Posted on 08/06/2009 8:20:56 PM PDT by ex-Texan
Your right to eat healthy food and use supplements of your choice is rapidly vanishing, but every effort has been made to keep you in the dark about the coming nutricide.
Codex Alimentarius is scheduled for full global implementation on December 31, 2009, and not a word has been spoken in main stream media about this threat to humanity.
Yet, according to the projections based on figures from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a minimum of 3 billion people will die from the Codex mandated vitamin and mineral guideline alone.
Former Nazi is father of contemporary Codex
Codex is the enemy of everyone except those who will profit from it. Codex has an association with those who committed crimes during the Nazi regime. At the end of World War II, the Nuremberg tribunal judged Nazis who had committed horrendous crimes against humanity and sentenced them to prison terms. One of those found guilty was the president of the megalithic corporation I.G. Farben, Hermann Schmitz. His company was the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world, and had extraordinary political and economic power and influence with the Hitlerian Nazi state. Farben produced the gas used in the Nazi gas chambers, and the steel for the railroads built to transport people to their deaths.
While serving his prison term, Schmitz looked for an alternative to brute force for controlling people and realized that people could be controlled through their food supply. When he got out of prison, he went to his friends at the United Nations (UN) and laid out a plan to take over the control of food worldwide. A trade commission called Codex Alimentarius (Latin for food code) was re-created under the guise of it being a consumer protection commission. But Codex was never in the business of protecting people. It has always been about money and profits at the expense of people.
In 1962, the timetable was set for Codex to be fully implemented on a global level by December 31, 2009. Under Codex, committees were established to create guidelines on such topics as fish and fisheries, fats and oils, fruits and vegetables, ground nuts, nutrition, food for specialized uses, and vitamins and minerals. There were 27 committees in all, creating a huge bureaucracy. Under Codex there are over 4,000 guidelines and regulations on everything that can be put into your mouth with the exception of pharmaceuticals which are not regulated by Codex.
Codex is a weapon being used to reduce the level of nutrition worldwide
Codex is an industry dominated regulation setting organization, and as such has no legal standing. Participation in Codex is said to be voluntary. But Codex has risen to the level of de facto legal standing because Codex is administered by the WHO and FAO. They fund it and run it at the request of the UN. Since the WHO and FAO are supposed to be about health, there is conflict of interest. The committees of Codex work up guidelines, rules and regulations, and present them to a Codex commission for ratification. Once they are ratified and approved by consensus, they become mandatory standards for any country that is a member of the WHO.
Codex was accepted when the WTO was formed in 1994 as a means of harmonizing food standards globally for easy trade between countries. As a result, countries must harmonize with Codex if they want to have any standing in a trade dispute. When disputes arise and countries are pulled in to WTO, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins, regardless of the merits of its case.
Codex has become a weapon to make every nation scurry to become compliant to its mandated decline in nutritional standards. Compliance in the U.S. will mark the end of its consumer protection laws. Codex will not serve consumers. Codex will serve the interests of the medical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, chemical, and big agricultural industries.
Under Codex, nutrients are classified as poisons
The Dietary Substances Health and Education Act (DSHEA), was signed into law in 1994 for the purpose of ensuring that safe and appropriately labeled products would remain available to those who wanted to use them. In the findings associated with this law, Congress stated that there may be a positive relationship between sound dietary practice and good health, and a connection between dietary supplement use, reduced health-care expenses, and disease prevention. Under DSHEA, nutrients and herbs are classified as food. There is no upper limit set, and access is freely given. Americans are allowed to have any nutrients they want, because under English common law, anything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted.
Codex, on the other hand, is based on Napoleonic law and is much more restrictive. In 1994, the same year DSHEA was signed, Codex had nutrients declared to be toxic and poisonous. And as poisons, they claimed people must be protected from them through the use of toxicology and risk assessment, under which scientists test small doses on animals until they are able to discern an impact. They then take the first sign of the most minimal impact and divide this amount by 100 to establish a safety margin required from these poisons. This means that the largest dose of any nutrient allowed under Codex is 1/100th of the amount shown to produce the first discernable impact.
Nutrients allowed under Codex are limited to those on the positive list, expected to contain only 18 nutrients, one of them being fluoride. Although fluoride has no biological benefit whatsoever, it does make people complacent.
The Codex proponents now have several bills before Congress designed to overturn and get rid of DSHEA. Once this is accomplished, the U.S. will have been harmonized with the vitamin and mineral guidelines of codex. High potency, therapeutically effective, significant nutrients will then be illegal in the way that heroin is illegal. They will not even be available by prescription.
Codex supports toxic food additives, pesticides and GM foods
Codex poses a significant threat to the food supply, according to Dr. Robert Verkerk, founder and director of the Alliance for Natural Health. About 300 dangerous food additives that are mainly synthetic will be allowed under Codex, including aspartame, BHA, BHT, potassium bromate, tartrazine, and more. Dr. Verkerk is particularly concerned that no consideration has been given to potential risks associated with long-term exposure to mixtures of additives.
Codex sets limits for the dangerous industrial chemicals that can be used in food, but they are incredibly high, and the list of chemicals that can be used is long. In 2001, 176 countries including the U.S. got together and decided that 12 highly toxic organic chemicals, known as persistent organic pollutants (POPS), were so bad that they had to be banned. There are many more than 12 toxic chemicals used on food, but these 12 were unanimously declared to be the worst. Of these, 9 are pesticides.
Under Codex, 7 of the 9 forbidden POPS will again be allowed in the production of food. All together, Codex allows over 3,275 different pesticides, including those that are suspected carcinogens or endocrine disrupters. There is no consideration of the long-term effects of exposure to mixtures of pesticide residues in food.
Organic food governance will be dumbed down to suit the interests of large food producers. Various synthetic chemical additives and processing aids will be allowed, and food labeled as organic may be irradiated. Labeling will permit the use of hidden, non-organic ingredients.
Monsanto, a member of Codex, will benefit greatly as production of genetically modified (GM) foods are stepped up and more GM plants are given the green light. Terminator seeds will be approved for international trade. GM food animals will also be on the way.
Under Codex, every dairy animal can be treated with growth hormone, and all animals in the food chain will be treated with sub-clinical levels of antibiotics. Codex will lead to the required irradiation of all foods with the exception of those grown locally and sold raw.
Codex is food regulations that are in fact the legalization of mandated toxicity and under-nutrition. Of the 3 billion people initially expected to die as the result of the Codex vitamin and mineral guidelines, 2 billion of them will die from the preventable diseases that result from under-nutrition, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and many others. Those who will live will be the wealthy elites who are able to somehow provide themselves with sources of clean food and other nutrients.
Codex is legalized genocide
Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D., writing for Natural News, has characterized Codex as "population control for money". He sees Codex as run by the U.S. and controlled by the big pharmaceutical corporations and the likes of Monsanto with the purpose of reducing the population of the world to a level considered sustainable by those promulgating the New World Order. This would mean a reduction of approximately 93 percent of the current world population.
Once Codex standards are adopted there will be no turning back. When Codex compliance is instigated in any area, as long as the country remains a member of the WTO, those standards cannot be repealed, or altered in any way.
The time for modifying Codex guidelines is rapidly disappearing
Some hope remains. Over the years, the WTO has accepted Codex standards as presumptive evidence of the rules of trade between countries. However, several times in history, the WTO has refused to make Codex the single and only standard to be used in trade disputes. Under Codex`s own statutes, their guidelines are claimed to be "advisory", and nations are able to set up their own guidelines as long as they are more restrictive than those of Codex.
Since compliance with Codex standards is simply presumptive evidence, and not finally determinative, a nation can opt out of the guidelines in an effort to protect its traditional foods and remedies. The Codex two step process is a legal strategy developed to help nations wanting to do this. Under step one, the country develops its own food and health guidelines that may be at variance with Codex guidelines. For example, it may be much stricter on the issues of toxins in the food supply or on the issue of genetically modified foods. It may require, for example, that companies using GM ingredients be required to indicate them on food labels. In countries that refuse to use GM foods, this can be indicated on their label too, so that people can make informed choices. The second step is to adopt a national law that implements those guidelines on a sound scientific basis.
Normally, in a trade dispute before the WTO, the country that has adopted Codex guidelines will be the winner of that dispute based on those guidelines being presumptive evidence. However, when countries have gone through the two step process to create their own guidelines, there is no such presumption, and the WTO will look at the science behind the guidelines.
In the U.S. the door is open to Codex
In 1995, the FDA issued a policy statement saying that international standards such as Codex would supersede U.S. laws governing all food. Under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which is illegal under current U.S. law, but is legal under international law, the U.S. is required to conform to Codex as it stands on December 31, 2009, unless it creates its own guidelines and gets them approved under the two step process. Given current government sentiment, this seems unlikely. Besides, as guidelines are one-by-one chiseled into standards, time is running out.
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com
And on Sunday of all days.
“The suggestion that all nutrients will be removed from all food is preposterous.”
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17168&language=spanish
Study Suggests Nutrient Decline in Garden Crops Over Past 50 Years
Article Date: 02 Dec 2004
A recent study of 43 garden crops led by a University of Texas at Austin biochemist suggests that their nutrient value has declined in recent decades while farmers have been planting crops designed to improve other traits.
The study was designed to investigate the effects of modern agricultural methods on the nutrient content of foods. The researchers chose garden crops, mostly vegetables, but also melons and strawberries, for which nutritional data were available from both 1950 and 1999 and compared them both individually and as a group.
The study, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture data, will appear in the December issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Its lead author is Dr. Donald Davis of the university’s Biochemical Institute in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. His coauthors are Drs. Melvin Epp and Hugh Riordan of the Bio-Communications Research Institute in Wichita, Kan., where Davis is a research consultant.
According to Davis, establishing meaningful changes in nutrient content over a 50-year time interval was a significant challenge. The researchers had to compensate for variations in moisture content that affect nutrient measurements, and could not rule out the possibility that changes in analytical techniques may have affected results for some nutrients.
“It is much more reliable to look at average changes in the group rather than in individual foods, due to uncertainties in the 1950 and 1999 values,” Davis said. “Considered as a group, we found that six out of 13 nutrients showed apparently reliable declines between 1950 and 1999.”
These nutrients included protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and ascorbic acid. The declines, which ranged from 6 percent for protein to 38 percent for riboflavin, raise significant questions about how modern agriculture practices are affecting food crops.
“We conclude that the most likely explanation was changes in cultivated varieties used today compared to 50 years ago,” Davis said. “During those 50 years, there have been intensive efforts to breed new varieties that have greater yield, or resistance to pests, or adaptability to different climates. But the dominant effort is for higher yields. Emerging evidence suggests that when you select for yield, crops grow bigger and faster, but they don’t necessarily have the ability to make or uptake nutrients at the same, faster rate.”
According to Davis, these results suggest a need for research into other important nutrients and foods that provide significant dietary calories, such as grains, legumes, meat, milk and eggs.
“Perhaps more worrisome would be declines in nutrients we could not study because they were not reported in 1950 — magnesium, zinc, vitamin B-6, vitamin E and dietary fiber, not to mention phytochemicals,” Davis said. “I hope our paper will encourage additional studies in which old and new crop varieties are studied side-by-side and measured by modern methods.”
That was my point: remove (?) all nutrients, from all foods?
Preposterous.
It’s not just some foods though, it’s all food grown using today’s commercial market hybrid seed system.
As well as any food product made with said crops (bread, cereal, etc).
Also, the decline is and will continue as hybridization is still optimized for continually increasing crop output at the expense of nutritional value.
Yeah, probably, but if anyone deserves it, he does. Ever read HIS attacks on me, my pastor and my church?
You, sweetie. You never miss a chance to say something about my church or my pastor. So, if you want people to be nice to YOU, try being a little nicer yourself. You get what you deserve from others here.
Of course YOU never do that, LOL. Payback time.
YOU, sweetie. Number 190, I think.
bump for later read
YOU are not your church or your pastor. I said nothing about you. You said:
What’s up with the vicious attacks on ME here.I did no such thing.
The researchers chose garden crops, mostly vegetables, but also melons and strawberries, for which nutritional data were available from both 1950 and 1999 and compared them both individually and as a group.You provided no evidence that all nutrients will be removed from all foods.
And you cannot, because the notion is preposterous.
No one deserves that kind of crude remark.
You again bear false witness against me with stunning facility.
Christ calls us to pray for those who make us their enemies.
And so I shall.
May God bless you, FRiend. :)
“You provided no evidence that all nutrients will be removed from all foods.”
What nutrients will be left, and in what foods will they be left in?
The study in post #202 shows that nutrients are decreasing, with no end in sight, for all foods that come from modern farming techniques.
That means fruits and vegetables, and all food products made from fruits and vegetables. Also, animals that require feed will be affected, causing their meat/milk/cheese/eggs to be less nutritious.
The human body requires a certain level of nutrition in order to remain healthy and maintain an adequate immune system. Once people start suffering from malnutrition, it won’t matter if some food somewhere still has some small bit of nutrition. It already wouldn’t have been enough.
The physically weak and the elderly will suffer first and fastest.
The allegation that ALL nutrients will be REMOVED from ALL foods is preposterous. Nothing on this thread provides evidence that such a thing is being attempted.
“The allegation that ALL nutrients will be REMOVED from ALL foods is preposterous. Nothing on this thread provides evidence that such a thing is being attempted.”
I’m having trouble understanding why “all nutrients from all foods” is your criteria for seeing that this is a public health issue that could lead to malnutrition.
If there is a deficiency in the body of even one of the confirmed nutrients (protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, ascorbic acid, etc.), it will lead to health issues.
This is why the elderly and infirm need supplements. Without these nutrients, they would get sick and die.
Also, the study in post #202 confirms that nutrients can and are being depreciated, or ‘removed’ if you will, from all crops grown using modern techniques. With each crop the amount of nutrients is being lessened. How then is it “preposterous” that, given time, the crop will contain too little of a percentage of nutrients for the human body to derive sustenance?
And what do you mean by “being attempted”? Does something have to be intentional to be said to be occurring?
That's because I never said “all nutrients from all foods” is [my] criteria for seeing that this is a public health issue that could lead to malnutrition.
I never set out to make any comment about what might or might not be a "public health issue that could lead to malnutrition."
What I DID say is that removal of all nutrients from all food is preposterous.
It doesn't say or show ALL nutrients, nor does it say or show ALL crops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.