What is wrong with Codex Alimentarius?
Sepp Hasslberger

I have been observing Codex from a somewhat specialized angle - that of Codex attempts to regulate vitamin and mineral supplements, and many episodes of this are documented in articles on my site. Here is a search listing for some of those articles:

http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/GCsearch.html?cx=008587533012136122848%3Adjfs1tbw2rg&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Codex+Alimentarius&sa=Search

Should this link not function properly, you can go to

http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/

and type "Codex Alimentarius" in the google search window on the center top of the page, to get the listing. You can also just search Codex Alimentarius and my name, and most of my articles on this should come up.

Codex, on the subject of food supplements (vitamin and mineral supplements) follows the EU, which is further ahead with a more detailed directive already in force. The EU has great influence in Codex by way of its compactness and by reason of each member having a vote, yet being constrained to "toe the line" in the sense that the direction of argument is centrally determined by the EU Commission and the country representatives are supposed to merely back up that centrally determined line.

Germany, which hosts the meetings of the Codex Committee on nutrition and special dietary foods, has proposed the supplements guidelines, which started out as a very restrictive text, proposing to limit dosages of vitamins and minerals to the very low levels of RDA, i.e. the minimum requirements necessary not to contract overt deficiency diseases.

This combined German/EU action is how the Codex guideline on vitamin and mineral supplements got as far as it got, i.e. got approved, although not with all the restrictive provisions that the EU (and specifically the Germans) were pushing for.

The results of the EU directive on food supplements for Europe (and the Codex guideline internationally) can be summed up as follows:

Prevention and cure of illness through nutrition are defined as "forbidden". This is all through the texts of Codex and the EU directive, which state that nutritional supplements must not be defined as preventing or curing illness. This is of course in favor of pharmaceutical cures and prevention, which unfortunately have a monopoly in our system. So natural health is frowned upon and is discouraged.

Availability of certain vitamin and mineral substances may in the future be restricted, as per Codex and EU texts. Currently, an evaluation of each single vitamin and mineral source (chemical composition) is underway as part of the implementation of the EU directive, and discussions on how to limit maximum available levels of those vital nutrients (vitamins and minerals) with reference to "risk assessment" are underway. Risk assessment is a term of toxicology, and the procedure to do such assessment is really not appropriate for nutrients. Discussions on this are ongoing, and there is a potential that we may lose the use of higher dose vitamins/minerals as supplements.

Codex Alimentarius is also active in other food-related fields.

For instance, it generally approves of genetically modified foods and makes it more difficult for single countries to protect their citizens from those types of foods.

Another thing that Codex does is it sets "allowed levels" of chemical contaminants in foods, sanctioning thus the use of herbicides, pesticides and similar poisons that are then found found in fruits, vegetables and other foods we eat.

Codex is also dealing in chemical additives to foods and its role is that of classifying and listing the "allowed" additives.

One additional thing Codex has made acceptable in international trade, for instance, are powdered baby formulas. The setting of standards for such formulas has resulted in a great lessening of breast feeding in developing countries and consequently in a great deterioration of health of the infants in those areas. Clearly, the powdered formulas, "scientifically" formulated as they may be, are not the most healthy food an infant can get.

The major result of these types of activity of Codex is to make it difficult for single countries to protect their citizens, because Codex standards and guidelines become the de-facto international standard of international trade, which is used to judge whether a country has the right to refuse importation from another country of any food product. One important example is the difficulty the European Union has in keeping US beef containing artificial growth hormones out of our supermarkets. Since Codex allows residues of those hormones, the meat is "internationally approved" and it is well nigh impossible to refuse importation, unless it can be scientifically shown that the residue is a danger to consumer health. Since studies have not been done, it is hard to come by the scientific evidence.

The major danger I see in Codex is that its regulations are industry friendly and designed to make most of the industrial foods "acceptable" in all member countries, so multinational food companies can produce in one place and sell everywhere else. Since industry is infinitely more powerful in lobbying and steering the Codex process than consumers are, the outcome is that Codex food rules, rather than protect consumer health, are geared to protect industry profits and open new markets for processed foods.

Thanks for posting this, kwan. I shall be watching the G20 Summit closely . . .

Hi Kwan.

I don't know alot about the Codex, but I know enough to know that it is being designed with catastrophic intentions. It doesn't take much digging for anyone that cares enough to realise this. While I appreciate the efforts of yourself and others that are being conscious and applying themselves to changing it, it realy does make me search for understanding as to the whole solution.

It is part of a problem that is soo huge in scope, that I think that the cure will be found on a deeper level than in finding ways to fix the symptoms. What I am refering to here, is that I think that the true resolution will come out of the mass consciousness, and will be incrementally progressed toward through every individual intention of love and unity.

But I think that every bit counts, and thank you for your efforts. I wonder... at the mystery of our nature that we choose such a rocky road !!!

>I wonder... at the mystery of our nature that we choose such a rocky road !!!<

Hi Lightform--
I'm curious how you feel that we personally chose this reality. I definitely know that I DID NOT choose this. I do feel, however, that people who ignore it in hopes that it will not transpire are probably hastening the day when it does indeed come to fruition.

If you were at the beach and saw someone drowning a few yards away in the water, would you feel that you caused it, and would you avoid rescuing them or looking for a lifeguard to rescue them?

If a jet liner crashes in a corn field, we should avoid at all costs sending out a rescue party, because all that attention focused on the disaster will only worsen the tragendy so that more people will die?

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

kwan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I wonder... at the mystery of our nature that we
> choose such a rocky road !!!<
>
> Hi Lightform--
> I'm curious how you feel that we personally chose
> this reality. I definitely know that I DID NOT
> choose this. I do feel, however, that people who
> ignore it in hopes that it will not transpire are
> probably hastening the day when it does indeed
> come to fruition.

Hi Kwan... in answer to your questions

Are you not here ? How did you not choose to be who you are ?
Maybe it would hasten it, either way it is certainly not taking responcability for the predicament which they find themselves in.

>
> If you were at the beach and saw someone drowning
> a few yards away in the water, would you feel that
> you caused it, and would you avoid rescuing them
> or looking for a lifeguard to rescue them?
>

Hmm... I think only in so far as that the other person is a part of myself. Not I as an individual.
No, why would I avoid this ?

> If a jet liner crashes in a corn field, we should
> avoid at all costs sending out a rescue party,
> because all that attention focused on the disaster
> will only worsen the tragendy so that more people
> will die?

Kwan, I think that what I am aiming to express is getting lost within the process of communication. I feel that this is a subtle thing. While being aware of a disaster is one thing, being aware of it as horrible is another. Perceiving the event as a disaster is at some level a contribution to its existince as such.

I'll make an analogy. Two people who are rooting for opposite teams watch a basketball point being scored, one thinks it is wonderfull and the other bad. The actual physical manifestation could be said to be just one thing, but the experiences of it for these two people are basically opposite, so what IS the real definition of what happened ?

It is easy to argue that there are certain aspects of our shared experience which are not open to interpretation or individual perception. But it is my experience that these seemingly unchangeable structures are actually only "very strongly percieved" parts of infinite potential. Also parts which we share in common with everyone else who perceives them as unchangeable and make up our experience.

I think that this concept is not realy able to be conveyed in words. It is real to me, and makes sense in relation to all of my own observations and experience of reality. My views on the deeper questions of life revolve around this. Therefor to try and answer the last question with a definitive answer, is going to produce a result that is open to interpretation, and will not define what it realy is anyway.

So, no ! I don't believe that avoiding the crash is going to bring harmony to the event. No I don't think that placing attention on it is going to worsen it. However, I do believe that the individual of whom the crash exists to, can select cumulative forms of expression, perception and involvement whereby they can move out of the realms of having the reality of a tradgety occur.

I am sorry that this sounds cryptic but as I have said, I don't think that I can answer this question directly in words, without my meaning being lost in translation. Maybe it is easiest just to say that love governs all things.

FEEDING THE FIG TREE
Whoever controls the food supply rules the world basically.
Big-Farming, Big-Pharma, Big-Oil, Big-GMO, Big-Chemo…I don't think they can win, but they are going to war on us. We can't focus on them though, and I don't think there is anything we can do to stop them in their actions. We can however endeavor on a path of maximum regenerative nutrition and reviving of the soil for ourselves and our communities. All it takes is education and greenfingered action. They cannot kill the tree of life no matter how hard they try, for they are evil and will soon die of their own disease. We have to focus on the living tree and pour our energy into it.

The visionary solution to evil is to not focus on the corrupt elements of the human species, but to make a good life for oneself, develop and bring forth ones genius...to pull all ones energy out of the ship of state and focus on feeding the tree of life. If you focus on the largeness of the power machine it just paralyzes you into non-action. If a cancer has taken over the human species...you stop feeding the cancer...and start feeding the Tree of Life.

Through misunderstanding the subtle abundance of nature the Beast will forever generate a hungry world. Starving in a world of plenty, the Beast will eat up everything and turn everything to radioactive dust. Till then, we can work on the hundredth monkey effect. Building our permaculture utopias. Generating sanity, order and regenerating the earth. Building energy, regenerosity and revealing in the beauty of nature. Marveling in the intricacies and efficiencies of goodness. Morphogenically seeding the idea in the Universal Mind that higher conscious life is possible.

It is pointless making ourselves depressed and sick in futile indignation over the centralized power extortion mechanisms that insist on arising, whether they be oil based or nuclear based. We look at the warped morality of the Beast, and we pull our hair out in frustration...because WE know a better way. Ecosystems, communities, and future generations are sacrificed, and salvation recedes unless we take our future into our own hands. The bulldozing path of these mean corporate spin-meisters cannot be stopped, but it can be ultimately made obsolete. But it means a new kind of warriorship. It means allowing the Beast to run its own course, and to put all ones energy into building the new way under the feet of the Beast without direct confrontation. Creating a groundswell of smart-technologies through which centralized power-over systems become a thing of the past. We have to move just as fast, just as coercively and with ultimate generosity and cooperation toward the Good. Turn our back on the Beast and stop wasting our energy in disappointment and outrage. They can shipwreck themselves on some other shore, while we set about creating our independence and our Eden.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2009 04:46AM by Janabanana.

Janabanana--
I'm not dualistic enough to call the forces of big pharma/big agra, etc. 'evil.' That's an opinion that firmly roots us in complete opposition to them and will ultimately empower them.

I believe it's also unrealistic magical thinking to assume that we must completely look away from what they're doing and just continue on our merry way, and all will be well. Yes, we must develop ousrselves, as you say-- create more green technology, educational efforts, etc. Create our own organizations and gardens and co-ops, and so on. But I see a trend, in this country especially, toward passivity and apathy that has not lived up to the expectations many have had for it. There is a huge groundswell of young eco-warriors, vegans and vegetarians who believe that any form of resistance is wrong, and where has it gotten us? The corporatists are getting stronger and stronger. How bad does it have to get before people are willing to act? Peaceful and non-violent resistance of the highest spiritual order has a long and illustrious history-- just look at Martin Luther King and Gandhi, and imagine where India and the American civil rights movement would be today had they decided it was 'wrong' to resist the forces of devolution?

Rather than let them roll over us with their big corporate machine, why not rise up in all our strength and say 'NO'? I am a spiritual warrior. I see no conflict between my prayers and meditations and living by Grace, and my inspired action to create a healthier, more just society.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Janabanana--
Sorry about the tone of my post above, where I'm afraid I come off too much like an opinionated hothead. I'm just really passionate about this and concerned that we may be passing up an important window of opportunity, but I respect your approach too. :-)

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Evil in the sense of being antibiogenic...and a danger to the wellbeing of Gaia. I am not concerned with depopulation scares...I think we are more than capable of killing our selves off.
I will leave it for those who feel the need to make a statement or action of revolt. For me, as a visionary the energy of revolt is lethal.
Unless I can actually work to change something it is not healthy for me to be in that energy as it is disease producing and undermines the stamina of creative fires. My job is merely to point out a better way of doing things, investigate the edge of that, and establish my own world in that fashion.

If there was something specific that needed protesting about then I would be out there doing something...even to the point of assasination if need be. But I see 95% of human endeavor in the material-consumer-military-industrial world to be insane, immoral, stupid and corrupt. How am I going to FIGHT that 95%...other than to merely transform myself and my world.

>If there was something specific that needed protesting about then I would be out there doing something...even to the point of assasination if need be.<

Really? Interesting. ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2009 10:00PM by kwan.

>If there was something specific that needed protesting about then I would be out there doing something...even to the point of assasination if need be.<

Really? Interesting. ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2009 10:04PM by kwan.