Codex (Rome) : The Non-Meeting

PRESS RELEASE
A MEETING OF ONE

By Scott C. Tips -- National Health Federation
July 16, 2007

Let’s cut to the chase. The 30th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) in Rome, Italy just ended (July 2-7, 2007) and heaping platefuls of Codex standards and guidelines were advanced to their final stages as if starving people were gathered around a banquet table. It did not matter what was heaped on the plate, it got passed to the table regardless. It also did not matter that there were some 451 country delegation members and another 61 INGO delegate-observers from around the World in attendance or pretend attendance, the CAC Chairman, Dr. Claude Mosha, plowed forward on a one-man mission from God pushing aside any and all objections - excuse me, he called them "reservations" - that were made. It would not have mattered if a plate of rotten tomatoes had been presented to him for approval, he would have approved them too. In this one meeting, the Commission was rendered irrelevant as a meaningful "approving" body, for it merely rubberstamped without thought what had been done by others. Mimi the Gorilla could have done just as good a job.

There, you have read the essence of what happened at the Codex meeting as Sepp Hasslberger and I - who comprised the National Health Federation delegation attending this meeting - saw it. And unless you are a glutton for punishment, you need not read further. For those of you with more time than sense, please read on.

Blinders and Earplugs Unnecessary

Chairman Claude Mosha was most definitely a man on a mission. And that mission was to take that hill . . . with the hill being a pile of standards and related texts submitted by the various Codex Committees for approval by the Commission itself. Attacking the pile like a man possessed, the Chairman considered each standard passed up from the committee level for adoption here only long enough to pronounce the words "adopted," so that he could then move on to the next standard for its approval. This approach was exactly the same one taken by Mosha’s predecessor chairman, except that in this case, the adoption process for the standards seemed more frantic and even hastier, if that could be possible.

As mentioned, formal objections by member states are – under Codex procedural rules – sufficient to stop progress towards adoption. However, Chairman Mosha waved off objections by simply recharacterizing them as "reservations" and promising that they would be included in the Final Report of the meeting. This promise really amounted to nothing more than a semi-polite way of telling the delegate to get lost and quit bothering him.

In this staccato fashion, standard after standard was "approved." From the standard for Maximum Levels for Tin in Canned Foods and Canned Beverages to the standard for Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides, they were approved as if full or even partial consideration of them beforehand would be heretical.

Curiously enough, though, there were also standards on the list waiting to be revoked – among them one establishing maximum permitted limits of cadmium. It struck me as ironic that toxic cadmium will be given free rein while beneficial zinc is waiting in the wings for its maximum permitted limits to be established.

But then, what can you say about a meeting that mostly consisted of uttering the words, "And the next item on our agenda is . . . "?

Death by Consensus

After having seen how the Chairman had mistreated the few member delegations raising objections, especially the Paraguayan delegate who had raised a legitimate objection the very first day of the meeting ("The document [Proposed draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety] should be returned to Steps 6 and 7 since there wasn’t a broad consensus," he had said), I could not resist approaching the Paraguayan delegate at the reception held that evening after the first day’s meeting. I wanted to discuss with him what had happened.

He was, I told him and his fellow Paraguayans, absolutely correct to have raised the lack of consensus issue. Under Codex Rules of Procedure, he should have prevailed and the proposed draft document should have been refused approval and returned to Step 6 or 7 (out of 8 steps, with the 8th step being the final one). Moreover, I continued, he should stand his ground as the Codex definition of consensus is "the absence of sustained opposition." And the World Trade Organization itself states that consensus is reached "if no Member, present at the meeting when the decision is taken, formally objects to the proposed decision." He therefore had the absolute right to insist that the document not be approved.

Interestingly enough, at the next day’s meeting, the Paraguayan delegate was even firmer and more strident in his objection to a standard that was up for adoption, commenting that "the definition of consensus changes every day." Nevertheless, despite this member state’s clear objection, which should have stopped the standard in its tracks, the standard was approved.

Alms for the Rich

A significant amount of time was spent by the CAC leadership on the CAC budget and the need to rein in expenses. To that end, one of the vice-chairmen chairing this portion of the meeting called for more contributions and mentioned the CAC’s idea to place a maximum upper limit on the number of committees as well as the number of meetings.

So, too, the CAC vice chairman gave a presentation on the Codex Trust Fund, which is administered by the World Health Organization and donates money to supposedly impoverished and deserving countries so that they may attend and participate in Codex meetings. The word "supposedly" has been added in here because I noticed in the fine print of the report that the hard-working taxpayers of Europe, North America, and Australia/New Zealand have been graciously financing the participation of such struggling countries as China (with its US$1.33 trillion monetary reserves) and that insult to the African continent called Zimbabwe (whose dictatorship has murdered thousands and taken a once-prosperous country into abject beggary and misery). One could start cutting some fat right there.

But, for an organization that, rumor has it, even bounced some of those checks given to the actually-deserving member delegations, there are simple, commonsense approaches to money management that could result in meaningful economies and the creation of a sinking fund to support CAC’s efforts. While sitting through this part of the meeting, I could not help but think of at least three things the Committee could do to improve its financial situation. Yet no one was asking me what I thought could be done.

Time to Run a Tight Ship

Make no mistake, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) staff at this meeting could not have been nicer or more helpful to the NHF. But, then, the NHF is a recognized International NonGovernmental Organization with recognized status to attend and speak out at Codex meetings.

Some others, such as the Natural Solutions Foundation, had been attending some Codex meetings, not as INGOs, but as members of the public. Past Codex meetings had been incredibly lax with their security, permitting such members of the public to sit in the main arena of the meetings and to attend the Codex receptions. Not so this year. They and other members of the public were consigned to a public viewing section in the uppermost gallery of the Codex meeting hall and not allowed to intermingle with the delegates in the meeting rooms or at the reception. This was strictly enforced and followed closely on the heels of the official decision of the Executive Committee of the Codex Commission to reject the Natural Solution Foundation’s application for INGO status.

Codex Finitus

"The ancient Romans," Voltaire once wrote, "built their greatest masterpieces of architecture for wild beasts to fight in." Voltaire's irony might be lost on the attendees at the Codex meeting that took place in the FAO building since it is neither Rome’s greatest masterpiece nor were there wild beasts inside. But it was a show nevertheless. With hundreds of observers watching, it was a one-man show. And even more than that, it was a Meeting of One.

*****

About the National Health Federation

Established in 1955, the National Health Federation is a consumer-education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy food, take supplements and use alternative therapies without government restrictions. With consumer members all over the world, and a Board of Governors and Advisory Board containing representatives from 6 different countries, the Federation is unique is being the only consumer health freedom organization in the world to enjoy official observer status with the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

National Health Federation
P.O. Box 688, Monrovia, CA 91017 USA
1 (626) 357-2181 ~ Fax 1 (626) 303-0642

Website: [www.thenhf.com]
E-mail: contact-us@thenhf.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2007 12:52AM by kwan.

so this means that all foods will be irradiated by 2009 end of story no arguments? sorry for my ignorance
patty

Patty--
You're not ignorant, not at all. We're all clueless about this because they WANT us to be clueless. There's nothing in the mainstream media about this subject at all.

What we know right now is that the Codex Commission wants to irradiate all produce, probably organic included. We don't know yet whether they'll succeed. I think the deciding factor will be how loud and sustained the outcry from the public will be in response. That's why I'm trying to get the word out so that a huge segment of the population is informed and mobilized.

I'll be talking soon to a Codex expert named Scott Tipps; I'll keep everybody posted on what I find out.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

That's just not going to happen.

It's just not logistically possible.

How will all these irradiators be built in two years?

Sure, there's several irradiators in the US. But only a very few of them irradiate FOOD!

Who will pay for all the irradiators that would have to be built in the US alone? And who will pay for everything to be irradiated? The cost would be enormous!

Does anybody imagine that this could happen without our legislators being involved in approving the funding? And who would manage the funds and oversee the operation?

A lot of foods turn mushy when they're irradiated. Does that mean all the peaches and tomato farms would be required to shut down or convert to another crop? And will those foods simply become obsolete, since people don't like mushy fruits?

Who will force all the farmers/distributors/retailers, etc. to have all their produce irradiated, since it's a known fact that consumers don't like to buy food they know has been irradiated?

How could such a law possibly be enforced, and what would be the penalty for selling food that hasn't been irradiated?

Are we envisioning that all the farmer's markets across the country will be raided and everybody will be thrown in jail? Will supermarkets across the country be shut down for carrying non-irradiated contraban produce? I mean really.

Will there be martial law to enforce irradiation of all food? No way. Surely someone in govt. would find it easier to blow up a few buildings and blame it on terrorists if they wanted to find an excuse for martial law!

How will the laws for ORGANIC suddenly change to even ALLOW irradiation, without going through the federal rulemaking procedures?

And how will an agency that only has the power to make inTERnational trade recommendations be able to cause laws to be enacted within the US that force all produce sold inTRAnationally and inTRAstate to be irradiated?

And VERY IMPORTANT, WHERE IS THE EXACT DOCUMENTATION FROM CODEW ALIMENTARIUS THAT EVEN SPECIFIES THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN? It's all total conjecture. Good to be aware of irradiation. Not so good to jump to conclusions.

"Paranoia will destroy ya."

Want to worry about something?

We might start worrying about the genetically engineered TERMINATOR seed that produces crops with sterile seed, forcing farmers to buy seed every year from the seed companies, rather than replant their own seed. Once the TERMINATOR seed gets into the gene pool, it will effect other seed as well. Maybe some day it will effect ALL seed.

Can you imagine a day when humans won't be able to plant a seed unless it comes from a lab? Geneticists are imagining that, and rubbing their hands with glee at the prospects of absolute control over the food supply. Easier, sleezier and more PERMANENT than irradiation! It only requires control of a few vulnerable places around the world, and a few secret experimental stations in key places in the US.

With TERMINATOR seed, there only needs to be enough out there to penetrate the gene pool. If enough of the good seed is contaminated, it will all become TERMINATOR seed. No need for any international laws!

Maybe I didn't put this strongly enough. The TERMINATOR prospect would ensure that ALL EDIBLE PLANTLIFE WILL CARRY STERILE SEED.

Again, ALL EDIBLE PLANTLIFE WILL CARRY STERILE SEED!

Can we envision the implications of that?

It's already a law in Iraq that all seed must be purchased from TERMINATOR stocks.
(Google "Terminator seed, Iraq", and you should be able to find the exact wording of the existing law)

So, if you want to worry about our food supply, maybe worry about that!

As for the irradiation, I agree it's a problem. But a law mandating that all fruits and veggies be irradiated by 2009? NO WAY!

Care to place a gentlemen's/lady's bet?

Hi Kwan,

I just want you to know that I totally respect what you're doing.

I just think that if we're all envisioning that there will be mandatory irradiation of all fruits and vegetables by 2009, and that may not even be one of Codex's stated goals, perhaps such a vision could just serve to make us feel helpless and even detract us from some of the more important battles out there that really do need our immediate attention.

When you speak to Mr. Tipps, could you please ask him for the exact Codex Alimentarius documentation regarding irradiation?

My understanding is that, regarding irradiation, the most important thing to watch out for now is the proposed new rule to change the labeling requirement. Compared to the Codex Alimentarius scare, it seems small, but the implications for the irradiation industry are potentially enormous. If people can be led to unknowingly eat irradiated food, once they find out they've been eating it already, irradiation will be much easier for the masses to accept than it is now. That seems to be currently a more real and specific battle to address.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2007 08:39PM by suncloud.

In June, there was an open comments period on the FDA proposal to change irradiation labelling. The proposal would allow the word "irradiation" to be replaced by the word, "pasteurization". We all could have done something to really help make a difference regarding irradiation, by sending in our comments opposing the change.

I didn't write in, but I wish I had. I didn't know about it. Kwan's article made me take a look, and that's how I found out about it. Unfortunately, by then, the comments period had passed.

The fortunate thing is that the proposal has not yet been approved. According to CommonDreams.org, News Center, 28,000 people wrote in to oppose the new change, and that will have to be taken into account when determining whether or not to pass the proposal. Hopefully that was enough people to make a difference. Unfortunately though, Bush is at the helm.

In 1998, when it was proposed that irradiation would be acceptable for organic, the proposal was overwhelmed with negative responses, and irradiation for organic was rejected. But we didn't have Bush then. It's definitely a whole new era.

If people want to contact their legislators to help keep our food irradiation-free, it's good to have something specific to say. The proposed labeling law might provide a very important and very specific reference point. Maybe some of our legislators might have some influence over the final FDA decision.

The Farm Bill is another specific proposal that you can refer to when speaking to legislators. You can ask your legislator to make sure there are no ammendments added to the bill that will fund irradiation projects or help the irradiation industry in any way.

For more information about the proposed new rule, the Farm Bill, and about anything else that might affect the food supply, including genetic engineering, and what you can do to help make a difference, you can visit www.foodandwaterwatch.org or www.centerforfoodsafety.org. The action sheet for irradiation at centerforfoodsafety.org is no longer available because the comments period is over, but it's still good to know as much as possible about exactly what is going on - not just about irradiation, but all the other issues having to do with a safe food supply.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2007 10:21PM by suncloud.

Thank you, Suncloud,

>When you speak to Mr. Tipps, could you please ask him for the exact Codex Alimentarius documentation regarding irradiation?<

Yes, I certainly will ask him. That's my number one question, too.

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights; please feel free to contact me off the board at sharrhan@verizon.com if you want to stay in touch on this issue and discuss it further with me. (My rawfoods.com e-mail doesn't work.)

Here's some things everybody can do to help fight irradiation:

-Send a letter or email to every herb and spice company you can find and tell them about the proposed change in the labelling from "irradiated" to "pasteurized". Ask them if they irradiate any of their products, ask them which ones, and tell them you won't buy any of their products that are "irradiated" or "pasteurized". (I've done something similar before and was surprised to get a letter back from every single herb/spice company that I found in Safeway. Every single company assured me that they did NOT sell any irradiated spices/herbs, and they had no plans to do so, contrary to what the irradiation industry would have us all believe. The irradiation industry wants us to think irradiation is already mainstream, and it's NOT).

-Send a letter to all your local markets, including supermarkets. Tell them the same as above (referring to produce specifically), but add that if you see anything in any of their stores labelled "pasteurized" or "irradiated", you will tell all your friends and you will boycott and/or even picket their store. Then carry through with all your friends and family if you do see that kind of labeling. And call the local news services ahead of time, so they can cover it!

-Take pictures and document the dates of any produce you see in any market that contains a label containing the words "irradiated" or "pasteurized". If you find anything, let us all know here, post the pictures, and maybe we can all try to organize a write-in campaign or even a national boycott if it's a chain store.

-Become a member of your local organic certification agency. I don't know the rules for every agency, but in Hawaii, anyone who pays dues can be a member and has the right to vote for Boardmembers, and anyone can even be a Boardmember if elected. That's one sure way to keep tabs on the laws and to influence the national organic rules.

In short, we have power as consumers. We can use it or lose it!

Hi Kwan,

I just saw your post (You can see how long it takes me to write a post!). Yes I will email you today hopefully.

Thanks for all your concern on this issue!

so, i should contact me reps and ask them to make sure all current irradiated foods are labeled right? i will contact the grocers where i shop.
patty

Hi Dewey,

If you talk to your reps, I suggest you mention the proposed FDA rule change on the labeling (from "irradiation" to "pasteurization". You can ask them if there's anything they can do to influence the FDA to reject any proposed changes and keep the irradiation label the way it is. You can tell your reps that you want to know if what you're eating is irradiated, and you don't want that to change. Possibly, they can't do anything at this point about the labeling, since it's up to the FDA, but it's worth a try.

And if they do change the labeling to "pasteurized", then we'll all have to get on the ball and make sure everyone knows not to buy "pasteurized" produce!

That's great that you're going to contact your grocers!

will do friend
patty

Hi Kwan,

I sent an email to you by clicking the address you supplied, but then I got a notice back saying that it didn't go through.

I called a friend who has been very involved in irradiation for many, many years. She chased the nuke irradiators away from here - twice. She says it's all true about Codex Alimentarius, that it's part of the New World Order, and that mandatory irradiation is just one of the least of the things they plan on doing by 2009!

She seemed to be quite familiar with it and said she would email me some information. She said there's a lady attorney who has done extensive research on it.

Well, I'm STILL not convinced. I know Codex Alimentarius exists, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that they were up to no good, and even that they might set some evil goals, like irradiating all the food. But I still can't imagine how they could possibly carry that out.

The Terminator seeds concern me more than the irradiation, especially since they're already mandatory in Iraq, and I know that much of the experimentation is taking place here on the Big Island. Earthjustice won a decision in Federal court in 2004 to order the biotech companies to disclose the locations of their evil experiments, but I don't know if the decision was appealed or what.

Anyway, I'll try to forward you anything I find out about Codex if I can. And please do the same for me if you like. Maybe it would work for you to send me a PM, and I can return it to you with my address.

Thanks again.

Suncloud--
Sorry! I was really tired when I wrote to you and I wasn't thinking clearly at all. The address is sharrhan@verizon.net. Can't believe I did that.

Hi sharrhan,

I sent you an email - I sent you 2 emails actually, because I forgot to put a subject line in the first one.

It looks like they both went through.

Thanks!

I've been doing a bit more research on Codex/WTO issues, and came up with a few new links and points of interest:

www.caseyresearch.com/displayArchiveArticleWwnk.php?id=226
A Nutricidal Codex
by Shannara Johnson

Excerpt:

At its foundation in 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) accepted the standardsof the Codex–and by the end of 2009, all member countries of the WTO will be required to implement the Codex, —to harmonize the standards“ for the global trade of foods.
**********************

BACKGROUND and STATUS OF LABELING OF IRRADIATED FOODS

Codex Requirements top
(Organic Consumers Assoc.)

Excerpt:

The Codex Alimentarius is the international standard for world trade in food. What it says is important, because a country that requires different labels from the Codex requirements cannot exclude food imports that are labeled according to Codex requirements. At this time, the FDA-required irradiation policy does NOT match Codexrequirements, which are more stringent.

If the US stops requiring labels, under world trade rules other countries will not be able to exclude unlabeled US imports--because the other country's labeling policy is an "import barrier." Therefore, there will be a conflict between the US FDA policy of unlabeled exports, and the Codex requirements. It just so happens that the Chairman of Codex is Tom Billy, the man at the USDA in charge of deregulating the meat industry nd introducing irradiation. So put your money on the Codex LOWERING its labeling requirements to match whatever final labeling policy the FDA comes up with in 2001-2.
See why the FDA labeling policy is so important?

************

FOod Irradiation Watch
[www.foodirradiationinfo.org]

Excerpt: (This shows you how WTO/Codex work):

Under Free Trade Agreements (FTA) any Australian law that is seen as a restraint to trade (viewpoint of US Corporate bosses) will need to be 'corrected'. For example, Canada's federal government recently called for strict controls and selective bans on the sale and use of toxic pesticides such as 2,4-D. Only one day after the Minister presented the Code the US chemical manufacturers threatened to sue the Canadian government if they proceed with the controls (an Action Alert is attached on the issue and other examples in Canada and California).

I hooked up with a group in California in the hopes of getting involved and learning about the above issues. However they are currently dealing mainly w/ a pesticide issue that is also important. But I am trying to stick to one or two things at a time, like Codex and GE seeds.

It ticks me off that we have to run all around trying to find basic information about our food supply that ought to be readily available in the first place.

Kwan and Suncloud - Thank You for sharing.

I finally watched The Future of Food, goodness! The consumer reports man mentioned a group so I will check into that.

I will go to the sites the two of you provided etc. Thanks again.

Kit