Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The organization was born in 1962 when the UN established the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) as a “Trade Commission”. It was created to regulate, and thus control, every aspect of how food and nutritional supplements are produced and sold to the consumer. It is solely about trade and the profits of multi-national corporations.
The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they use. Millions are turning to natural health. Big Pharma fears this as it would diminish profits. Codex is designed to protect Big Pharma profits by eliminating natural health products and treatments. Health food stores and wellness companies would be hit hard.
Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, the science for assessing toxins. The proper science for assessing nutrients is Biochemistry. Codex does not use Biochemistry.
Codex is based on the Napoleonic Code, dating back to Bonaparte. Under this code, anything not explicitly permitted is automatically forbidden. Under Common Law (our system), something does not have to be explicitly permitted to be legal. The tyrannical Napoleonic Code allows the banning of natural health options by default.
Codex will go into global effect on December 31, 2009, unless we, the People, take action and avert it. Right now, we are like a frog boiled slowly, the heat raised gradually so we won’t jump out of the water. The media is used to make us believe that Codex is about “consumer protection”. Part of the media strategy is to tarnish the image of natural health options, through for-hire studies.
One-time defenders of supplements and nutritional products, such as the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), have fallen prey to new pharmaceutical members and are spreading disinformation saying that Codex is “consumer protection”. Their boards used to be run by health freedom fighters.
The U.S. has a powerful legal tool for health freedom: the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), passed in 1994 after massive grass-roots action. DSHEA scientifically classifies nutritional supplements as food and prevents dosage restrictions; Codex unscientifically classifies them as toxins and sets ultra-low doses. The VMG violates U.S. law because it violates DSHEA. We must unite to protect DSHEA, our best legal defense against Codex.
The pharmaceutical industry works through irresponsible/corrupt politicians to do their bidding. The path to institute Codex in America is to “influence” Congress to pass laws friendly to drugs and unfriendly to nutritional supplements, so that slowly everyone comes to believe that nutrients are “dangerous”, and drugs are “proper medicine”. Susan Davis (D, CA) and other politicians are helping Big Pharma by supporting bills designed to destroy DSHEA.
Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has two committees which impact nutrition.
One of them, the “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, a physician who believes that nutrition has no role in health. This is the “top-guy” for Codex nutritional policy, and he has stated that “nutrition is not relevant to health”.
As unbelievable as it may sound, Dr. Grossklaus actually declared nutrients to be toxins in 1994 and instituted the use of toxicology (Risk Assessment) to prevent nutrients from having any impact on humans who take supplements! It is worth mentioning that Dr. Grossklaus happens to own the Risk Assessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on this issue. This company makes money when its toxicology services are used for the “assessment” of nutrients. Here in the U.S. we call that a “conflict of interest”.
Codex is made up of thousands of standards and guidelines. One of them, the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), is designed to permit only ultra low doses of vitamins and minerals (and make clinically effective nutrients illegal). How can the VMG restrict dosages of vitamins and minerals? By using Risk Assessment (toxicology) to assess nutrients.
While Risk Assessment is a legitimate science (it is a branch of toxicology), it is the wrong science for assessing nutrients! In fact, in this context, it is actually junk science. Biochemistry, the science of life processes, is the correct science for assessing nutrients. Codex Alimentarius treats nutrients as toxins, which is literally insane.
Nutrients are not toxins - they are essential for life!!
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php
Start saving Seeds!!!
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Sun, March 16, 2008 - 2:12 PMYes, especially lots of Alfalfa and Wheat Berries!!
Dam.... why do corporations have to always seek to keep people weak and poisoned???? -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Mon, March 17, 2008 - 6:39 AMDr Andrew Weil has a second, and sharply differing, opinion on this:
"I've had a lot of questions about Codex, often based on alarmist and erroneous information being circulated on the Internet. I'm happy to set the record straight. Here's the story: in 1963 the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization created the Codex Alimentarius Commission to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the international food trade through development of food standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations.
For the past decade, Codex has been developing guidelines for vitamins and mineral supplements focusing on establishing new potency levels. Codex completed its work in November 2004, and the guidelines were adopted at the Commission's July 5, 2005 meeting.
This development has given rise to widespread misunderstanding. The thrust of the wrong-headed information being circulated on the Internet is that the Codex guidelines will restrict the availability of vitamins and minerals in the United States. Even more fanciful is the claim that once the Codex guidelines on vitamins and minerals are adopted, supplements that exceed the RDA will be available in the U.S. only by prescription and that this "stealthy" takeover of the supplement industry has been plotted in secret by the pharmaceutical industry working underneath the radar in Europe.
advertisement
None of this is true. First of all, the Codex guidelines are non-binding on the United States (or any other country) and do not override U.S. law as many people claim (only Congress can change U.S. law regarding supplements). This country's participation in Codex is strictly voluntary. The guidelines will not in any way affect the availability of supplements to consumers in the United States.
Here's what you should know about the Codex guidelines:
* They're limited to vitamins and minerals only, and do not extend to herbs and other dietary supplements.
* Contrary to the circulating scare stories, the guidelines do not set upper limits for vitamins and minerals in supplements. Instead, they specify that maximum amounts should be established by scientific risk assessment, a process that will now be undertaken by a panel of scientific experts.
* There is nothing in the guidelines requiring that supplements be sold as prescription drugs in the United States or elsewhere.
As for the notion that the drug industry has engineered the Codex guidelines in an effort to take over the supplement market, the truth is that some of the largest supplement manufacturers in the U.S. already are owned by big pharmaceutical firms or their parent companies."
Andrew Weil, M.D.
www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA356136
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Mon, March 17, 2008 - 7:04 AMHere is a list of foods that will be subjected to this Codex - their Official Website: : www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfao...x.html hhgh -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Mon, March 17, 2008 - 7:18 AMThat's right. Overall, the codex, like it's name implies, applies to pretty much all food. This has been in effect a long time. The controversial part is about new guidelines for vitamins. As Dr. Weil says, the new regulations:
"First of all, the Codex guidelines are non-binding on the United States (or any other country) and do not override U.S. law as many people claim (only Congress can change U.S. law regarding supplements). This country's participation in Codex is strictly voluntary. The guidelines will not in any way affect the availability of supplements to consumers in the United States."
and
"* They're limited to vitamins and minerals only, and do not extend to herbs and other dietary supplements.
* Contrary to the circulating scare stories, the guidelines do not set upper limits for vitamins and minerals in supplements. Instead, they specify that maximum amounts should be established by scientific risk assessment, a process that will now be undertaken by a panel of scientific experts.
* There is nothing in the guidelines requiring that supplements be sold as prescription drugs in the United States or elsewhere. " -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Mon, March 17, 2008 - 8:25 AMwil - Thanks for the sane posts on this subject. The vitamin and "nutritional supplement" industry is hugely profitable and generally pretty unregulated in a lot of countries (in the US it's an industry that spends a lot of money lobbying to remain unregulated). Vitamins -whether they're derived from natural sources or not - are processed, not a "natural" product in the same way food or herbs are and I'm starting to get a bit irritated by the propagandistic and hyperbolic nature of this particular campaign that's being posted in tribes it's not actually relevant to (and I'm also starting to wonder whether it's backed by the very profitable, and not particularly ethical, supplement industry).
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 8:35 AMBTW, the foods listed in Lana's link have been a part of the Codex for quite a while, they're not anything new...you've been living "under" them for quite a long time already. The only new thing being integrated into the Codex are vitamins and nutritional supplements (things that identified as foods not drugs).
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Mon, March 17, 2008 - 2:40 PMIt is time to grow our own foods and support our local organic farmers.
Live healthy, eat clean (pesticide and chemical free) and foster ethical methods in cultivating our food. Codex Alimnetarius is just for big business. Soon the term Organic will mean foods that have been sprayed with "organic chemicals".
Did anyone really watch and listen to the video? Ouch.
Long live the Organic revolution!
xo
Lana -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Tue, March 18, 2008 - 5:54 AMLana - Personally I don't view the UN as the gatekeepers of hell. I'm pretty sure that right beside the big pharma salesman there'll be a big supplement salesman also promising eternal life in the form of a magic bullet.
As for the corruption of the word organic, the US government (under pressure from Big Food) seems to be doing a good job of eroding the original meaning for food grown in the US. Anyone interested in putting energy into protecting the term organic would be better served doing that directly in the US than misguidedly working to promote the agenda of the very lucrative Big Supplement industry which is trying to associate itself with things much more natural, sustainable and healthy than their industry really is. Supporting the supplement industry isn't supporting the organic revolution - far from it. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 5:24 AMTo my mind, the biggest problem with the Codex is that (like the WTO & UN & others) it is yet another sortie into the national sovereignty of many a nation. As an American, it pisses me off that the Codex even has voice in Congress or gov policy at all.
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 5:30 AMWell............to hell with nationalism. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 5:44 AMNationalism isn't the issue, Will. At least not in the way that most commonly define it.
Policies made democratically at the smallest possible level tend to work better than policies made by an elite few (democratically or not) from on-high for everyone. Centralization of power is madness.
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 5:58 AMDavid, you seem to misunderstand the Codex and its applications - Americans aren't being forced to make laws that conform to the CODEX, they can continue to sell whatever they can legally sell to Americans in the US without conforming to the CODEX. Do you get pissed off that multinational corporations have more of a voice in the US congress and in making government policy than the US people? Do you get annoyed that profit trumps food safety again and again because of both American and international lobbyists?
I'm amazed just how much traction this propaganda's gotten based on a lie about "outsiders" taking over American government. Seems like xenophobia can sell pretty much anything in the US, even to an audience that considers themselves "alternative" or somehow radical. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 6:29 AMFifi - Perhaps my understanding of the Codex IS incorrect. However, if the Codex does not have voice within the US gov (and has no actual authority), then why are you distressed with the Codex at all?
Do I get pissed about multinationals having voice in Congress? As much as I get pissed about ANY lobbying group having more voice in congress than individuals, whether that group represents multinational corporations or home-grown religious zealots or whatever group one would care to mention whose job is to contract rather than expand individual freedoms. No, I don't get annoyed that safety is trumped by profits, I'm annoyed that gov is in bed with biz to the point that safety CAN be trumped by profits.
That said, I'm not certain to what propaganda you refer. You must be confusing me with someone else - I don't think "outsiders" are taking over America at all. I think we're selling it to the highest (hell, sometimes the lowest) bidder all by ourselves, whether the bidder is a multinational corporation or a local Wall Street firm or a foreign government eager to lend us more money while we bitch about a $9+ trillion national debt but refuse to let go of our personal hand-out..
Xenophobia hasn't a thing to do with my views on the subject. Personally, I'd open the borders, not close them. Not sure if anyone finds that "alternative" or "radical", but then I don't consider those labels when I view or make decisions about the world. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 7:37 AMDavid - I'm not distressed by the Codex, though apparently you're distressed by what you think the Codex is from watching a video and article which seem created to be intentionally misleading. (Unless I totally understood your objection and position, which is quite possible both of us being human and all....) What I'm seeing on tribe is a lot of propaganda against the Codex which misrepresents what it is in a hyperbolic, hysterical way that (apparently) makes people think their fundamental civil liberties are being raped. I'd suspect that a lot of this is seeded by the people that are busy buying influence in Washington (and Ottawa but the influence in Washington is better documented) and misrepresenting their "natural" products (which are essentially rather unnatural).
None of this has anything to do with local or international organic standards or growing one's own food. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 8:01 AMIt is possible you are entirely correct, Fifi. I will endeavor to become better educated with regard to the Codex.
So I understand you correctly, are you saying you are not concerned with the Codex at all? -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 8:37 AMDavid - I'm still researching the implications and reading up on this particular addition that the Codex will make but so far it's looking like it may actually even be a good thing for individuals from my perspective. Overall I see the Codex as being a good thing, just as I see the UN and most of it's other branches (such as the WHO) as being overall a good thing (while quite capable of being critical of their shortcomings). -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Wed, March 19, 2008 - 8:47 AMI agree exactly with Fifi. International regulations are not necessarily a bad things. We don't want lead to be a toothpaste ingredient. A lot of smaller nations don't have much of any standards at all, and this is a way to protect all of us from those who would turn a blind eye to contaminated products.
Dr Weil is such a universally trusted figure. I'm surprised people aren't convinced by his clear explanation of this non issue. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 6:01 AMFifi - Not sure why you see the Codex as a good thing if it has no authority or a voice in congress. Is this the industry policing itself or are they attempting to become an authority?
Will - Again, I have to say that if the Codex has no authority (& no voice in the "houses" of specific governments), then how is it a good (or bad) thing? The Codex cannot stop lead in toothpaste if it has no authority to stop lead in toothpaste. Or am I missing something?
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 6:50 AMDavid. I think the wikipedia article on it explains all this rationally. Here is the first paragraph:
The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "food code" or "food book") is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety under the aegis of consumer protection. These texts are developed and maintained by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body that was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Commission's main aims are stated as being to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alimentarius
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 6:51 AMDavid - I think you're missing something, which may be hard to explain if you think it's all about using force. It's a bit like people who think the Geneva Conventions are meaningless when their country is ignoring or flouting them but *very* relevant when their enemy is contravening them. Discussion, agreement, persuasion and concerted effort can all have a much greater power than force at times - look at how much more power the EU has than the individual countries of Europe did. (Discussion's not as glamorous or dramatic to most people as war or defending the "homeland" from the evil outsiders who want to take freedom away, or as likely to stir up nationalistic ire and defensiveness - and nationalism is usually something trotted out to distract people from some unpleasant home truth anyway....like legislating away basic freedoms, human rights and so on. Or in this case, selling people snake oil in the form of pseudo-natural "supplements" and over-priced vitamins that will mainly end up being flushed into the water supply.)
The UN acknowledges that we aren't isolated individuals but are all connected through not only trade and our economic and political interactivity but also through the environment and nature (which doesn't respect human lines drawn in the sand). Not that there isn't plenty of room to critique any organization and their methods but they've certainly have done some good work over their existence. I find it odd that anyone on a grow organic tribe wouldn't understand environmental interconnectivity and see the need and usefulness of international discussion of such things to try to organize and agree on the best ways to manage all kinds of global concerns. (But, of course, that's merely a bias to my own understanding of organic that is showing.) Is your interest in the organic more based in an isolationist/survivalist stance? -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 7:35 AMWill - So you're saying the Codex does, in fact, have a certain degree of authority? Is it enough to stop lead in toothpaste and "ensure fair practices" (whatever that may mean)?
Fifi - With all due respect, that's the second time you've made a serious assumption about me (and insulted me, too). Why do you assume that I don't understand "environmental interconnectivity" (or that I'm "xenophobic", for that matter), and why do you feel the need to make any assumptions or assertions about those with whom you speak (or is it just me?), rather than just allowing the merits of your position to stand or fall on their own? Or am I just being touchy?
That said, I understand why humans "...see the need and usefulness of international discussion of such things to try to organize and agree on the best ways to manage all kinds of global concerns...", I just don't necessarily agree with top-down management. I see no problem with discussion & guidelines & voluntary arrangements, but I do see a problem when that non-force (co-operation & persuasion) becomes de facto force. Is this relevant to the Codex? I don't yet know. Perhaps not. I'm still trying to learn about it's scope & intent, not to mention it's ability (& method) to enforce the standards it comes up with. I'm just not fully convinced yet that Lana or Mystica are being hyperbolic.
For the record: No, my interest in growing my own organic food has nothing to do with "an isolationist/survivalist stance". -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 8:04 AMDavid wrote - "the biggest problem with the Codex is that (like the WTO & UN & others) it is yet another sortie into the national sovereignty of many a nation. As an American, it pisses me off that the Codex even has voice in Congress or gov policy at all."
To me this comes off as being fearful that an outside source (the "other") will impose upon you (via your government) something you don't like (even though you don't know what it is or how it would be enacted, you're seeing it as a "problem"). Seems like a fear of outside influence and "the other" to me. Maybe you didn't intend your words to come across this way, I'm open to clarification. I'm just working with what you've given me so far.
You may be being touchy or at least assuming my position or what I'm saying is different than it is. I say this simply because you started off misunderstanding my position on the Codex by assuming I'm upset by it when I'm actually in the process of learning more about it. I've learned enough to know that what's being promoted in the initial post is untrue (I *do* find it a bit odd that you're not equally critical and skeptical of a source that stands to profit financially from promoting misunderstandings - a corporate source dressed in emperor's new (hemp) clothes.) Since you started out with the assuming I'm a bit surprised that you're now accusing me of this when I'm merely working with what you've been expressing - which seems to be a fear of an outside source having power over you (xenophobia=fear of the other, the stranger, the outsider) and a lack of understanding of what the Codex is. Maybe I've misunderstood what you're trying to express and where you're coming from, it's quite possible and I'm open to clarifications if you have some.
While I'm not upset per se about the propaganda flying around it (it actually makes me curious about unearthing who's behind the propaganda once I can confirm that's what it is), I do find it worth speaking up about. I've noticed that there's a lot of marketing done on tribe for dodgy stuff of this kind - some of it intentional and some of it viral. For the most part, the grow organic tribe is pretty down to earth (hehe) in my experience.
Anyway, it's not my job to convince you nor do I have the desire to do so. This is a nice peaceful tribe and I'm not on a mission, simply responding to promotional spam masquerading as activism that's been posted in lots of the tribes I enjoy. You can choose to educate yourself about the Codex or not, and base your own conclusions on whatever sources you trust. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 8:31 AMInteresting response. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 8:49 AMDavid - Glad to be of interest (or that at least my response is too you). Good luck with your research, there's lots of info out there. Dr. Weill seems to be being pretty realistic and matter of fact about it - and he's someone who's actually in the business of selling nutrition so he has a personal and financial stake in the matter. I must say, it's upped my respect for him that he's making an effort to stop the spread of misinformation. Personally I checked out the UN site and the Codex myself and read various pro and con articles and based my opinion on that. I wouldn't insult your intelligence by assuming you're not capable of doing the same yourself and making up your own mind.
Ultimately the initial post was kind of OT for this tribe *and* it's spreading fear and disinformation. I'm not a big fan of fearmongering and it seems to be quite contagious (for instance, you seem to have some fears associated with the Codex after reading the OP) so I thought it worth speaking up.
-
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 8:18 AMI would say it has authority, like i say that Andrew Weil is an authority on health matters, or that the wikipedia is an authority on matters of fact. It has authority that can be used by various parties for reference, but it has no means , and is not meant to enforce these standards. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 8:43 AMInteresting. So allow me an analogy, if you will. Let's say I have little respect for Dr. Weil. If that is the case, I can ignore his health information (or whatever other info he puts forth) and he has no impact on my life. Now let's say Indonesia or China or the US has little respect for the Codex. Is it as easy for them to ignore the Codex as it is for me to ignore Weil? Are there consequences for them ignoring the Codex? -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 8:51 AMThe consequences would be for your personal health, in the case of ignoring dr. weil, or of the health of your nation, if a nation were to ignore the authority of the codex and decide that lead was indeed a legitimate additive for toothpaste. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 8:55 AMlead in toothpaste is of course a bad example, since toothpaste isn't a food, and not covered by any of this. But i think that you get the idea.
Good spring to you!
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 7:25 AMBy "ignore" I don't necessarily mean that they read it and then decide to do what it says NOT to do. I mean in the way you ignore anyone - like if I am initially put off my Weil, for example, I might still end up doing much of what he advocates but just not all of what he advocates - because I get my health info elsewhere (let's pretend I prefer doctors like Gabriel Cousins or Linus Pauling or even Aubry de Grey) and have little idea of what Weil actually promotes.
So let's say the US ignores (doesn't even read) the Codex when they set health & safety standards for US companies, so sometimes US growers, manufacturers, etc. vastly exceed standards set by the Codex and other times fail to meet standards set by the Codex (by, say, allowing a particular pesticide to be used that is banned elsewhere across the globe, or in a particular trade practice that the Codex considers un-fair). Where it fails to meet standards of safety or market fairness, what can the UN (via their Codex group) do about it?
Side note: I'm not bashing Weil, just using him as an example because his name came up in discussion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 9:24 AMDavid - Just a little side note, I'm not American so I don't see the US Congress as the ultimate authority on things on any international level. I'd be much happier if the US had less influence in the world - both economically and militarily (nothing personal, and this doesn't mean I would be happier if you or most Americans individually had less personal power...it would actually be nice if there was more personal responsibility taken in a lot of societies around the world). I take an interest in US organic and food laws because, as a Canadian, they can influence policy in Canada (and we export a lot of food and goods back and forth, some of which I use even though my preference is to buy local when possible to cut down on travel miles and the associated emissions...the most fun is to grow my own of course).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 7:27 AMIt's worth noting that "health freedom USA" is a promotional site that advertises fake "stem cell" treatments under the guise of "natural" remedies. Seems like they're busy promoting themselves as an advocacy group when they're actually a marketing front. There seem to be quite a lot of organizations like this in the US who have tax exempt status- wacky stuff! Signing this petition would be essentially empowering a lobbyist (which can be a good thing if they're actually lobbying for your rights not their "right" to sell you lies and half truths). -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Sun, June 22, 2008 - 11:34 PMThis discussion appears based on loose sand. the UN, WTO and World Bank, are definitely part of the problem, and far from benign. Their agenda is clearly one of drastic population control, and fits right in with GE food, terminator seed, the chemtrail program, and other roads to mass starvation. How much of this is known to Andy Weil is anyone's guess.
If one reads Stuffed and Starving, by Raj Patel, or books by, among many, Jim Marrs, Jeffrey M. Smith [Genetic Roulette, Seeds of Deception], or David Icke, one can deduce beyond any doubt that the Codex is one more big nail in our collective coffin.
No need to panic or be hyperbolic, .learn the facts if you have the time and interest, or just grow what you can and save any seed you can keep dry! -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Mon, June 23, 2008 - 6:31 AM*cough* *troll* *cough* *anonymous troll* *cough*
joined on 06/22/08
last updated 06/22/08 -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Mon, June 23, 2008 - 6:57 AMFifi is right. This is the same old topic that we have to deal with every couple or few months. I think it's almost always by alts and trolls, although a lot of well meaning people pass this on. I think it is out and out disinformation masquerading as honest concern for people's health, put out in the first place and spread all over the net by corporations who have something to gain from the defeat of legislation that actually does have an honest concern for people's health.
At any rate, it's a load of manure. Throw it on the mental compost pile. -
-
Re: Codex Alimentarius - Control of all Food globally by 2009
Tue, July 8, 2008 - 1:42 PMWild Food for ever!
-
-
-
-