Codex Alimentarius-Criminalizing Natural Health,Vitamins....

[insouciant]

"HARM-onise with our standards. HAAAAAAAAAAAARM-ONISE. HAAAAAAAAAAARM HAAAAAAAAAAAARM HAAAAAAARM-ONISE."

 

At which point I closed the video. It was a close call with the "lots a rules, lots a lots a lots a rules" foaming at the mouth episode she had earlier on in the video.

 

Anyway, so the WTO begin to enfore (or force people who can enfore) these set of guidelines at the beginning of the next decade and half the planet's population are going to die. How does this happen?

 

Isn't the codex just a set of guidelines for food hygeine, food labelling and other food related risk reduction? I see the internets are up in arms since it will reign in the sale of vitamins and supplements and various snake oil remedies...

 

junkyjebus, you say "so called "safe limits"". Are they not safe limits? Are they too restrictive? Are they below what's required?

 

What natural minerals (They've been setting guidelines on salt intake recently. Is that foolish?) and which vitamins are of particular concern?.......

 

[junkyjebus]

The codex is indeed a set of guidelines for food hygiene, labelling etc.. but should it be enforced it could have dire consequences. imagine if companies were not required to state on the product whether it was organic or gm or have no requirement for labelling at all. I would hardly call vitamins and minerals snake oil. My point is that the government putting these safe upper limits on vitamins etc is just another step down the wrong road.

[Gibber]

I'm not dismissing it, simply reporting that I decided to postpone consideration of the issues because I found that particular person so lacking in general believability and competence as to render anything she said pointless. It is not the sound of her voice, though that didn't help, but her whole approach. Indeed, at times it was decidedly xenophobic.

 

But you will regard a Holocaust denier as generally illuminating. The definition of Xenophobia depends on the race being hated I guess.

[insouciant]

imagine if companies were not required to state on the product whether it was organic or gm or have no requirement for labelling at all.

 

but but isn't that the point of the codex?! To require labelling on products to be eaten. Here's the labelling guidelines for pre-packaged foods:

 

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2770E/y2770e02.htm#bm02

 

Seems to cover a lot of bases. Doesn't say GM foods must be declared or whether the foods is organic or not but it doesn't preclude that from being mentioned on products.

 

The relavent authorities slap safe limits on pharmaceuticals like paracetamol which if you go over by a fair amount you will die so I don't see why vitamins should be any different. Why should ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) be treated any differently to paracetamol? Both have LD50 values!

[junkyjebus]

but but isn't that the point of the codex?! To require labelling on products to be eaten. Here's the labelling guidelines for pre-packaged foods:

 

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2770E/y2770e02.htm#bm02

 

Seems to cover a lot of bases. Doesn't say GM foods must be declared or whether the foods is organic or not but it doesn't preclude that from being mentioned on products.

 

The relevant authorities slap safe limits on pharmaceuticals like paracetamol which if you go over by a fair amount you will die so I don't see why vitamins should be any different. Why should ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) be treated any differently to paracetamol? Both have LD50 values!

Why do we suddenly have a need to reduce the amount of vitamin c that people can buy? are there vast Phnom Penh style killing fields with droves of cadavers who all overdosed on iron tablets or evening primrose oil?

I think in Germany people already need a prescription to get vitamins. Do we really want to find ourselves in a position where we consider naturally occurring remedies as drugs?

[insouciant]

I had 3 grams worth of Vitamin C in one sitting once and the results weren't good I can tell you

 

Anyway, this codex, would it restrict all vitamins or would it be on a case by case basis?

 

I could go into a supermarket right now and buy their entire stock of anti-histamines off the shelf but I couldn't buy very many packets of paracetamol in case I go home and top injest them all. Different rules for different drugs.

 

Would this codex immediately turn all vitamins and minerals into perscription only drugs? Would that even work considering the a lot of them have unknown effectiveness and a doctor wouldn't even perscribe those...

 

Anyway, a quick look at the US FDA's website provides an FAQ with the answer:

 

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscodex.html#restrict

 

"Further, there is no basis for the concern that the Codex Guidelines on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements would require dietary supplements be sold as prescription drugs in the United States. First, there is nothing in the Guidelines that suggests that supplements be sold as drugs requiring a prescription" [emphasis is mine]

 

So what the hell is this fuss about?

[insouciant]

3.2 Contents of vitamins and minerals

 

3.2.1 The minimum level of each vitamin and/or mineral contained in a vitamin and mineral

food supplement per daily portion of consumption as suggested by the manufacturer should

be 15% of the recommended daily intake as determined by FAO/WHO.

 

3.2.2 Maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in vitamin and mineral food supplements

per daily portion of consumption as recommended by the manufacturer shall be set, taking the

following criteria into account:

(a) upper safe levels of vitamins and minerals established by scientific risk assessment based

on generally accepted scientific data, taking into consideration, as appropriate, the varying

degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups;

( the daily intake of vitamins and minerals from other dietary sources.

When the maximum levels are set, due account may be taken of the reference intake values of

vitamins and minerals for the population. This provision should not lead to setting of maximum levels

that are solely based on recommended nutrient intakes (e. g. Population Reference Intake or

Recommended Daily Allowance values).

 

--------------------

 

Doesn't sound terrible...

[The Man]

but can't you see insouciant?

 

"billions will die"!!

 

after all, a whining wifie says so

 

Dr Ima Rainbow?

 

just because someone has/uses that title, doesn't make what they have to hear any more authoritative than the old man that talks to himself and hugs traffic lights, where i live

 

look at that quack "Dr" gillian mckeith

 

$100 and a stamp got her qualification

 

no source yet?

 

he's maybe finishing his school homework

 

maybe his new pal can provide

 

you know, the one that just happened to join when he got some stick

[Medziotojas]

comment retracted, and apologies to both parties concerned

[EM]

But you will regard a Holocaust denier as generally illuminating.

You are presumably referring to Koy. As I remember things, he does not deny it, but rather questions various aspects of the officially sanctioned facts.

 

The definition of Xenophobia depends on the race being hated I guess.

An odd point of view to have. Certainly not mine.

[justlookin]

If you didn't like the wife then have a look at this guy. Don't get me wrong, i didn't like the wife. she was one of those 'almost hippy' eccentrics. The HARM....onising p155ed me off aswell. But the topic is what am interested in, not the method of delivery.

This guy Ian R Crane has a much better delivery which might be more conducive to your needs.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5800206429960925518

 

The Dr Rath Health Foundation

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex-gmthreat.htm

 

Just read that 31/12/09 is just an implementation date for part of Codex.

 

Here is a link to another forum with some great links.

http://forums.sundaysun.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=17543

 

 

 

If you think it seems fine, then i'd love to hear your reasoning.

[junkyjebus]

 

you know, the one that just happened to join when he got some stick

 

not the first time either

It seems it is not me espousing conspiracy theories now

 

Here's a few quotes from republican senator Ron Paul,

 

"all European Union countries will unify their food supplement laws to conform with rules established by a United Nations commission. This commission, called Codex Alimentarius, calls for strict control of dietary supplements. Under the Codex rules, Europeans will need a doctor’s prescription to obtain even basic vitamins. Thanks to the WTO, Americans may find their supplements similarly restricted in an attempt to harmonize the regulatory playing field between the U.S. and Europe. After all, this is the new reality in the WTO era: no nation may enjoy an “unfair†trade or regulatory environment."

 

"Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international trade body will have a say over whether American supplement regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom"

 

"Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act, because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the supplements they want."

 

Why would large pharmaceutical companies be spending so much money to regulate vitamins and supplements, for the benefit of humanity? I think not.

Regardless of intent i still think this is something to be concerned about.

[Medziotojas]

It seems it is not me espousing conspiracy theories now

 

 

Is that an admission I hear.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

But you will regard a Holocaust denier as generally illuminating.

You are presumably referring to Koy. As I remember things, he does not deny it, but rather questions various aspects of the officially sanctioned facts.

 

It is just the Modus operandi of those who google sites on "How to deal with Revisioists" (I had a check) They instruct the zealot to make sure and blacken the name of anyone who has questioned the points given by revisionism and found the facts of the so called given truth to be hughly wanting. This aids in putting off others from ever looking into it for themselves; for what reason could someone have for ever questioning such a horror. Any who disagrees are from that day forward to be haunted by a screaming gibber, accusing them of being a "grubby little racist".

 

Please excuse off topic post but once again, I have been the focus of some free roaming, random, trolling and feel it is my right to respond in some way to the onslaught.

It is only insecure, unsubstantiated "truths" which require so much re assurance, intimidation and bullying to maintain their status

 

Just as we must get rid of this monster, David Cole, we must also get rid of the word "revisionism" from our vocabulary. This awful word and David Cole, too, must be eliminated altogether. There is no argument. There needs to be no more debates, only the elimination of the Holocaust deniers..

[EM]

If you didn't like the wife then ...

I didn't like her, but I love your use of the term "the wife"! Seriously, some consider it sexist etc., but I think it an excellent turn of phrase without negative connotations.

 

Do we really want to find ourselves in a position where we consider naturally occurring remedies as drugs?

This really comes down to how the word drug is defined. Remember the immortal Spinal Tap line: "Water is a drug"? I would say that any substance which is taken or applied to modify the behaviour of an organism is a drug. If a natural remedy is working then it must by that definition be a drug. Presumably your definition must be different.