Monday, March 28, 2011

The Codex Alimentarius Irradiated Food Cover-up

Radura symbol - Wiki Image
Updated excerpt from  
Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Brandon Turbeville

In the last article, I briefly discussed a proposal made by the FDA which was very similar to one made by Congress five years earlier. This proposal would have allowed production companies to use terms such as “electronically pasteurized” instead of “irradiated” and, going further, simply allow the food to be categorized as “pasteurized” with no indication whatsoever that the food had been subject to radiation.

The proposal made by the FDA in April, 2007 is an interesting one indeed. In the opening summary of the text, the FDA states that one of the purposes of the proposal is to make it so that “only those irradiated foods in which the irradiation causes a material change in the food, or a material change in the consequences that may result from the use of the food, bear the radura logo and the term ‘irradiation,’ or a derivative thereof, in conjunction with explicit language describing the change in the food or its conditions of use.”[1] 

While this may seem like a strengthening of a rule, in reality it is not. This proposal is merely another cover mechanism for the pretense of protecting the consumer with strong regulation, while allowing industry to do just what it wants, i.e. produce high levels of irradiated food to cover up unsanitary manufacturing practices.

The FDA acknowledges the fact that irradiation changes the makeup of food when it says in the same proposal that “Irradiation has various effects on foods that may cause changes in the characteristics of the food. Such changes may occur in the food’s organoleptic, nutritional, or functional properties that would not be noticeable at the point of purchase but could be apparent when consumed or cooked.”[2] Of course, the FDA does not go so far as to say that such changes occur at the genetic level causing cancer and a host of other health problems, or even that the changes are dangerous.

In fact, they say that out of all the food allowed to be irradiated by the FDA regulations, there have been no changes. The proposal states, “Currently, we are not aware of any changes to the nutritional properties of any food FDA has approved for irradiation.”[3]  Though not a direct contradiction, it seems highly suspect that irradiation is known to cause “changes” in food; so well known that the FDA is forced to admit it, yet it is unaware of any changes to the foods which it allows to be irradiated. This shows that the FDA is proposing a position that would allow it to appear as if it were taking a harder stance with tougher rules, while allowing for the continuation of the approval of irradiated food.

A second rule change, as mentioned earlier, made in the same proposal should also draw much ire. As mentioned above, it allows food producers to discard the “irradiation” label in favor of a more palatable and misleading “pasteurized” designation. As stated in the proposal:

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to ‘irradiation’ (other than “pasteurized”). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term ‘pasteurized in lieu of ‘irradiated,’ provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term ‘pasteurized’ in the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the agency does not object to the notification.[4] 
On an interesting side note, the “alternate term to ‘irradiation (other than ‘pasteurized’)” is not clearly defined here.[5]  It is possible, because of this clause, to not only allow the term “pasteurized” to be used, but another more evasive unrelated term in its place.

Yet the proposal clearly allows the term “pasteurized” to be used -- at least pending the FDA’s approval and the harmonization with the criteria of pasteurization. Even though the FDA admits in the proposal that public comments demonstrated labeling irradiated products as anything but irradiated was misleading, they continue on with this policy.[6] As usual, the feelings and opinions of those whom the FDA claims to protect are virtually meaningless.

Yet with all of these loopholes and outright fabrications by our own FDA, Codex manages to go even further. Using carefully crafted legal loopholes of their own, Codex effectively removes the limit on the dose of irradiation as it has been understood for many years. Previous to the revision of Codex standards in 2003, the limit on the dose of radiation stood at 10kGy.

This in itself is a very dangerous amount of radiation, as 10kGy is the equivalent to 330 million chest x-rays.[7] Such a large quantity of radiation would obviously be a death wish for anyone who received it, yet it has been rationalized to the public (the very few of them that are actually aware of it) that it is safe to be absorbed into food. Nevertheless, this has been the official Codex guidelines on irradiation limits since they were developed in 1983.[8] 

Since Codex classifies irradiation as an additive (not a contaminant), the committee that bears responsibility for its regulation is the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC). In dealing with irradiation, this committee works closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committees on Food Additives (JECFA), and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI).[9] All of these organizations are interrelated and have a vested interest in promoting the irradiation of food as well as the harmonization of laws and trade between countries for the purpose of globalization.

For instance, the IAEA is the leading advocate for the expansion of nuclear technology, which was developed by the UN.[10] The ICGFI, another UN facilitated organization created under the FAO and WHO along with the IAEA, serves basically as a propaganda arm and direct advocate for food irradiation. The ICGFI has been active in creating fact sheets promoting the “benefits” of irradiation and helping “inform” the public on its safety. [11] Also, the JECFA(a  globalist agency by its very nature as it is a combination of the FAO and WHO) claims to have “developed principles for the safety assessment of chemicals in food that are consistent with current thinking on risk assessment and take account of recent developments in toxicology and other relevant sciences.”[12]
 
Yet with all of these scientific resources, the agency cannot bring itself to acknowledge toxic radiation as anything but an additive. These three organizations are connected to many more globalist international and UN-based agencies, but suffice to say that true independent science, free from political or ideological preconceptions, is not at work here.

It stands to reason then that Codex began “updating” its guidelines for food irradiation several years ago, in 1999. It appears that most of the relaxation of the guidelines and regulations regarding irradiation were spearheaded by individuals in the United States itself. One such man, who was chairman of the Codex Alimentarius Commission at the time of the ratification of these new guidelines, is Tom Billy[13], the former administrator of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.[14]
 
Billy has been credited with playing a major role in the deregulation of the meat and poultry industries during his tenure with the USDA.[15]  Incidentally, he was appointed Chair of Codex on June 29, 1999, around the same time that Codex decided to reevaluate their standards on Irradiation. He remained in this position until the revised standards were ratified by the full Codex Commission.

Notes:

[1] Federal Register Proposed Rule – 72 FR 16291 April 4, 2007: Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food p.1  http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuidanceRegulatoryInformation/RegulationsFederalRegisterDocuments/ucm077977.htm   Accessed May 24, 2010.
[2] Ibid. p. 4
[3] Ibid p.4
[4] Ibid. p.1
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] “WTO Codex to Allow Dangerous Levels of Food Irradiation,” Organic Consumers Association. July 10, 2003 http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/071403_wto_irradiation.cfm  Accessed May 24, 2010.
[8] Nausoulas, Andrianna. “Codex Alimentarius and the International Politics of Food Irradiation.” Toronto Food Policy Council, July 2003. http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/codextoronto.pdf  Accessed May 24, 2010.
[9] Ibid p.2
[10] www.IAEA.org <http://www.iaea.org/>

See Also,

 http://www.iaea.org/About/index.html    Accessed May 24, 2010.

[11] Tape, N.W. Dr. “International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation: Role, Achievements, and Impacts, 1984-88.” http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull311/31105783538.pdf
[12] Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. http://www.who.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/en/
[13] Beers, Allison. “Billy Re-elected Chairman of Codex.” Food Chemical News. July 9, 2001. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-76444795/billy-re-elected-chairman.html   Accessed May 13, 2010.
[14]  “Fact Sheet: History, Background, and Status of Labeling of Irradiated Foods” 8/25/2008.    http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/labelingstatus.cfm  Accessed May 24, 2010.
[15]  Ibid.

See Also,

“Pus, Sores, Tumors, & Filth: USDA’s Deregulation of the Meat Industry Draws Public Criticism,” The Agribusiness Examiner. Issue # 82, July 27, 2000. http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/chixpus.cfm  Cited from Organicconsumers.org website. Accessed May 24, 2010.


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 also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom   





BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

5 comments:

Toni Reita said...

In 2008, 180 countries declared that their citizens have a fundamental right to food. Only one country voted against this rudimentary right. Can you guess which country that was?

How can the proclaimed land of the free and home of the brave justify such a mean spirited decision? And is it in the best interests of their citizens or in the best interests of someone else?

Instead the United States made it's intentions perfectly clear and voted against the right to food for it's citizens. There is no right to food in the USA, nor is there any right to food legislation pending. Pretty simple isn't it?

I'm wondering if the USA's refusal to participate in The Universal Declarion of Human Rights provoked the growing grassroots right to food movement and the real food revolution? Is the war on food just beginning to heat up?

Real people need real food, let politicians eat GMO & irradiated.

Toni
http://www.natural-health-home-remedies.com/food-wars.html

Dave said...

When Jewish controlled governments around the world implement the irradiation of foodstuffs, the gentile populations under their control should consider the following, that 80% of children fed irradiated food develop a pre-cancerous chromosomal disorder known as polyploidy: http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com/Irradiating.html
Why would a benevolent government do this to its subjects? Wake up, you are being disabled and killed by Jews.

modrall said...

Now the ancient prophetic meaning of Proverbs 23:1 has become crystal clear: "When you sit down to eat at the ruler's table (i.e.government controlled food supply), consider carefully what is before you; And put a knife to your throat if you are one given to appetite. Do not desire his delicacies, for they are DECEPTIVE food."

BTW: Mon-santo means "My Satan" in Spanish.

nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney said...

Fukushima Internal Emitters

An ill wind comes arising
Across the cities of the plain
There's no swimming in the heavy water
No singing in the acid rain

Absalom Absalom Absalom

Anonymous said...

modrall: Monsanto does not mean "My Satan" in Spanish, especially since santo means SAINT!

Post a Comment