Has Codex Alimentarius been adopted? [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : Has Codex Alimentarius been adopted?

lumukanda

09-02-2010, 04:31 PM

i haven't posted for a while but i'd like to ask if anyone can tell me whether or not Codex Alimentarius was adopted worldwide on the 31st of December last year?
(or perhaps direct me to a thread on the subject).

lumukanda

09-02-2010, 04:52 PM

rowantk

09-02-2010, 04:53 PM

lumukanda

09-02-2010, 04:55 PM

Ive been wondering this myself. It appears to maybe begun taking small, quiet steps? Ive noticed it mentioned on food packaging and my supplier of colloidal silver now has to sell it under the title of 'water sanitiser'. Due to the WHO making it illegal to sell it as a health suppliment.

i noticed that rooibos tea that i bought the weekend has no nutritional value at all, everything is 0%.
wondered if that had anything to do with codex?

Siva

09-02-2010, 05:25 PM

No it has not. The amount of BS surrounding Codex A is astounding and is mostly propagated by people who make money out of health products or people who just believe everything they read and then repeat it.

Codex Alimentarius is not law. It's a set of guidelines being formed based on EU directives.

The Codex Guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements which was ratified 5 years ago still has another 3 or 4 years work before it's finalised and the early stages of implementation roll out. That's if it ever happens which it still might not, at least in it's current form.

The December 31st 2009 date that people like to band about was one of the implementation date stages for the European Food Supplements Directive which is not Codex A. These directives take years and years to get any teeth.

Codex A is basically a vehicle to eventually bring current, forming and future EU food directives to every country in the world but it's a good few years of yet.

If you want to know what Codex A is really going to do then keep an eye on the up and coming EU directives as they are the prototypes for global implementation.

Those of us in the UK and EU may be aware that you cannot buy US or Canadian beef in our countries. I used to live over there and trust me that it is a very good thing our supermarkets are not allowed to sell this so called meat.

Also Codex A will have no jurisdiction over personal choice. They are trade recommendations that governments can choose to adopt or not under advisement.

lumukanda

09-02-2010, 05:32 PM

No it has not. The amount of BS surrounding Codex A is astounding and is mostly propagated by people who make money out of health products or people who just believe everything they read and then repeat it.

Codex Alimentarius is not law. It's a set of guidelines being formed based on EU directives.

The Codex Guideline on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements which was ratified 5 years ago still has another 3 or 4 years work before it's finalised and the early stages of implementation roll out. That's if it ever happens which it still might not, at least in it's current form.

The December 31st 2009 date that people like to band about was one of the implementation date stages for the European Food Supplements Directive which is not Codex A. These directives take years and years to get any teeth.

Codex A is basically a vehicle to eventually bring current, forming and future EU food directives to every country in the world but it's a good few years of yet.

If you want to know what Codex A is really going to do then keep an eye on the up and coming EU directives as they are the prototypes for global implementation.

Those of us in the UK and EU may be aware that you cannot buy US or Canadian beef in our countries. I used to live over there and trust me that it is a very good thing our supermarkets are not allowing this so called meat on our shelves.

Also Codex A will have no jurisdiction over personal choice. They are trade recommendations that governments can choose to adopt or not under advisement.

interesting, what about claims that those who do not comply will be hit with sanctions courtesy of the WTO?
i'm just asking because i know very little about the subject.
is codex, in your opinion, a good thing? (i mean of course in it's purest forms it would be, but is it in it's pure form?)

Siva

09-02-2010, 06:13 PM

interesting, what about claims that those who do not comply will be hit with sanctions courtesy of the WTO?

The WTO intervened in the UK/EU ban on US & Canada beef. This still hasn't been resolved fully yet which is why we pay them $120m annually in sanction payments. This an example of a good thing. Other ones would be stricter controls on rip-off organic scam products and it already helps keep UK/EU mostly GMO free compared to the US who aggressively try to force GMO food produce on us. This is likely to change soon however.

Codex A is an advisement committee. Some governments implement more of it than others. The US is one of the countries most against it because it costs them a lot of lost revenue.

is codex, in your opinion, a good thing?

It is most definitely a double edged sword. However IMO it will not end up in a good place. Power corrupts and all that.

I don't think we have to worry about Vitamin C and Grapefruit Seed Extracts disappearing from sale any time soon or anything.

lumukanda

10-02-2010, 06:08 AM

The WTO intervened in the UK/EU ban on US & Canada beef. This still hasn't been resolved fully yet which is why we pay them $120m annually in sanction payments. This an example of a good thing. Other ones would be stricter controls on rip-off organic scam products and it already helps keep UK/EU mostly GMO free compared to the US who aggressively try to force GMO food produce on us. This is likely to change soon however.

Codex A is an advisement committee. Some governments implement more of it than others. The US is one of the countries most against it because it costs them a lot of lost revenue.

It is most definitely a double edged sword. However IMO it will not end up in a good place. Power corrupts and all that.

I don't think we have to worry about Vitamin C and Grapefruit Seed Extracts disappearing from sale any time soon or anything.

refer to the bold above, do you think it will change in that america will be forced to stop using GM foods, or the EU will be forced to use them.
this is something of interest to me because in south africa our food industry is absolutely saturated with the likes of Bayer and Monsanto, my gf's father is a farmer involved in viticulture and i've seen the products on his and neighbouring farms and i work for an international courier company and some of these big companies are clients and i can say for a fact that we deliver their poisons to just about every little town in the country.

now south africa's government apparently opposes some of the wording related to how food is described in it's relation to disease (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/06/12/south_africa_opposes_codex_rule_on_food_health_inf ormation.htm) but not a word about all the GM foods flooding south africa.
but if what south africa is saying is true, why do things like that end up in an apparently benign set of guidelines?
that's the part that i don't get, some of the recommendations are just bizarre, and tbh, pretty much something i'd expect from the NWO.
i suppose the only way is to read as much as possible for myself.

zeroman52

10-02-2010, 03:38 PM

You can find codex written in the ingridents list in brackets on pringles and lucazade.

lumukanda

11-02-2010, 04:29 PM

i decided to contact the Dept of Health re. Codex and got a response today :

my original email :

Good Morning,

I am writing you this morning in the hopes that you can help me with

regard to information pertaining to Codex Alimentarius.

According to the Department of Health's website, Codex Alimentarius
'elaborates global food standards with the objective of protecting
human health and facilitating international trade.'
According to the same website, South Africa is a member of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission.

It is also on record that South Africa had some concerns about the
wording of certain parts of Codex.

Codex Alimentarius was meant to have been adopted worldwide on the
31st of December 2009.

I would like to know if South Africa adopted Codex Alimentarius on the
31st of December last year, and if so, did South Africa have any
stipulations reagrding the implementation thereof?

If you are unable to help in this regard, may i ask that you furnish
me with the email address of someone who could help me with any
information regarding South Africa's stance on Codex Alimentarius.

Kind Regards,

xxxxx

and the response from the Deputy Director: Inter-agency Liaison and Regulatory Nutrition :

Dear Mr. xxxxxx
1. The Directorate: Food Control of the Department of Health, received your correspondence dated 9 February 2010, in which you requested information on South Africa's stance regarding Codex Alimentarius.

2. In your email you raised certain questions, to which it is clear to me that there is some mis-communication or misunderstanding about Codex Alimentarius Commission, hereafter referred to as Codex. I guess it is proper that we clear the matter, before address any other issue.

Codex is an International food standards setting body established jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) in 1962, with the objective of protecting human health and facilitating trade. Codex currently has 183 members (182 member countries and one member organisation) and meets annually, alternating between Rome and Geneva. It has different structures of which the Commission is the highest structure. There is also the Codex Secretariat based at the FOA head office in Rome, responsible for the day to day activities of Codex.

One of the requirements for membership of Codex, is that Members States should designate the National Codex Contact Point (NCCP) to be the link with the Codex Secretariat. The Department of Health, through the Directorate: Food Control is the NCCP and has officials appointed to manage all activities related to Codex in South Africa. It is recommended that you open the following link for more information http://www.codexalimentarius.net/ and go to About Codex (Understanding Codex).
3. In 1994 when South Africa became a member, the status of Codex standards and related texts was drastically changed when they became recognized as the global benchmark by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreements on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). As such it is also important to note that the standards, guidelines and codes of practice that are developed through the Codex system are based scientific evidence supported by a structured approach in the principles of risk analysis. The principles are used for Food Safety for Application by Governments and are intended to provide guidance to national governments for risk assessment, risk management and risk communication with regard to food related risks to human health.

ISSUES YOU RAISED:
4. You mentioned that "It is also on record that South Africa had some concerns about the wording of certain parts of Codex".

I am not aware of the concerns and would rather request if your furnish the Department with the mentioned concerns and the source of such information. South Africa participates in about 15 Committees of Codex and our participation is to ensure that we address issues of interest to us a country(including concerns if any) . As such, throughout or involvement no government is compelled to use Codex standards in the development of national legislation or standards.

5. "Codex Alimentarius was meant to have been adopted worldwide on the 31st of December 2009. I would like to know if South Africa adopted Codex Alimentarius on the 31st of December last year, and if so, did South Africa have any stipulations regarding the implementation thereof?"

It is not clear, where you got the information. However as explained above. Codex was established in 1962, with the objective of protecting human health and facilitating trade. Codex currently has 183 members (182 member countries and one member organisation). The members are involved is the development of Standards, Guidelines, Code of Practice which are adopted for facilitate trade on Food internationally. Membership is from both developed and developing countries.

Again as mentioned in "3" above Codex is recognized by the WTO as one of the International Standard Setting Bodies, in addition to the OIE and IPPC.

6. "Information regarding South Africa's stance on Codex Alimentarius."

South Africa became a member of Codex in 1994 and we participated in the Committees that are of relevance to us,. This has also enabled us to be in line with trade issues and international level.

I hope this will form the basis of our discussion in the near future.

Regards

Malose Daniel Matlala
Deputy Director: Inter-agency Liaison and Regulatory Nutrition
(National Codex Contact Point: South Africa)
Department of Health
Directorate: Food Control
Private Bag X828
Pretoria 0001
SOUTH AFRICA

Tel: +27-12 312 0158
Fax: +27-12 312 3180
Fax2email: 086 548 8149
Email: CACPSA@health.gov.za
Web: http://www.doh.gov.za/department/dir_foodcontr.html

now he's not saying much, but what he is saying is a lot like what Siva said in a previous post in this thread.
btw, the issue south africa had was in the wording of a certain part is this :

1. In the case of CCNFSDU 2003: The use of the wording "prevention of chronic diseases" in the preamble to the document Proposed Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral supplements", based on an outdated clause in the Codex general Guidelines on Claims (CAC/GL 1-1979 (Rev. 1-1991) which prohibits claims as to the suitability of a food for use in the prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of a disease;
http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2004/06/12/south_africa_opposes_codex_rule_on_food_health_inf ormation.htm

what do you guys think?
anything specific i should be asking him about?
any help would be appreciated.

gaias child

11-02-2010, 05:14 PM

motleyhoo

12-02-2010, 06:51 AM

They cannot ratify it all in one swoop because of public backlash. Instead, they're trying to cleverly ratify it piece by piece so no one will notice what is happening. This way they can give each piece a cleverly deceptive name that misrepresents what's really inside it. The sheeple fall for that tactic every time.

.

lextorite

12-02-2010, 08:48 AM

Stop selling unlicensed natural health remedies: pharmacy regulators

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2534645

Tom Blackwell, National Post Published: Sunday, February 07, 2010

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.nationalpost.com/news/2534649.bin?size=404x272

Makers of natural-health products say they are bracing for widespread layoffs and millions of dollars in losses after Canada's pharmacy regulators issued a surprise directive recently urging druggists to stop selling unlicensed natural remedies.

The order affects thousands of herbal treatments, multi-vitamins and other products, most of them waiting for approval from Health Canada under a backlogged, five-year-old program to regulate natural-health goods.

The National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities (NAPRA) says pharmacists cannot be assured the products are safe until they are granted a government licence, and should not sell them in those circumstances. "Pharmacists are obliged to hold the health and safety of the public or patient as their first and foremost consideration," said the association's recently issued position statement.

Representatives of the natural health industry, however, have reacted angrily to the directive issued last month, predicting it will have little impact on patient safety, while triggering an economic "crisis" for their members.

"We are talking about job loss, we are talking about a lot of income loss, we are talking about product stuck in warehouses that cannot be sold," Jean-Yves Dionne, a spokesman for the Canadian Health Food Association, said in an interview.

A statement issued by the association calls the directive self-serving and contrary to federal government policy.

"It has taken a sledge hammer to a finishing nail," the group said. "It will create confusion for consumers. It is the wrong thing to do."

NAPRA is comprised of representatives of the provincial colleges of pharmacy that regulate the profession. It is now up to the individual provinces to implement the statement. The Ontario and Quebec colleges have already done so, with Ontario pressing pharmacists to not buy or order any more of the affected products, and its neighbour pushing for druggists to also remove unlicensed product already on their shelves, Mr. Dionne said.

Pharmacies, as surprised by the directive as anyone, are caught in the middle, said Jeff Poston of the Canadian Pharmacists Association.

"One of the questions that everybody is asking in the pharmacy world is, ‘Why now?' As far as people can determine, nothing has significantly changed."

A spokesman for NAPRA was not available for comment.

The controversy revolves around Health Canada's natural-health products regime, launched in 2004 to vet treatments that had been virtually unregulated before, in a new system some critics said was still too lax. As it ploughed through tens of thousands of applications for licences, the department said manufacturers could continue selling their products, so long as they had at least applied for approval.

The department has issued about 18,000 natural-health licences, while at least 10,000 products are still waiting for certification, industry representatives said. The whole process was supposed to be done by this January.

The natural-food association argues that it makes no sense for the pharmacy regulators to try to block sales of products awaiting licences, when Health Canada itself has said they can be sold pending an approval decision.

The industry is worth an estimated $1.5-billion to $2-billion a year, but many producers are small operations with sales of $1-million to $2-million annually and could be decimated by the directive, Mr. Dionne said. He cited a call he got last week from a manufacturer in Nova Scotia who sells two products -- a homeopathic remedy for diabetes-related pain and a vitamin-based pill -- that are waiting for approval and could be forced off the shelves.

"They are really panicking out there," he said.

Some manufacturers could sell their products in health-food stores instead, but others rely exclusively on pharmacies, said Mr. Dionne.

Gerry Harrington of Consumer Health Products Canada, another industry group that represents natural-health producers, said his members strongly support the regulations. NAPRA may be targeting others, though, who are trying to evade any government oversight, he said.

"There is a sub-set of companies out there who have no intention of complying with the regulations, who have taken advantage of the interim approach to essentially ignore the regulations," Mr. Harrington said. "Some companies have chosen ... to lobby politically for an essentially unregulated or minimally regulated industry."

Meanwhile, Mr. Poston said pharmacists are pressing for the regulators to lessen the disruption by phasing in the policy.

National Post

boston c danmark

12-03-2010, 07:08 AM

I get the impression Malose is willing to chat, but it needs to come from queries relating to www.codexalimentarius.net. Even though Malose suggests any other queries can be found in other relevant places, they aren’t quite passing the buck. If we could use their data to show how, specifically the DoH can approach the “Codex Secretariat based at the FOA head office in Rome” in a way that refers to ‘principles of risk analysis’, there may be a reason to reply. In hindsight, suggestion is offered in where to look, “Codex standards and related texts was drastically changed”. Perhaps it is worth asking to what degree these parts of Codex text were ‘drastically’ changed. My point being to suggest, they couldn't actually turn around and say, ‘yer, this looks like a bunch of crooks taking over’: But it is better than a lot of responses that could have been. It was interesting how they state “we participated in Committees that are of relevance to us,. This has also enabled us to be in line with trade issues and international level.” As a last line there may be a point or reason of their reply.

Either way, the DoH is really the NCCP point of contact, and this is who they would be asking any questions; as if it may ever move up the chain for a ‘real answer’. This is why Greg Palast is quite good, for he can walk the walk with the lingo that tackles the major players; it gets him noticed. In a Palast sort of way, I’m no Palast, so I’m stumped, but may be looking into the NCCP as a root for the directions that SA is taking: In regard to trade issues, may be taxes ‘to be’ levied, (on an international level) where risk analysis is concerned. But it needs to come in their terminology and from their reference pages, because then they can put ‘their’ Query further to the NCCP.

any good?