by Brandon Turbeville Excerpt from Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom
2010-2011
Codex Alimentarius November 17, 2010
Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy.
It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization under the direction of the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due to statements made by many critics referring to the “implementation” of Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect.
A
more accurate phrase would be the “implementation of Codex Alimentarius
guidelines,” as it would more adequately describe the situation.
The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is Latin for “food code” [1] and directly descended from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911.[2]
This set of standards was
the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the
courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion.
As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localized area, the idea of having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up steam as well.
From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius). Almost immediately the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a global international set of standards for food.
The FAO Regional Conference
then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the
suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO program dealing with food standards.
In 1961, it was decided by,
...to create an international food standards program known as the Codex Alimentarius.[4]
In 1963, as a result of the resolutions passed by these organizations two
years earlier, Codex Alimentarius was officially created.[5]
Because many of these claims are made with only indirect evidence, or no evidence at all, one might be tempted to disregard them at first glance. However, as the allegations gain more and more adherents, Codex has attempted to refute them.
In its Frequently Asked Questions section, Codex answers the question,
It then goes on to answer the charges by stating:
But, as one can see from the statement above, Codex’s response does very little to answer this question beyond simply disagreeing with it.
While it is true that many individuals who make this claim provide little evidence for it, the presentation of the information does not necessarily negate its truthfulness.
In fact, Codex offers its own website as a source for accurate information about the organization; yet, beyond the FAQ section, there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the “war criminal” allegations. Furthermore, the codexalimentarius.net website is virtually indecipherable, almost to the point of being completely useless. In the end, this response raises more questions than it answers.
This is because Codex, if it wanted,
could put these rumors to rest by simply posting a list of the individuals
and organizations that funded or played an integral role in its creation.
However, it does nothing of the sort. Beyond mentioning the FAO and the WHO,
we are completely unaware of who or how many other individuals and
organizations participated in the creation of Codex Alimentarius.
I.G. Farben was made up of several German chemical firms including,
...that merged together.
It was essentially the manufacturing wing of the Third Reich and was the engine behind the Nazi war machine.
The company provided the vast majority of explosives and synthetic gasoline used for the military conquest and murder of millions.
It also manufactured the now infamous
Zyklon-B gas used in the
gas chambers. Not only that, but it was influential in the conducting of
experiments on concentration camp victims. Indeed, camp victims were often
purchased outright at the behest of the company for the express purposes of
testing by several different branches of the company, particularly Bayer and
Hoechst.
During the Nuremberg war trials, the tribunal convicted 24 board members and executives of the company and dissolved it into several different daughter companies. Namely, BASF, Hoechst (later to be known as Aventis), and Bayer. By 1951, virtually all 24 of these executives were released, including Fritz Ter Meer and Hermann Schmitz.
Ter Meer had been a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1945 and also a member of the working committee and the technical committee as well as a director of the infamous Section II. He was also the ambassador to Italy given full power by the Reich Minister for armaments and war production and was the industrialist most responsible for Auschwitz. Schmitz was also a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1935, and was chairman of the board and “head of finances” from 1935-1945.
He was also head of military economics and a
member of the Nazi party. Both men were found guilty by the Nuremberg war
tribunal in 1948, yet Schmitz was released in 1950 and Ter Meer in 1952.[11]
In the years following, he would take on many additional roles such as chairman of the board of Theodore Goldschmidt AG, deputy chairman of the board of Commerzbank and Bank-Association AG, as well as a board member of the Waggonfabrik Uerdingen, Duesseldorger Waggonfabrik AG, the bank association of West Germany, and United Industrial Enterprises AG.[12]
These are documented connections for both of these men. Indeed, Ter Meer’s’ connections to the pharmaceutical firm Bayer earned him a foundation named in his honor, the Fritz Ter-Meer Foundation.[13]
Through all of this
however, this writer could not confirm that either Ter Meer or Schmitz had
direct connections to the creation of Codex Alimentarius.
Thanks to both the anti-Codex community and Codex Alimentarius itself, there is no evidence (again at least to this author) that documents which individuals or corporations were involved in its establishment.
However, there are other ties that lend more credence to the belief that war
criminals played a role in the creation of Codex.
NOTES
The Health Tyrants - Codex Alimentarius November 22, 2010
The health commission of Codex Alimentarius, and the subsequent legislation to come from it, has provable roots to,
Let's put forth a few of the names and
philosophies of the tyrants responsible for this proposed global health
tyranny.
Not only were they a conglomerate
of Bayer, Hoechst, BASF and other companies, I.G. Farben was also welded to
Shell Oil of Britain and Standard Oil and DuPont of the United States by
1929. This occurred after I.G. Farben discovered how to make petroleum out
of coal. Subsequently, there was an agreement for I.G. Farben to stay out of
the petroleum market if Standard Oil would stay out of the chemical
market.[1]
So much stock that when I.G. Farben’s holdings were completely
sold off in 1962,
the Rockefellers were the dominant holders involved in the
transactions.[3] This is significant because the Rockefeller Foundation and
the Rockefeller family in general were major supporters not just of the Nazi
regime and eugenics, but the creation of the United Nations.[4]
In addition to open support for eugenics, the Rockefellers are also committed globalists, again a philosophy which is readily admitted.
The Rockefeller connections to globalist organizations such as,
...to name a
few are widely documented and discussed. Indeed, it was John D. Rockefeller
that donated the land on which the United Nations headquarters was built.[8]
It eventually becomes obvious that the Rockefellers, along with other elite families, had a vested interest in the creation of an international governing body as well as a powerful hand in its creation through organizations such as those mentioned above, specifically,
All of these groups and organizations exist for the stated purpose of world government, with the UN in particular being a vital piece of the infrastructure used to facilitate it.
Indeed, much evidence has shown definite links between these
organizations and the creation of the United Nations.[10]
Its contemporary form originated with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection, but gained more steam when Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of Darwin’s) began to push these theories with increased vigor.
Galton also claimed that if fit or talented human beings would only marry other fit or talented human beings then the end result would be much more fit and talented offspring.
At the same time Darwin and Galton’s theories were being considered, the idea of heredity was being given more attention as well. Yet, in just a few years, what were mainly just bizarre theories came to be not only accepted but turned into a mass movement of eugenics that resulted in forced sterilizations, abortions, euthanasia and even infanticide in the United States.
This was years before these practices were introduced and intensified in Germany. In fact, it was the United States that Hitler took as a model for his own plan to eliminate “unfits.”
These practices blossomed in the years before World War II due to large
scale acceptance of eugenics in academia and the media as well as massive
funding from hereditary elite families such as the Rockefellers and
Carnegies.[11]
The Foundation funded the Eugenics Society, which
eventually changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology,
the name that it currently holds. Rockefeller also helped to create and
subsequently fund the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the
Kaiser
Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity.[12]
Indeed, many of the experiments themselves were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation via the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity.[14]
Through the
Bureau of Social Hygiene, another Rockefeller eugenics foundation, John D.
Rockefeller also anonymously funded the notorious racist, eugenicist, and
abortion pioneer Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, Birth
Control Clinical Research Bureau, and Planned Parenthood of America.[15]
In a 1939 letter to Clarence Gamble she wrote,
In 1939, Sanger renamed her
Clinical Research Bureau to the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, both
integral institutions to the Negro Project, which became the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America in 1942, its current name as it exists
today.[17]
Sven Burmester, a representative of the latter organization, even stated publicly his support for the barbaric practices of China’s population control programs. He said,
This is only one example of the ideology that is pervasive among those intricately involved in the United Nations and, unfortunately, much of the scientific community.
Although little more will be said about the elite and UN ideologies here, the evidence is readily available and it should be researched in order to gain a clearer picture of the direction this system of global governance is moving. When one has a basic understanding of the connections between the Rockefellers and the UN, as well as the common belief system of eugenics and population reduction, it is not such a stretch to see traces of these elitists in the architecture of Codex Alimentarius.
Codex, after all, is an organization created under the FAO and WHO, which are both under the jurisdiction of the UN. The connections between the Rockefellers and the pharmaceutical industry and medical establishments also serve as a motive for the destruction of the natural healthcare industry and natural supplement access.[20]
The Rockefellers are not the only elite hereditary ruling class family with this ideology, nor are they necessarily at the top of the heap when it comes to the pecking order of those that are. The Rockefellers themselves are only agents of individuals in even higher places, but who manage to remain unseen.
Nevertheless, the Rockefeller connection to Codex should not be ignored because in this case, as in many others, history predicts the future.
The globalists plans of a one-world state built upon
eugenics were not born with Adolph Hitler and they certainly did not die
with him. It is as alive today as it ever was.
Structure of Health Tyranny - Codex Alimentarius December 2, 2010
Each year the CAC meets in Rome (at FAO headquarters) and Geneva (WHO headquarters) alternately with delegations from its 182 member countries. The chief delegate to the commission must be a government official or an employee of that country, and it is this individual that decides who will speak for the delegation.
No votes are taken at these
meetings, as “consensus,” not voting, is the method of decision making.[1]
In some cases this has even taken the form of the Chairman cutting off the microphone of dissenting delegates. An example of this is provided by Ingrid Frazon, the head of the National Health Federation Delegation to the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU).
Frazon states:
It is obvious from experiences such as the one recounted above that any opposition to the pre-ordained agenda, in the rare instances that any exists, is promptly dealt with.
Clearly, Codex is no democracy.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission maintains 10 general subject committees[3] that often form their own sub-committees and task forces to tackle specific issues.[4]
Codex is also made up of various commodity committees, task forces, and regional coordinating committees.[5] Each of these committees deals with their own detailed product(s) and, in the end, they encompass just about everything that can be physically consumed by human beings. That is, except pharmaceuticals, which Codex does not regulate at all.
Each works
under the direction of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to which they
report and who ultimately approves the work of the committees. Likewise,
they all work under the method of “consensus” with no votes taken to
determine the final policy.
Generally speaking, all of the dirty work and manipulation of language to suit the eugenics and corporate goals are done in the committees and their sub-committees. By the time the guidelines reach the Commission, the damage has been done and the text merely awaits the approval of the higher-ups.
Nevertheless, the eight-step procedure is described as follows by the FAO/WHO Codex Training Package:
Essentially, the Commission introduces a standard to be debated, at which point the designated committee takes up the standard and creates a draft of the guidelines.
This draft is circulated to member countries who comment on it. These comments are reviewed and potentially incorporated into the next draft which is then adopted by the committee. This draft is then redistributed to member countries for comment. The committee then adopts the guidelines and sends them to the Commission for final approval.
Both the
Commission and the committee can require that the draft guideline be pushed
back to a previous step if it so desires.[7]
Only by exposing this committee and its stated goals
can we hope to restore our health freedom.
The Language of Health Tyranny Decoding the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines For Vitamins and Supplements December 17, 2010
Perhaps the most publicized aspect of Codex Alimentarius is the threat it poses to free access to vitamin and mineral supplements.
While there are
varying opinions on the effects the Codex guidelines would have on dietary
supplements, there is little debate about the fact that these effects would
be detrimental. At best, the guidelines will reduce dose levels to minuscule
amounts too small to be beneficial, as well as causing the prices to
skyrocket for both consumers and producers.[1]
In 2005, and in the face of much opposition from
the informed pro-supplement and natural health community, the CCNFSDU
approved The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, the set of
rules by which vitamin and mineral supplements may very well be removed from
the market.[2]
However, it appears that these organizations, as well as the many others that oppose Codex such as the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF), are fighting a losing battle. While these groups and individuals spend countless amounts of money and energy fighting this global tyranny, their efforts amount to little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
At
this point, their work focuses on lessening the blow from the Codex
guidelines. Unfortunately, it does nothing to stop the blow from coming, nor
does it protect against subsequent heavier blows. While these statements are
not meant to belittle their work, it is meant to show that the battle is not
within Codex itself, but outside of it.
Such a technicality exists in this instance in the form of risk assessment; the technique specified by Codex to evaluate the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements. In section 3.2.2 (a), the Guidelines state:
Risk assessment, while seemingly benign, is actually crucial to the ability of Codex to justify the ban of vitamin and mineral supplements.
This concept works on the assumption that the item being tested is inherently dangerous and toxic. This method is completely the opposite of what should be used when evaluating vitamins and minerals.
As Dr. Rima Laibow states in her article "'Nutraceuticide' and Codex Alimentarius:"
By applying “scientific risk assessment” to nutrients and supplements, they are essentially considering them toxins as they are lumped into the same category as chemicals and poisons.
There is no need to explicitly state that
“nutrients are toxins.” This is done by default. So, in the end, we have the
categorization of vitamins and minerals that are essential to human health
and life as something that is actually toxic. In this sense, we are entering
the world of doublethink.
Indeed, even many alleged “health freedom” International Non-Governmental Organizations were either gullible enough to be taken in by the promise of the benefits of risk assessment, or morally bankrupt enough to be bought off by the pharmaceutical industry or others who might benefit from the demise of the natural supplement industry.
Yet, some of the support for risk assessment methods early on seems to have been based on the fear of the implementation of maximum limits proposed by European countries like France. These limits would have reduced the potency level of each pill to no more than 15% Recommended Daily Intake (RDI), a figure that is already set much too low. [6]
Yet those who favored risk assessment seemed to jump from the frying pan
into the fire. As Scott Tips of the Natural Health Federation writes:
But by the time the Europeans get through applying their science, those maximum limits will be so low toddlers would be lucky to get any nutritional value out of Codex-harmonized vitamins and minerals. The European Union’s Scientific Committee on Food has already started using its science-based risk assessment to establish laughably low maximum limits for European vitamins.
And, lately, I have begun to see a growing concern, if not outright fear, in
the faces of some science-based risk-assessment proponents that perhaps
things might not go their way here after all.[7]
To be sure, it takes
monumental ignorance to actually believe this. Nevertheless, trade
associations like the International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplements,
National Nutritional Foods Association, and even the Council for Responsible
Nutrition are proclaiming that Codex poses no threat to their access to
supplements and, specifically, to the DSHEA law which was passed in 1994.
Once this is acknowledged, one can
understand more fully how disinformation spreads around the supplement
community and encourages apathy and a false sense of security among the
populace.[8]
As always, this global
domination and subversion of national sovereignty will be done in the name
of trade, and the true aims of the perpetrators will be cloaked in flowery
language, wordplay, and semantics. It will also be done right under our
noses.
S. 510 and Codex Alimentarius Link
Tracking, Tracing, and Monitoring
Independent Food Production
Being honest, I must confess some slight personal agitation at the thought of writing another article on yet another “food safety” bill making its way through congress with the words “tyranny” and “Codex” written all over it. It seems that every legislative session, we are faced with the prospect of the same food bill cloaked in a different name.
Invariably, this bill seeks to corral all food production into the hands of a few major corporations and essentially destroy the ability of the population to feed themselves.
Here
in late 2010, we have the new version of food imperialism known as S.510,
the Food Safety Modernization Act.
The desire for
enhanced traceability of food products is sold to the public as a desire to
better respond to food-borne illnesses and follow them back to their source.
However, as with almost anything that comes out of the mouth of government,
there is a more sinister role that traceability programs have to play.
Unfortunately, they are generally ignored and unused when it comes to
adverse health effects related to food produced by multinational food
corporations. While there is always an exception to the rule, it is a fact
that international corporations are by far the source of food adulteration
more often than small independent farms.
As Eric Blair points out in his article Why the Tester Amendment Does NOT Help Small Food Producers Under S.510:
That’s hardly
what I call an exemption.
Under this system, food business operators (defined so broadly so as to include both big agribusiness and recreational gardeners) are required to,
Likewise, in the document entitled, “Recommended International Code of Practice General Principles of Food Hygiene,” Codex states that,
Although the language of the bill and the Codex document are not identical in every section, they are similar.
Unfortunately, this is all that is needed to initiate the implementation of
Codex Alimentarius guidelines in the United States.
But because these agencies often
respond to policy as much as they do law, the chances of Codex Alimentarius
guidelines being implemented domestically rises sharply. This is due to the
fact that no congressional approval would be needed to implement them.
Simply an executive order or change in policy from the executive branch or
even the FDA, HHS, or DHS acting independently would be enough to enact
Codex guidelines in the United States.
Without a doubt, the majority of Americans have no idea what Codex Alimentarius actually is. In fact, it is an unfortunate reality that the majority of the American public have no idea what S.510 is. Even to the relatively informed individual, the legislation is merely just another government power grab.
Little do they know that is a major step forward on the path to a global dictatorship which uses food as a weapon and a means of control.
Those who ridicule
activists and opponents of S.510 as paranoid conspiracy theorists march
unwittingly down a road which leads directly to just such a global tyranny
where food will be most definitely taken - but not for granted.
The Methods of Health Tyranny
Codex Alimentarius "Risk Assessment" of Vitamins And
Nutritional Supplements
In the previous article I addressed the issue of the language of “risk assessment” techniques used to determine the dangers of consuming vitamin and mineral supplements as well as how this methodology would be used to classify nutrients as toxins.
For the most part, I focused on the fact that
“risk assessment” is clearly an inappropriate testing method to apply toward
vitamins and minerals. This is because “risk assessment” is designed to be
applied to substances that are known to be toxic for the purpose of
establishing an upper safe levels of toxicity to them.
Assessing Vitamin
B3, Vitamin B12, and Vitamin B6 as separate and individual nutrients is
called the nutrient form approach and would be the more rational method to
apply (even though risk assessment should not be used in the first place)
because the alleged risks posed by these supplements are themselves
dependent upon the form in which it occurs.
Yet under the risk assessment process using the method of the nutrient group approach, Vitamin C as a whole would be regulated based upon the “risks” associated with the ascorbic acid form of Vitamin C. Therefore, the ascorbic acid form of vitamin C would be the basis for the setting of the upper safe levels or the Maximum Upper Limits of Vitamin C.
This is because this particular method takes the most “toxic” form of the tested substance and uses it for the basis of its regulation.[2]
In this case, the nutrient group
is considered only as safe as its most dangerous form.
This is a recurring theme in the discussion
of Codex and its guidelines for various forms of food substances and
supplements and can be easily seen in its regulation requirements for GMO’s
as well. While GMO products are allowed in the international food chain,
nutrients are treated as dangerous substances. In this case, simply giving
nutrients the same treatment as toxic chemicals would be an improvement over
their current treatment.
This is especially important because when a regulatory agency determines, as Codex and other agencies apparently have, that any risk, no matter how insignificant it is, may constitute an “unreasonable risk of illness or injury” it may therefore be banned. Unfortunately, this is actually provided for under the DSHEA law passed in the United States in 1994.
This, however, is essentially what the risk
assessment procedure is all about - assessing dangers not benefits.
Not only that, but the form of the vitamin being tested is often in a synthetic form as opposed to its natural state with very little concern given to the individuals’ nutritional requirements or current state of health. Even follow up times vary significantly. [5]
Paul Anthony Taylor explains this in his article “Nutrient Risk Assessment: What You’re Not Being Told,” when he writes:
Yet the problems extend to more than just unscientific expansion upon unreliable models.
There is both rhyme and reason to the madness of Codex Alimentarius. It is on the basis of the aforementioned science that Codex works to regulate nutrients as if they are industrial chemicals. This goal is achieved through the use of risk assessment methodology by setting Maximum Upper Limits (also described as Maximum Upper Levels or Upper Safe Levels), and later Maximum Permitted Levels of nutrients.
There is a fine line between the two but the difference is a very important one.
January 26, 2011
I have explained how the risk assessment methodology is being used to establish both Upper Safe Levels and Maximum Permitted Levels, as well as demonstrated the connections between Codex Alimentarius and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).
These connections are important because it is BfR that has
been contracted by Codex to provide scientific information and advice on
nutritional supplements using just this process. In this and subsequent
articles, I will examine in more depth the findings presented by BfR and the
ramifications they will have for access to vitamin and mineral supplements
the world over.
Table 3 is an overview of the BfR teams’ classification of vitamins and
minerals into supply and risk categories (each of these categories being
separate).
However, the risk
categories have to do with the potential for nutrients and vitamins to cause
adverse effects.
Indeed, Table 2, which is a different chart showing the criteria for each risk category, is entitled “Various degrees of probability that a nutrient leads to adverse side effects.” [3]
This in itself should trigger questions as to what amount
of “proof” this study actually offers.
This is a
difference of 1,750 mg set by an agency that is not considered exactly
friendly towards nutritional supplements or natural healthcare. Of course,
for individuals with some kind of sickness such as cancer, the limits on
Vitamin C intake are much higher.[5]
A
comparison of the Upper Safe Limits set by the Medline Plus system (under
the direction of the aforementioned government agencies) can be viewed by
going on to the Medline website and the BfR site.
The RDA is officially defined as,
The EAR is defined as,
It goes on to say,
While this article will not deal in depth with this subject, it should be noted that the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has recommended that the national standard of nutritional intake be shifted from the RDA to the EAR.[11]
This would effectively slash the DRI by close to
half due to the fact that the original referenced values of nutritional
intake would be affected likewise.
As James South points out in his article, “Vitamin Safety, RDAs and the Assault on Vitamin Freedom,” the Recommended Dietary Allowances from 1980 plainly stated as much.
South quotes them as saying:
This is a source of confusion for many consumers who believe that RDAs are the levels at which their intake is topped out and adequately achieved.
Add
to this the fact that RDAs are continually being lowered by the agencies
responsible for setting them.
The assumption made by the agency was that Americans are generally
healthy people and, because they generally fail to consume the 1980 RDA
levels of nutrients, then a lower standard is adequate for good human
health.[14]
Consumers would then be forced to purchase many more times the amount of
supplements to achieve the same result as their current dosage.
This would
not only have a crippling effect on consumers, but the industry itself would
face similar repercussions as the option of natural supplementation would
become unaffordable. Even the supplements themselves would suffer, as each
capsule/pill/dose would therefore have to be produced using more filler
materials than actual nutrients.
Section 3.2.1 of the Guidelines states,
No doubt some, out of ignorance, will assume that this position is positive.
In fact the opposite is true. The setting of minimum levels is merely part of a two-pronged attack on vitamin and mineral supplements, and levels of nutrition in general. The problem with this position is that it prevents manufacturers from adding trace amounts of vitamins and minerals to supplements that may be desired or needed to aid in the processing of the main nutrient. Instead, filler will have to be added.
As Scott Tips writes:
Keep in mind, the MPLs of vitamin and mineral supplements will be set so low, according to the risk assessment studies like those of BfR being conducted, that it will be virtually impossible to include trace amounts of supplements below the required 15% of the already low levels of the RDA.
They might as well not be included at all, which is the goal of Codex in the
first place.
|