Showing posts with label Codex Alimentarius. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Codex Alimentarius. Show all posts

Friday, January 31, 2014

Magnesium Miracle, Medical Mafia, and Codex Alimentarius: Dr. Carolyn Dean

Bob Tuskin

Dr. Carolyn Dean joins the Bob Tuskin Show to talk about health.

Carolyn Dean is not only a medical doctor, but also a naturopath, herbalist, acupuncturist, nutritionist, lecturer, consultant and author or co-author of over 30 books. Carolyn has been in the forefront of health issues for over 30 years. We'll mainly focus on her book The Magnesium Miracle. Magnesium is the unsung hero and is a key nutriceutical that everybody needs to know about. Carolyn explains how magnesium functions in the body and talks about the myriad of health ailments associated with being deficient in this vital mineral. Magnesium even has the power to unbind fluoride from cells and can aid the body to detox heavy metals. She'll also explain the delicate relationship between magnesium, vitamin D and calcium.



Saturday, December 21, 2013

Multivitamin Hitpieces - A Natural Health False Flag?

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

Like a script from a movie you already know the ending to; each year we can expect a hoax study or attack on anything that is not FDA approved. It is with great hope that the average person will have enough sense to see through the latest propaganda (unlike an elderly woman I talked to last year who stopped getting natural help because the reports last year made it sound like vitamins = poison).

Chances are, you've recently been barraged by not-so-subtle headlines attacking multivitamins. The mainstream articles were very loosely and poorly based on three simultaneous and ridiculously flawed studies. If anyone bothers to read the studies, they might find that they are simply a vehicle for an attack - an attack so gratuitous and heavy handed to make one wonder about their MO.

But the real attack on multivitamins stems from a mere editorial cited by a media regurgitating the words "case closed," "we don't need multivitamins," "evidence mounting [against multivitamins]," "enough is enough" and projections like the "vitamin industrial complex." Oh, so the gavel has been slammed...God forbid someone have their own preference about a consumer product.

But who is actually saying this and by whom are they funded?

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Divide and Conquer: The Latest Strategy at Codex

Scott C. Tips
Activist Post

Sunset pinked the German sky as the Codex delegates sat at their conference-room tables, a long first day already behind them, still debating health standards that will affect billions worldwide. Naturally a day filled with such debates – especially over technical language for draft guidelines for vitamin-and-mineral Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) as well as draft Principles about adding essential nutrients to foods – would trick the delegates' sense of time as they crawled through reams of documents, making a long day seem even longer. At such times, natural health is a frequent casualty because overall vision is sacrificed on the altar of hyper-technicality. But not this time. Instead, this first day of the 35th session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) saw health granted a reprieve, however provisional, as the executioners stayed their hands for reasons unknown.

With 263 delegates in attendance – composed of government functionaries and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) representatives —any public observer would be considered a fool by conventional wisdom to think that such assembled intelligence and focused attention could fail to generate solid, scientifically based food standards and guidelines. Yet all too often that is exactly what happens.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Codex Alimentarius Permits a Wide Range of Dangerous Chemicals in Food

image source
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my past few articles, I have discussed the documented adverse health effects related to pesticide use,[1] the difference between general pesticides and POPs[2] (Persistent Organic Pollutants), and the requirements that must be met [3]in order for the designation of POP to be applied to a specific pesticide.

With all of this in mind, one may be surprised that Codex Alimentarius actually allows for the presence of such dangerous chemicals in food. Before explaining this position, however, it is important to note some of the background regarding POPs, the Stockholm Convention, and, finally, the Codex Alimentarius POP guidelines themselves.

In 2001, The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was adopted with the stated goals of eliminating or reducing the production and use of POPs. The Stockholm Convention entered into force in 2004 and is overseen by the United Nations Environment Program. The Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention (COP) manages the POPs Convention with each of the members of the Stockholm Convention being the members of the COP. The function of the members of the Convention is to implement the obligations of the treaty at the national level.

Although 50 countries have ratified the treaty, the U.S. is not one of them. However, the U.S. has largely begun to implement the treaty on the national level. This has been accomplished through a series of national laws and other international agreements.

Monday, June 24, 2013

The Global Threat of Persistent Organic Pollutants

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my past two articles I have discussed the connection between pesticides, both general and POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants), to a myriad of adverse health effects such as cancer and neurological disorders, particularly Parkinson’s Disease. For these reasons alone, it is important to look at the standards currently set for such chemicals by the international standard-setting organization known as Codex Alimentarius.

As I mentioned in the first article in this series, I will distinguish between two different types of pesticides for the sole purpose of the topic of discussing Codex Alimentarius guidelines – general pesticides and POPs. General pesticides should be recognized as, quite simply, those pesticides not considered a Persistent Organic Pollutant by the Stockholm Convention. General pesticides are those which are most widely used since the Stockholm Convention actually banned the use of POPs altogether. Nevertheless, it is important to make the distinction for the purpose of clearly understanding Codex guidelines in this regard.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Multiple Scientific Studies Link Pesticides to Cancer

image source
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my article, “Pesticide Content In Food Less Regulated By Codex Than Vitamins and Minerals,” I briefly discussed the connection between commonly used pesticides and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s Disease. In addition, I mentioned the rather contradictory position held regarding the use of such pesticides, which banned their commercial use in some aspects, but continues to tacitly allow their use in food production.

However, neurological diseases are not the only negative side effects presented by Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) or general pesticides. Indeed, pesticides have been linked to cancer as well.

For instance, a study published in Blood, the journal of the American Society of Hematology, found that exposure to certain pesticides doubled an individual’s risk of developing Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) compared to individuals in the general population.[1] MGUS is a “pre-cancerous condition that can lead to multiple layer myeloma which is a painful cancer of the plasma cells the bone marrow.”[2] When one is diagnosed with MGUS, the patient requires life-long monitoring because MGUS is a condition that virtually every multiple layer myeloma patient experiences prior to developing the myeloma.[3]

Monday, May 20, 2013

Pesticide Content in Food Less Regulated by Codex Than Vitamins and Minerals

image source
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In the past, I have written numerous articles dealing with Codex Alimentarius and its guidelines regarding vitamin and mineral food supplements, food irradiation, and genetically modified (GM) food. I have also written about the unfolding agenda to implement Codex standards on a global scale to the detriment of all those who value clean, healthy food and the ability to make their own choices regarding what they do or do not eat.

In keeping with the theme of these previous reports, it is important to note the official Codex position on pesticide content in food and, specifically, the content of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

Indeed, for those who are familiar with the aforementioned Codex standards, it may not come as a surprise that dangerous pesticides and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) largely escape the application of rigorous standards that vitamins and minerals receive.

While it may be common knowledge to many, there are just as many who are unaware of the extent to which pesticide residues exist in the average unit of food. The fact is that virtually any and all pesticides used in food production eventually end up in the food itself, even in the animals that consume that food as feed. Logically, these pesticides end up in the systems of those that consume these plants and animals.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Who Needs Healthy Food When We Can Eat Cash? Codex Update

Scott Tips, JD
Activist Post

The hazy, smoggy skies over Beijing during these March days are emblematic of the Codex meetings that the National Health Federation (NHF) has been attending for many days here in China. The Sun only shimmers as a strange, pale orange globe, casting an ethereal, almost futuristic Bladerunner look to the cityscape while city residents glide silently past with white face masks and we Codex delegates and staff work inside overheated rooms on international food-additive standards. Given what has transpired, the setting seems appropriate.

Throughout the week of March 18-22, 2013, the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) met at the Asia Hotel in Beijing, China, chaired by Dr. Junshi Chen of the China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, to consider hundreds of food additives, some of which are innocuous, even healthful, others of which are most decidedly toxic. The problem is that many of the Codex delegates cannot discern the difference between the two, the haziness of their thinking working in some sort of bizarre parallel to the opaque weather outdoors.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

After 20 Years, Codex Alimentarius Draft Statement Still No Closer To Allowing GM Food Labeling

image source
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Over the past few years, I have written extensively on the subject of Codex Alimentarius, particularly on the organization’s guidelines related to Genetically Modified (GM) food. Although I have largely focused on the inferior methodology used by Codex to evaluate the safety of GMOs, much of the safety discussion has been delegated to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL), which, up until this point, has tended to focus more on promoting the unscientific claims of GM safety and the proliferation of GM Food as a whole than on actual labeling.

Indeed, the debate over GM food labeling is one that has been raging since 1993, when the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) decided to take up the issue. Only in 2011 did Codex come to some sort of decision in this regard, even though that decision has taken the form of a very vague and open-ended declaration which is still only in its draft stage.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 9

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom 
Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article entitled, “Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines Pt.8”, I detailed the Codex Alimentarius position regarding Genetically Modified (GM) Micro-Organisms. Similarly, in several of the articles I have written recently, I have also discussed the Codex position on GM plants and other GM organisms.

Yet, no analysis of the Codex Alimentarius positions on GM food and/or organisms would be complete without a discussion of the Codex position on GM animals.

Indeed, the “Guideline For The Conduct Of Food Safety Assessment Of Foods Derived From Recombinant-DNA Animals,” a subsection of the Codex document “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” is as interesting for the concerns that it does not address as for the ones that it does. Largely a copied and pasted version of the two sections before it, (“Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-dna plants” and “Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment Of foods produced using recombinant-dna micro-organisms”) the GM animal Guidelines does not address some very key issues such as:

1.) Animal welfare
2.) Ethical, moral and socio-economic aspects
3.) Environmental risks related to the environmental release of recombinant-DNA animals used in food production
4.) The safety of recombinant-DNA animals used as feed, or the safety of animals fed with feed derived from recombinant-DNA animals, plants and micro-organisms.[1]

Friday, February 22, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 8

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom 

Available Here
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In the course of the recent article series I have written regarding Codex Alimentarius and its position on Genetically Modified (GM) food, I have criticized both the “risk assessment” method of GM food evaluation as well as the official position of Codex Alimentarius in regards to the “substantial equivalence” standards. I have also written about the very real possibility of the introduction of new allergens and antibiotic resistant bacteria into the general food supply.

However, up to this point, all of the problems with the Codex Guidelines mentioned have been in relation to the section of the Codex GM position document known as “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” which focuses on GM plants.

There are, accordingly, two more sections - one dealing with GM Micro-Organisms and the other dealing with GM animals.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 7

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom 

Available Here
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In several of my recent articles, I have discussed the problems of using “risk assessment” methodology in the evaluation of both vitamin and mineral supplements and Genetically Modified (GM) food. I have also discussed at length the dangers of the Codex Alimentarius and U.S. Food and Drug Administration position on GM food which is known as “substantial equivalence” and, in its more extreme forms, “substantial similarity.”

However, another concern addressed by the Codex Guidelines has to deal with antibiotic resistance created through the process of genetic engineering. Yet, as is typical of any Codex Alimentarius presentation, the agency makes several misleading and unsettling statements in this regard as well. While Codex does state that methods should be used that do not result in antibiotic resistance, it qualifies that claim in its document “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” by stating that these methods should be used “where such technologies are available and demonstrated to be safe.”[1] This is certainly no mandate. It is merely a suggestion that will most likely be completely ignored by industry.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 6

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom 
Available Here

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Over the last few weeks, I have written a number of articles dealing with the dangers of the methods of analyzing the risks of Genetically Modified (GM) food used by both Codex Alimentarius and the FDA known as “substantial equivalence/substantial similarity” and the “risk assessment methodology used in the evaluation process. In conjunction with the Codex document “Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” the Codex position on the evaluation and labeling of GM food, I described the hypocrisy of Codex’s position towards vitamin and mineral supplements and its position in regards to GM food which is, interestingly enough, one hundred and eighty degrees different.

However, there are even more dangers to using the “substantial equivalence/substantial similarity” model in conjunction with the “risk assessment” evaluation methodology in terms of GM food.
Indeed, there exists a very real possibility that the Codex position on GM food as well as vitamin and mineral supplements will be used to develop a food system in which GM food is the only acceptable form of food allowed in the supply, while any other food may be removed from the market. In addition, it is entirely possible that once the standards are set by Codex and agreed upon by nations participating in the WTO, that foods containing high levels (or reasonable levels) of nutrition could be removed from the market simply on the basis of their high nutritional content.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 5

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom 

Available Here
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article, “Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines Pt.4,” I discussed a tangible, real-world example of the results of using “substantial equivalence” or “substantial similarity” when assessing the dangers of Genetically Modified (GM) food and/or approving that food for the market.

Returning to the defining Codex document in relation to GM food, “Food Derived From Modern Biotechnology,” it should be noted that the risks associated with GMOs are dealt with in a rather curious manner. Indeed, the monitoring and management of risks from GM food after their approval is mentioned rather blandly in the introductory section of the Guidelines. It says,
Post market-monitoring may be undertaken for the purpose of: 
A.) Verifying conclusions about the absence or the possible occurrence, impact and significance of potential consumer health effects; and 
B.) Monitoring changes in nutrient intake levels, associated with the introduction of foods likely to alter nutritional status significantly, to determine their human health impact. [1]
It should be noted that these are issues which should be resolved in a scientific setting prior to market. Yet Codex is obviously content to allow the public to act as lab rats in the real world rather than force these side effects to be addressed in an actual lab. Absolute disregard for the global population is evident here. 

Monday, February 11, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 4

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom 

Available Here
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article regarding Codex Alimentarius Guidelines on Genetically Modified food, I discussed the dangerous concept used by both the international organization and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) known as substantial equivalence/substantial similarity and how this method of comparison and evaluation can and is being used to further the proliferation of GM food in the world’s food supply.

In discussing the method used to evaluate the safety of GM food, I wrote,
If Codex is willing to accept the safety assessments of regulatory agencies without independent testing of its own and regulatory agencies are willing to accept the safety assessments of corporations without independent testing of their own, then Codex is willing to accept the safety assessments of corporations without independent safety testing of their own. Indeed, this syllogism adequately reflects the reality of the relationship between Codex, corporations, and the future of GM foods.
Furthermore, in regards to the “substantial equivalence” methodology mentioned above, I concluded the article by stating,
Allowing GM products to be compared to other GM products for substantial equivalence is an enormous blow to the environment, human health, and consumer choice. Such an action would completely undercut the already weak and ridiculous method of substantial equivalence and would turn the entire nature of our food supply upside down. One would be comparing a dangerous product to another dangerous product but labeling it safe because it was substantially equivalent to the first dangerous product.
Like the situation involving vitamins and minerals, this is the Twilight Zone reality produced by Codex once it gains power of the food supply.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 3

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Available Here
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article, “Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines Pt. 2,” I wrote extensively about the position assumed by the FDA in regards to genetically modified food and the methodology used to assess its safety before it is released into the general food supply. Needless to say, the FDA, which is notorious for its corruption and revolving door with Big Agricultural Corporations like Monsanto, takes an unbelievably hands-off approach to the regulation of GM food.

Yet, unfortunately, the approach taken by the FDA toward GM Food is only unbelievable if one expects the agency to apply science, logic, and reason to their decision-making process.

However, when one begins evaluating the FDA position on GM food in the context of the position held by Codex Alimentarius, one can easily see an agenda taking shape whose ultimate goal is the total proliferation of GM food the world over.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 2

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Available Here
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

In my last article, I discussed the Codex Alimentarius position on the proliferation of Genetically Modified food in the world’s food supply – particularly the concept of substantial equivalence which uses circular and faulty logic in order to allow greater saturation of the food supply with genetically modified food.

“Substantial equivalence,” is an approach that seeks to approve the use and consumption of GM food based upon the idea that it is “substantially equivalent” to its traditional counterpart, thus, GM proponents claim, it is safe to consume and requires no extra labeling. This approach to GM food is easily dismantled and I encourage the reader to access my article on the subject in order to understand the weaknesses and dangers of using the substantial equivalence model for GM food in any context.

The concept of substantial equivalence is unfortunately the theory of labeling requirements adopted by Codex. It is also very similar to the criteria used in the United States and Canada. As to be expected in such pro-GM countries as the United States, the GM labeling requirements are even less restrictive than those of Codex.

For the most part, labeling of GM foods in the United States and Canada is completely voluntary. This voluntary labeling scheme based on the concept of substantial equivalence is both a prime example of the weakness of both standards, as well as a dark omen as to the direction of Codex guidelines as they continue to be developed.[1]

Monday, February 4, 2013

Codex Alimentarius and GM Food Guidelines, Pt. 1

Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

Available Here
Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Over the last two years, I have written extensively about the Codex Alimentarius guidelines and how they relate specifically to vitamin and mineral supplements, food irradiation, and the use of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

I have also detailed the history and workings of the international organization as well as many of the current day to day manifestations of Codex guidelines as they appear in domestic policy.

However, there is yet another area in which Codex guidelines will play a major role in the development of food policy – namely, the proliferation of Genetically Modified Food.

The Codex committee that serves as the main battleground for the consideration of GM food is the Codex Committee on Food Labeling. This committee is extremely relevant due to the fact that it can effectively reduce the power of the consumer to virtually nothing if it decides not to force companies or countries to label their GM food, thus removing the ability of the consumer to boycott and/or avoid those products. While it is well-known that public sentiment is unimportant to those at the top, governments and corporations tend to pay more attention when votes and sales reflect that sentiment. However, if Codex continues on its’ way to allowing unlabelled GM food onto the international market, the repercussions of consumer reaction will be entirely neutralized.

A brief discussion of the history of Codex in terms of GM food is necessary here to understand the direction that the organization is moving towards in regards to it.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Stealth Codex Alimentarius Regulations Postponed in US ... For Now

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

The recently shelved New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) draft guidelines proposed by the FDA has been the subject of much concern by natural health supplement manufacturers and consumers ever since the announcement was made by the agency in early 2011.
The guidelines, which were published in the Federal Register, would have clarified some definitions of terms, changed requirements for “new” supplement introduction and manufacture, and a host of other more minor, but important, tweaks in previous FDA policy.
However, the most concerning aspect of the proposed changes is that many are actually the stealthy introduction of Codex Alimentarius-compliant regulations being imposed upon the United States health supplement industry. Specifically, these guidelines would not only have made it harder and more expensive for vitamin and mineral supplement manufacturers to introduce “new” supplements into the market, but it would also have resulted in the removal of many supplements from the market as it currently exists.
Most notably, the proposed FDA guidelines mandated the use of Risk Assessment methodology to determine and establish what could be easily described as the Maximum Upper Limit or Maximum Permitted Level of nutrients allowed in vitamin and mineral supplements – a hallmark of the Codex Alimentarius position in relation to these products.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Codex Nutrition Committee Chooses Malnutrition

President NHF, Scott Tips discusses
NRVs with Malaysian and Benin
delegates at CCNFSDU Meeting
Scott C. Tips, Contributor
Activist Post

In a stunning display of nutritional ignorance, three women ram through a Codex standard that leaves many with sub-optimal nutrition

The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) just finished meeting all last week (December 3-7) in Bad Soden, a small German city near Frankfurt am Main. Nearly 300 delegates were in attendance, comprised of government functionaries and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) representatives. So, for one week, the assembled delegates – including the INGO delegation of the National Health Federation (NHF)[1] –met, discussed, and debated a wide number of food and food-supplement issues, including the controversial draft Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for vitamins and minerals.

Remember, the food guidelines and standards adopted by this Committee, and approved by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, are important because they are then used domestically by numerous countries worldwide and by virtually all countries in international food trade.