Codex Alimentarius – 1:29:27 – Jun 22, 2008 – Ian Crane

Having spent the past twelve months investigating Codex Alimentarius, I am deeply disturbed by the almost total lack of awareness (or even interest) with regard to the implications of this pernicious global Commission, particularly amongst those most affected by the excesses of this restrictive legislation. In the words of the National Health Federation[i], the aims and objectives of Codex Alimentarius are as follows: * Only low-potency, “me too” supplements available that will do nothing for your health. * All or most foods genetically-modified. * Beneficial supplements unavailable or sold by prescription only. For many people, this agenda is so outrageous, they cannot believe such goals are achievable; yet this may well be the reality as soon as 31st December 2009, if the Codex Alimentarius Commission continues to disregard input from those who offer a counter perspective to the combined forces of Big Farmer & Big Pharma - Ian Crane

Codex Alimentarius
They made cannabis, an important industrial and food plant, illegal. Now they are on the verge of making ALL plants illegal and /or under corporate control. “Codex Alimentarius” – an oppressive set of law designed to control the world food supply – was cooked up by an ex-Nazi in 1962. We’re on track for it to become the law of the land, here in the US, in 2009.

The controversy over the Codex Alimentarius relates to a perception that it is a mandatory standard for food – including vitamin and mineral supplement – safety. Supporters of the Codex Alimentarius say that it is a voluntary reference standard for food and that there is no obligation on countries to adopt Codex standards as a member of either Codex or any other international trade organization. From the point of view of its opponents, however, one of the main causes of concern is that the Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference standard for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.^[2][4]. Proponents argue that the use of Codex Alimentarius during international disputes does not exclude the use of other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection. Nevertheless, although countries are not excluded from using other references or scientific studies as evidence of food safety and consumer protection, opponents claim that developing countries in particular are unlikely to have alternative references.

Much of the controversy relates to the way in which the Codex Alimentarius treats vitamin and mineral food supplements. Some countries categorize vitamin and mineral supplements as a food. Others, however, categorize them as drugs. Meanwhile, some countries, such as Canada, have created separate non-drug categories for these products. Opponents of the Codex Alimentarius Commission claim that it is unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies, and that its guidelines for vitamin and mineral food supplements are unnecessarily restrictive.

It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs.^[5] The proposal was agreed, but protests halted its implementation.^[5] The 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission was subsequently held July 4 – July 9, 2005.^[6] Among the many issues discussed were the “Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements”, which were adopted during the meeting as new global safety guidelines. This text has been the subject of considerable controversy, in part because many member countries may choose to regulate dietary supplements as therapeutic goods or pharmaceuticals or by some other category. The text does not seek to ban supplements, but subjects them to labeling and packaging requirements, sets criteria for the setting of maximum and minimum dosage levels, and requires that safety and efficacy are considered when determining ingredient sources. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that the guidelines are “to stop consumers overdosing on vitamin and mineral food supplements.” The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the guidelines call “for labelling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements.” The WHO has also said that the Guidelines “ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals.” ^[9]

Similarities have been noted between the EU’s Food Supplements Directive and the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Supplements.^[10]

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has said that the Central American Free Trade Agreement “increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public.” ^{[11] – via wikipedia}

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/