The history of Codex is important, but one should also understand the structure of Codex Alimentarius in order to understand how it arrives at its decisions.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is the active and controlling arm of Codex. It is the main body that makes recommendations and proposals and is consulted by the FAO and the WHO regarding food safety standards and their implementation. Each year the CAC meets in Rome (at FAO headquarters) and Geneva (WHO headquarters) alternately with delegations from its 182 member countries. The chief delegate to the commission must be a government official or an employee of that country, and it is this individual that decides who will speak for the delegation. No votes are taken at these meetings, as “consensus,” not voting, is the method of decision making.
While the idea of “consensus” may seem reassuring, it is important to note that the Chairman of the Codex committee can prevent a delegate from even being heard at the meeting. If he is unhappy with the opposition he can simply declare that there is none and then that a “consensus” has been reached. This has occurred on numerous occasions, at least in the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. In some cases this has even taken the form of the Chairman cutting off the microphone of dissenting delegates. An example of this is provided by Ingrid Frazon, the head of the National Health Federation Delegation to the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU). Frazon states:
One of the more interesting discussions that took place during the committee meetings had to do with fatty acids in infant formula for special needs. The Japanese delegate questioned why the proposed level of arachidonic acid in infant formula were set to be no less than the levels of DHA. He pointed out that there is exceedingly little arachidonic acid in the breast milk of Japanese mothers and opposed the addition of arachidonic acid in the formula as the proposed formula would force Japanese children to consume levels of arachidonic acid that are foreign to their race and culture. The U.S. delegation claimed that American research shows that the levels of DHA and AA should be the same. One can also wonder if the high levels of arachidonic acid in the breast milk of mothers from industrialized countries could be as a result of their diet. After considerable discussion, the CCNFSDU Chairman Dr. Grossklaus finally came to the conclusion that the committee had reached a consensus and decided in favor of DHA and AA remaining at the same level. Although the microphone was turned off, the whole assembly could hear the voice of the Japanese delegate shouting 'No, no, no, no!'It is obvious from experiences such as the one recounted above that any opposition to the pre-ordained agenda, in the rare instances that any exists, is promptly dealt with. Clearly, Codex is no democracy. The Codex Alimentarius Commission maintains 10 general subject committees that often form their own sub-committees and task forces to tackle specific issues. Codex is also made up of various commodity committees, task forces, and regional coordinating committees. Each of these committees deals with their own detailed product(s) and, in the end, they encompass just about everything that can be physically consumed by human beings. That is, except pharmaceuticals, which Codex does not regulate at all. Each works under the direction of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to which they report and who ultimately approves the work of the committees. Likewise, they all work under the method of “consensus” with no votes taken to determine the final policy.
Codex uses an eight-step procedure to arrive at the final Guidelines for whatever substance it is investigating. Once the eighth step is reached, the Guidelines are either approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission or sent back to the Committee for more changes. Generally speaking, all of the dirty work and manipulation of language to suit the eugenics and corporate goals are done in the committees and their sub-committees. By the time the guidelines reach the Commission, the damage has been done and the text merely awaits the approval of the higher-ups. Nevertheless, the eight-step procedure is described as follows by the FAO/WHO Codex Training Package:
Step 1 – The Commission decides to elaborate a standard and assigns the work to a committee. A decision to elaborate a standard may also be taken by a committee.
Step 2 – The Secretariat arranges the preparation of a proposed draft standard.
Step 3 – The proposed draft standard is sent to governments and international organizations for comment.
Step 4 – The Secretariat forwards comments to the Committee.
Step 5 – The proposed draft standard is sent to the Commission through the Secretariat for adoption as a draft standard.
Step 6 – The draft standard is sent to governments and international organizations for comment.
Step 7 – The Secretariat forwards comments to the committee.
Step 8 - The draft standard is submitted to the Commission through the Secretariat for adoption as a Codex Standard.
Essentially, the Commission introduces a standard to be debated, at which point the designated committee takes up the standard and creates a draft of the guidelines. This draft is circulated to member countries who comment on it. These comments are reviewed and potentially incorporated into the next draft which is then adopted by the committee. This draft is then redistributed to member countries for comment. The committee then adopts the guidelines and sends them to the Commission for final approval. Both the Commission and the committee can require that the draft guideline be pushed back to a previous step if it so desires.
While one might at first be tempted to accuse Codex of being bogged down in bureaucracy, this setup is only for show. Like most of the international organizations that set global agendas, bureaucracy exists only to confuse the lower level participants that engage in virtually meaningless debates during the meetings. When an agenda is meant to be pushed through, bureaucracy doesn't hinder it at all. As mentioned earlier, all that is needed is the illusion of consensus and one is declared, even if the illusion itself is weak.
Codex Alimenarius is a true health tyranny: from its ideological foundations, to its connections with key players within dictatorial regimes and eugenics movements, to its hierarchical structure which restricts openness and debate. Only by exposing this committee and its stated goals can we hope to restore our health freedom.
 “What is Codex?” American Holistic Health Association, http://ahha.org/codex1.htm
 Franzon, Ingrid. “Report from the Thai Codex Meeting.” Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism. Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR 2007. Pp. 199.
 Codex Alimentarius: Committees and Task Forces – General Subject Committees. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/codex_alimentarius/General_Subject_Committees/index.asp Accessed April 29, 2010.
 MacKenzie, Anne A. “The Process of Developing Labeling Standards for GM Foods In The Codex Alimentarius.” AgBioForum – Vol.3 Number 4, 2000. Pp. 203-208
 Codex Alimentarius - USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Codex_Alimentarius/index.asp Accessed April 30, 2010.
 “FAO/WHO Training Package – Section Two: Understanding the Organization of Codex” CodexEurope. Source
 “Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism.” Ed. Scott C. Tips. FHR. 2007.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He is a regular contributor to Activist Post, and is the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom