Who is Behind Codex Alimentarius?

healthfreedomusa.org

Codex is not about protecting the health of consumers. That’s intentional disinformation. In truth, Codex is about increasing the profits of certain multi-national corporations…

UN, WTO, and Pharmaceutical Lobbyists

The United Nations established the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) in 1962 with the stated goal of ensuring uniform, standardized food across the world.

One of the primary objectives of the establishment of CAC was to remove barriers to international trade in food. At that time, the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization approved the establishment of the Joint FAO/WHO “Program on Food Standards” to produce standards for food that would then be ratified by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. “Ratification” is the method by which a proposed standard becomes part of the overall Codex Alimentarius mandate. The job of the CAC is ratification of standards set forward by member states. CAC makes all final decisions within the Codex organization.

Codex Alimentarius was birthed through a complex relationship between:

• World Health Organization (WHO)
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
• World Trade Organization (which has been authorized to enforce Codex Alimentarius through draconian trade sanctions)
• American FDA and USDA

These organizations are working in concert with lobbyists of the pharmaceutical , pesticide, chemical, dairy, and biotechnology industries to push Codex Alimentarius upon the peoples of the Earth. It warrants repeating the fact that this push has nothing to do with consumer protection. The push is being made because it serves the profits of aforementioned industries, in particular, the pharmaceutical industry.

Codex Faciliates Elimination of Natural Health Products – Pharmaceutical Industry Benefits Through Monopoly

Dr. Laibow estimates that for every dollar spent on supplements in the United States (approximately $20 billion last year according to Andrew Weil, M.D.) the cost to the pharmaceutical industry is about $40. So the more supplements people buy, the less drugs they buy. Upon observing societal trends, it seems that more and more people are using natural health products. Over 80% of Americans routinely use nutritional supplements. Overall, this is good news for health. But it is bad news for the pharmaceutical industry.

As more people become educated about the curative benefits of natural health products, more and more people will turn away from drugs. Inevitably, this will cut into the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharmaceutical industry, the largest industry in the world, has demonstrated to the world that it has little respect for the Hippocratic principle of “first, do no harm”. This industry is using Codex Alimentarius to wipe out the emerging natural health competition, and in the process creating a monopoly for pharmaceutical drugs as the sole “health care” product standing.

Drugs can be useful in trauma situations, and we at the Natural Solutions Foundation do not deny this. However, there is a world of difference between providing useful drugs for trauma situations, and literally forcing the world to use drugs as “cure-alls” at the expense of the tremendous benefits of natural health care. That is what Codex Alimentarius would do, beyond the deception of “consumer protection”.

Codex Faciliates Restricting Antioxidants – Helps Allopathic Medical Establishment Maintain Prevalence

In our society, there is an intense educational trend toward natural health. A plethora of natural medicine books, web sites, trade exhibits, magazines, and TV shows are helping people to learn more about optimal health and the natural solutions for disease. Naturopathic doctors, homeopaths, and holistic nutritionists are becoming health care providers of choice for millions.

Due to this intensive educational process that is underway, many people are beginning to understand that free radicals are well established causes of cancer, premature aging, immune system compromise, arthritis, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and most other chronic, degenerative diseases.

Free radicals are molecules gone beserk that damage cellular structure like bullets.

The only way that the body can protect itself from free radicals is with high levels of antioxidants, such as glutathione and Vitamin C. Antioxidants are natural substances, and cannot be patented (only synthetic substances can be patented). Thus, from the pharmaceutical industry’s perspective, there is no profit in natural health products.

Because of Codex Alimentarius, antioxidants would be improperly classed as toxins, and consumers would be barred access to useful dosages. Indeed, therapeutic levels of antioxidants would be forbidden under Codex Alimentarius.

If our natural choices in health care (such as antioxidants) are made illegal, then our only legal treatment options would be drugs and surgery. Sometimes drugs and surgery are necessary. But eliminating natural health care has nothing to do with the sometimes usefulness of drugs and surgery. Surely many respectable surgeons would be upset if their patients were denied access to nutritional supplementation.

While respectable surgeons and medical doctors would be in opposition to the elimination of natural health options, those who make drugs and get paid for allopathic surgical treatments would financially profit as a result. The pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment (which are in bed with each other) would benefit from a restriction in antioxidant access, because it would keep people in ill health, and thus force them to use drugs and surgery to abate their symptoms.

Codex Faciliates Increased Use of Pesticides – Pesticide Manufacturers Benefit Through Increased Sales

Codex Alimentarius mandates increased use of pesticides on agricultural crops. Pesticide manufacturers make more money when more pesticides are sprayed on Earth.

Pesticides are some of the most toxic substances ever concocted by human beings. Samuel Epstein, M.D., prominent cancer reseacher, states that pesticides are a primary cause of cancer. Dr. Epstein says:

“Pesticides have often been studied for their links to cancer. Populations that are most at risk for pesticide-related cancers include workers with occupational exposure to pesticides, children whose parents have occupational exposure to pesticides, populations living in agricultural areas of heavy pesticide use and children whose parents use pesticides inside and outside of the home.”

It is estimated that 85-90% of all cancers are environmentally caused. “Environmentally” caused means that an illness is caused by toxins taken into the body from all sources apart from food itself. Our present system of agriculture is heavily dependent on pesticides. Our food source is severely contaminated with pesticide residue. Contaminated food means contaminated bodies and poisoned enzymes. Poisoned enzymes means a breakdown in cellular function, which results in diseases such as cancer. Here is a quick primer on the role of enzymes in health:

• Enzymes are the very stuff of life (they activate biological processes in the body)
• Pesticides are highly toxic and poison enzyme systems
• Poisoned enzyme systems result in disease

According to the science of biochemistry, in addition to damaging enzymes, pesticides also wreak havoc with hormonal systems. In light of the science of biochemistry, one would expect the world to move away from the ravage of pesticides. Instead of encouraging a move toward a saner, pesticide-free, organic agricultural system (which has proven to be viable in terms of yield), and thus driving down costs of organic foods to the benefit of people and planet, Codex Alimentarius in essence says: “put more pesticides on crops, and when you get sick from all the toxins you ingest, I wont let you use nutrients to detoxify – I will force you to treat the symptoms of your pesticide-induced diseases with pharmaceutical drugs”.

Codex Alimentarius does not faciliate health. It facilitates profit. Codex Alimentarius facilitates increased sales of pesticides, which no health-promoting organization would do. The fact is that the chemical industry selling pesticides, herbicides and other poisons for use on crops and animals, reaps humungous profits while devastating the health of people and the environment. Codex Alimentarius is in bed with pesticide manufacturers.

Codex Facilitates Food Irradiation – Food Processors Save Money on Lack of Hygiene

Codex Alimentarius mandates food irradiation. Who benefits from food irradiation? Food growers and processors, who can use irradiation as an excuse to spend less money on true hygiene and sanitation.

Food irradiation means exposing food to high doses of X-rays to kill everything alive within the food, including beneficial enzymes and nutrients as well as harmful micro-organisms. Food irradiation is also called “cold sterilization”. It is advertised as a means to food hygiene, but in truth, it is not hygienic at all.

The criteria for hygiene after food irradiation is a simplistic bacteria count – “clean means no bacteria”. This is simplistic and does not consider the many other aspects of food hygiene. One of the arguments against food irradiation is that sloppy and appalling hygiene practices are disguised by the lack of bacteria after food is irradiated. Food irradiation also decimates nutrients, especially enzymes, leaving the irradiated food devoid of nutritional value.

Contamination of food is complex in today’s world of industrial farms, feedlots and mass-processing plants. Codex Alimentarius explicitly allows “edible offal” (read “fecal material”) in animal feed. After irradiation, the micro-organisms in the feed (such as bacteria) are dead and, thus, considered “acceptable”. Even if they contain feces. Unclean, poorly handled and contaminated food is passed on to the consumer. And, just because there is no bacterial count, it is (wrongly) assumed to be fit for human consumption. This is an unethical way to produce and sell food.

Who benefits from improperly handled food? The agricultural industry does which grows processed food and sells poor quality, unhygienic food using cheap and unwholesome feed components that reduce their expenses.

Codex Facilitates Unlabeled Genetically Modified Ingredients (GMOs) – Allows Sale of GMOs By Stealth

Codex Alimentarius would allow GMOs to become even more widespread than they are now. The present United States administration (which we hope is expelled in the next election) is a firm proponent of the unlabeled use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Little or nothing is known about the digestion, distribution and impact of these “Frankenfoods”. Dr. Walter Doefler of the Institute of Genetics, University of Cologne did a study that found that artificial genes enter the brains of mice. Dr. Doefler made the following statement after this research finding:

“the idea that fragments of DNA from viral promoters could find their way into cells of new-born babies is a frightening prospect… yet Monsanto admitted in the World in Action programme [sic] that they do not conduct long term testing of these genetically engineered foods”.

Because of the blowing wind, drift of genetically modified pollen is an established fact. Due to this drift, crops world wide regularly become contaminated with genetically modified seeds.

Once a crop is contaminated, not only is it of questionable safety, but it bizarrely becomes vulnerable to legal predation by the owner of the patent-holder of the contaminating GMO. For example, American farmers are regularly sued by multinational biotechnology corporations (such as Monstanto^�) because they save seeds from their own fields for next year’s crop. In many cases their fields are contaminated by pollen from nearby GMO crops without their knowledge! Monsanto^� then sues them for “infringement on intellectual property rights”!

And farmers lose their cases in court, since patent law protects the trespassing patent holder, not the innocent farmer.

Agricultural and biotechnology corporations benefit financially from the unlabelled use of GMOs. The agricultural corporations have laid a net over the future of agriculture and are extracting duty for it: tariffs and taxes on the genetic material of plants, which in truth no one owns. Biotechnology corporations profit from the diabolical strangle-hold their patent rights give them over natural crops when fields are irreversibly polluted by wind-born GMO pollen.

Conclusion: Codex Alimentarius Serves Profit, Not People

So who is behind Codex? The answer is obvious: those who are motivated by short-sighted economic interest (i.e. greed) and an astonishing disregard for the well-being of anything that stands in their path. They are using deception, a false image of being scientific, and coersion, to get their way.

Dr. Laibow: It is my opinion and the opinion of many other medical doctors, scientists, lawyers, and politicians, that while Codex Alimentarius may have initially been born out of a concern for the well-being of the people of the Earth, its mission has changed dramatically and is now about illegitimate greed, not legitimate need.

DID YOU KNOW:

The Natural Solutions Foundation initiated a legal challenge to the pro-big business, anti-health Codex policies of the United States called a Citizen’s Petition and submitted it to the US Codex Manager and the head of the FDA’s Office of Nutritional Products. Using our Constitutional Right to Petition for redress of ill, we are using US law to bring U.S. policy into compliance. Three U.S. Congressmen have written a joint letter endorsing our challenge to the US Codex Policy.

C 51, C 52 and Codex Alimentarius

http://youtube.com/user/grenaldo83

News coverage of a rally against Bill C-51 regarding the freedom of use of Natural Health Products. Bill C-51 is proposed legislation that give Health Canada shocking powers to destroy the Health Food industry as we know it. With Health Canada’s past examples of abuse, they surely will destroy the Natural Health industry in favor of Big Pharmaceutical Companies. healthcanadaexposed.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wendy Forrest

Although Bill C-51 did not pass the second reading, the danger of losing our basic health freedom continues because C-52 did pass. So this summer it will go to the Standing Committee on Health, which is stacked with conservatives who will carry out Harper’s agenda while everyone else is off on vacation and not paying attention to what the government is up to.  

If anything, C-52 is worse than C-51. Further, if it passes third reading the government can simply attach C-51 to it, as explained by health-freedom advocate Chris Gupta:

An Order in Council (a cabinet decision without parliamentary debate, media inquiry, or public input via our respective MP’s office etc) can be used to sneak an unpopular, unwanted set of rules into law. This would enable the Harper government to bypass all objections from the public and even some of their own backbenchers. The government has already sold us out on health issues.

(See Gupta’s articles at <http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/control_tactics.htm>, especially "Another Health Canada Horror Story – C-51& C-52", posted on June 9th, 2008. If you want to get on his list to get updates on this unfolding situation, you can contact him through his website.)

C-52 thus pushes forward the SPP and other international harmonization/globalization and unless stopped enables Harper to present us with the SPP’s harmonized rules as a "fait accompli" next fall. On June 20, Conservative member Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton?Leduc, CPC) apparently using a pre-planned strategy that caught everyone off guard, put forward a motion allowing C-52 to proceed as if it had been approved by the House:

"That, at any time the House stands adjourned during June or July, the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has ready a report, when that report is deposited with the Clerk, it shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House."

Apparently many Hon. Members among the opposition failed to recognize the significance of this and let it go through unchallenged. This motion’s acceptance in effect negates all the attempts to stop or modify C-51 with one clever procedural ploy.

Independent journalist Helke Ferrie is donating donating 50% of the price from her new book to a legal fund supporting a court challenge to C-52. She writes:

"In my opinion something should be done immediately to tie up C-52 in court and challenge its legality so they cannot have committee hearings until the court has ruled. Should you have any doubts about this, I suggest you go to www.nhppa.org and read Shawn Buckley’s analysis of C-52 which explains how it could turn Canada into a police state."

It is because of these new regulations limiting access to natural health and forcing adoption of GMOs in agriculture that the people of Ireland voted to reject the European Union’s Lisbon treaty. The wording of the Canadian bills is taken from that EU treaty to which the Irish refused to submit.

What most people are not grasping yet is the fundamental legal difference between the system of standards and rules we have known and what is being brought in to replace it. This is the difference between English Common Law and Napoleonic Code. The traditional English legal system operates under the basic assumption that unless specifically forbidden, everything is permitted. Napoleonic Code reverses this. Everything is forbidden unless specifically permitted. And under the Codex Alimentarius, the list of permitted items such as vitamins is very short! 

Those in Toronto region (and anyone willing to travel at that time) can attend a panel discussion on this new legislation which is to cement in place changes of policy that are already being implemented sneakily. Those not able to attend in person either this event or its preceding rally should be able to get video streaming at the Canadian Natural Health Coalition’s website:  www.cnhc.ca

This is a charitable event; voluntary donations may be made. There is a pdf poster for this that can be downloaded from:  Details are here.

DATE:

June 26, 2008, 7-10 p.m.

LOCATION: 

OISE, Main Auditorium,
252 Bloor St. W. (at St. George subway station)

SPEAKERS:

Helke Ferrie, author (See articles at < http://www.kospublishing.com/>)
Shawn Buckley, LLB
Dr. Shiv Chopra

Chopra, who stopped the approval of Bovine Growth Hormone, was fired from Health Canada for opposing the new policy direction. He is the author of Corrupt to the Core, a book explaining how Health Canada has set aside consumer health in favour of corporate profits.

 
Topics to be covered include examining the limits to access to Natural Health Products, and whether these bills open the door to Codex Alimentarius.

Slightly edited for clarity, here’s my most recent e-letter to "my" MP John Baird:

In your letter dated 21 May 2008 you assert that Bill C-51 is designed to give Canadians better access to NHPs, and that enforcement measures are gauged to the degree of risk of the product. You say these regulations have been working for five years already.

That is precisely why I am worried about the future access to NHPs if this bill becomes law.
The amount of and type of enforcement recently used against Truehope, a non-profit group providing nutritional supplements to people with bi-polar disorder, was far in excess of any degree of risk. These patients were largely those for whom pharmaceuticals were not helping, and the nutrient blend offered them a decent level of stability. Yet Health Canada inspectors seized the product, and deprived these patients of a needed remedy. There were some suicides as patients lost this last bio-friendly way to keep themselves on an even keel. A judge determined that Truehope had — and still has — a responsibility to defy the orders and to keep supplying this nutritional product to these people in need.

If this is typical of how Health Canada is going to apply these rules, this bill is even worse than it looks.

Health Canada’s inspectors who knowingly endangered these fragile people have never been brought to justice, nor has the abusive legal quagmire of the new regulations that unleashed such inspectors been re-examined, as it must be. Far from undoing this kind of damage, C-51 will like lead to many more such cases. It’s likely that giving these excess powers to the minister will result in more removals of safe products, and more people being forced against their will and better judgement back into dependence of over-priced, toxic pharmaceuticals, and ending up in hospital from side-effects.

To ensure safe, uncontaminated products, we already have laws in place. To ensure that claims are backed up by evidence, we already have laws governing accuracy in advertising. Just apply them through our normal legal system, where evidence must stand up in an open court.

C-52 goes far beyond necessity and imposes abusive use of authority. Instead of our standard legal system where the accused have the right to have their case heard in court, we’re going to have some kind of hole-in-corner system where the regulators can make decisions against someone who won’t have any recourse to a jury of his peers nor rules of valid evidence on which a conviction could be overturned if false charges are laid. In the Truehope case, the company remains in limbo awaiting some real justice on behalf of their clients injured by Health Canada’s abusive actions.

In another infamous case, loud accusations from Health Canada were aimed at the Strauss Herb Company just as their first television-sports sponsorship (curling) was underway. An independent judge ruled against HC and vindicated the herb company, saying that the government did not have enough evidence of harm or wrongdoing.

But if the judges are all inside Health Canada and associated agencies, and controlled by the regulators, companies like Strauss and their products will be taken away without recourse and without the public having any confidence that justice has been served.
That’s the dim future to which your Bill C-51 and C-52 would consign us all.

It’s NOT acceptable.

You should listen to the doctors in the House of Commons. Dr. James Lunney has raised concerns about the bill in your own caucus, and Dr. Carolyn Bennett described the powers given to the minister as  "unbelievably unreasonable" in her speech to the House;

I went to the extreme of contacting every member of the Standing Committee on Health because this is an example of the excess influence of the business arm of the drug industry on Health Canada policy. The recent policy change that seems to please you so much is anathema to me: the removal of all independent testing by Health Canada, the firing of Dr. Shiv Chopra who protected us from the synthetic bovine hormone, and profit is more important than safety (which is relegated to "aftermarket surveillance" — i.e. lots of people have to die before a drug is recalled and victims’ families have to sue the company to try to get some compensation).

But under these new rules nobody has to die before an NHP is recalled. There were no dead bodies due to taking Truehope’s formula (but only after its removal).

So something is seriously wrong and unbalanced in the new/current system, and C-51 will only extend and worsen that. MP Dr. Bennet also commented:

"Yet, again, we are finding the government preferring ideology and business over evidence. The evidence is that direct to consumer advertising is wrong and bad for patients. The bill would eliminate this serious prohibition on the evidence based policy and evidence based practice."

It should not be overlooked that there are sections in C-52 that confer excess power on the Minister, and that violate Section 8 of the Charter of Rights, i.e. to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. And C-52 allows the Minister to use "administrative violations" against a person with no recourse to normal legal self-defence processes.

Removing the right to have a day in court is unacceptable.

This is why we needed, and still need, the earlier-proposed Bill C-420. If we are going to harmonize to American laws, then the DSHEA — their health and education act that allows information to be communicated about nutritional effects of foods and food supplements — should be our model.

I know of a conservative who sent back his party membership because of this issue. He is not fooled by rhetoric and fake reassurances when small businesses that are doing no harm to any customers are put at risk of arbitrary search and seizure.

Your party must withdraw C-51 and C-52.

Video:  We become silent:  The last days of health freedom

Canadian Natural Health Coalition

Stop C51 (and now C52)

Wendy Forrest
CAP candidate for Davenport
www.wendyforrest.com/capdavenport

"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong, or
free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
-John Diefenbaker
From the Canadian Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960.

Documentary: The Nation’s Deathbed – Canada’s Montebello SPP Summit Exposed

Look for it on Google Video this July

whitebuffalofilms

Barry Jennings – Explosions in WTC7

Jason Bermas

With the BBC about to release their program “Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower” on July 6th, featuring an interview with Barry Jennings, Louder Than Words can no longer sit on the interview with Mr. Jennings. We are releasing this in order to preempt this obvious attempt at a hit piece. After the first BBC program, which attacked the 9/11 Truth movement in rabid fashion, the network will no longer be given the benefit of the doubt to tell the truth regarding 9/11.

Originally intended to be included in the Final Cut of Loose Change, Mr. Jennings gives a stunning account of explosions inside World Trade Center 7 prior to the collapse of either tower. This footage and more will be in my latest film “Fabled Enemies” due out September 1st. Let’s get this story out to the masses, please share and embed this video everywhere possible.

http://loosechange911.com

Emergency Official Witnessed Dead Bodies In WTC 7

In exclusive video, Barry Jennings discusses explosions in Building 7 before collapse of twin towers

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, June 23, 2008

Exclusive video of emergency official Barry Jennings discussing explosions inside WTC 7 before either of the twin towers had collapsed and having to step over dead bodies of victims as he attempted to vacate the building has been released for the first time.

The clip, which was originally intended to feature in Loose Change Final Cut but had to be withdrawn according to Jennings’ wishes after he had received threats, has now been made public in anticipation of a BBC documentary about Building 7 which is expected to skew Jennings’ account in an attempt to reinforce the official story.

In reality, what Jennings witnessed completely contradicts the official story of what happened to Building 7.

On the morning of 9/11 in his capacity as Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority, Jennings and Michael Hess, who is a founding Partner and Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC, visited the Office of Emergency Management inside Building 7 only to find it had been abandoned.

“Upon arriving into the OEM EOC, we noticed that everybody was gone,” said Jennings. “I saw coffee that was on the desk, the smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half-eaten sandwiches,” he stated, adding that he and Hess were told to leave the building right away.

Jennings and Hess found a stairwell and descended the stairs.

“When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor,” said Jennings.

“The explosion was beneath me….so when the explosion happened it blew us back….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing,” he added.

“I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down – all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in “total ruins”.

“For me to see what I saw was unbelievable,” said Jennings.

Barry Jennings.

The firefighters kept saying to Jennings “do not look down” because, according to Jennings, “we were stepping over people and you can tell when you’re stepping over people.”

A police officer then told Jennings, “you will have to run because we have reports of more explosions.”

“I’m just confused about one thing….why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place – I’m very confused about that I know what I heard I heard explosions,” said Jennings, adding that the explanation that the explosions were as a result of fuel oil tanks in the building did not add up.

“I’m an old boiler guy, if it was a fuel oil tank it would have been one side of the building,” he stated.

Footage inside the Millennium Hilton building lobby, which was closer to the WTC twin towers than Building 7, shows minimal damage after both towers had collapsed in comparison with devastating damage in the lobby of WTC 7, as reported by Jennings, before either tower had even collapsed.

Jennings’ eyewitness report of explosions inside WTC 7 before the towers had collapsed as well as dead bodies inside the building completely contradicts the official story, which maintains that there were no fatalities inside Building 7.

If WTC 7 collapsed as a result of damage it sustained from the fall of the twin towers, as the official version claims, then why were explosions taking place inside the building before either tower had collapsed?

The BBC hit piece documentary, which airs on July 6th, features an interview with Jennings but according to Loose Change’s Jason Bermas, the program will distort Jennings’ comments in an attempt to sideline the shocking nature of what he witnessed and the blatant manner in which his experiences contradict the official story.

According to Bermas, during their interview with members of Loose Change, the BBC denied that Jennings had stepped over dead bodies when he left the building, a claim disproved by Jennings’ own statements in the video.

http://infowars.com