Death of Nutritional Medicine”, Alternative & Complementary Therapies 2005 Oct 1; 11(5):223-229
3. USDA, “FSIS official Dr. Karen Hulebak elected chair of Codex Alimentarius Commission”, News Release No. 0175.08, 1 July 2008, at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/ p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly =true&contentid=2008/07/0175.xml (accessed 17 August 2008)
4. Therapeutic Goods Administration, Codex Fact Sheet, May 2005, at http://www.tga.gov.au/cm/fs_codex. htm (accessed 17 August 2008)
5. Laibow, “‘Nutraceuticide’ and Codex Alimentarius”, op. cit. 6. Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, at http://www.chfa.ca/media/pdf_files/ Codex%20vms%20Guidelines%2020 05.pdf