Health Canada Bull on Codex
Categories..."In the final paragraph Health Canada provides the crucial piece of mis-information, namely that all this "will apply in countries that regulate such products as foods .... will not be applicable in this country." Totally untrue. First, voluntary compliance has already been outvoted at that same November 2004 meeting referred to earlier in their statement. Second, the interlocking treaties ensure compliance regardless. Third, this is a sub-committee of Codex which looks at special foods, only those foods with medicinal properties. That allows them (unless challenged, as they now are in the International Court, last January) to control entire classes of these supplements according to their junk science approach (Grossklaus Report October 2004), which most of you haven't had a chance to read yet. The EU Directive itself, with all of its clearly stated ideas on how to restrict which classes of supplements, is already the authority cited on the Health Canada website section that deal with supplements. The whole thing is rigged - the science and the compliance. In short: no science and no choice. Or, put another way: bogus science and illusory choice. Finally, what is not said is this: if supplements remain foods, Codex would have the power, only through its foods committees, to deal with one supplement at a time and for trade purposes only. That would mean, North American companies could tell Codex to fly a kite, as most trade by far is internal to this continent. It would also mean that any messing around with any supplement would involve real science, a plurality of opinions and so on - not only the handpicked, secret committee appointed by Codex."...
The following dialogue between Croft and Helke is a must read as the misinformation generated by vested interests continually baffles even the most sane amongst us...
Chris Gupta
See also: What's happening in the UK effects YOU - FSD/CODEX
-------------------
Croft, I am getting battle fatigue over this Codex mess and the nonsense that comes out of Ottawa. This, as all the other nonsense from NAFTA to our regulatory system on drugs, is the ultimate spin of half-truths disguised in logical argument that has, in fact, no basis. Have you had a systematic reasoned answer to this by others? Below is one of my previous ones again, in case you want it, which follows the statement made by Health Canada in late February (pasted below - their statement and my answer). I am attaching also the legal analysis that shows how the interlocking treaties, to which Canada is a signatory, lock us into Codex guidelines. The third item is a fabulous article by Cynthia Ramsay which ought to be widely circulated. Cheers, Helke
My response is this time in point form:
1. In paragraph one, the Health Canada advisor states: "CAC [standards] are intended for voluntary use by governments...". This is untrue. Last November according to all reports by those who attended the voluntary status was rejected and Codex voted in complete compliance by all member states. See the attachment I sent you by Lawloft. Canada objected, to its credit, but it was outvoted. Whatever Codex decided on nutrients with medicinal properties is now binding.
2. In paragraph two he provides the fact that the CCNFSDU is a "technical subsidiary body" of Codex in general. My point exactly - is is Codex that treats these supplements as a third category to be specially attended to and regulated. They have, according to the case heard in the International Court no such mandate or jurisdiction; this subsidiary is contrary to the EU Constitution.
3. In paragraph three he makes three points all of which are, charitably judged, doublespeak. As usually is the case with health Canada: the question always haunts one: are they criminal or are they stupid? I don't care which it is they are, you and I are neither and need to attend to the facts and defend ourselves. The three points he makes are:
a. the guidelines are supposed to be "safe, efficacious....etc." There never was any evidence that they were anything else by safe. The supplements being targeted are not Chinese herbs in which sometimes heavy metals or ground-up endangered species' parts were found. The Codex subsidiary committee is going after the standard stuff in every health food store that has no body count. No harmonization is needed, no report has ever been filed (to my knowledge) showing that there are trade barriers, misleading packaging etc. etc. Total smoke screen. Codex is pro-active, not reactive in this case, which they have no mandate to be. It is standard medicine that has established safety levels of vitamins and minerals, and on those standard research reports from the peer-reviewed medical journals, the production of vitamins and minerals are based. This is of vital significance - this fact is the basis for the organized objection to this whole exercise by doctors from around the world, also a little known fact in the health food industry. Remember: everything you produce, sell and develop comes from mainstream medical research!
b. Health Canada asserts that only vitamins and minerals are involved. This is untrue. The EU Directive has two lists, the "positive" and the "negative" list - download the text from the internet and see for yourself. All other supplements and herbal medicines are the ones to be targeted the same way when the first "positive" list has been dealt with.
c. Health Canada refers to "scientific risk assessment based on generally accepted scientific data...". This is so horrendous a deception that it feels like being struck in the face. The report that has already been published which utilizes these "scientific risk assessment" data is written by Codex chairman Dr. Grossklaus and his team. The report is only in German, and Germany has already made its recommendations law in January - even though the report was only publicly available in November (go figure!). I am preparing a detailed summary of this one. This report advises that all vitamins and minerals be roughly reduced to one fourth of the current RDA because the report asserts that we must assume that all people get vitamins and minerals anyway from their foods. The effect of this recommendation is that vitamins and minerals in therapeutic doses can only be provided through doctors, but only until after Codex has decided what those levels are. The RDA is totally inappropriate already, which is why people decide on the basis of their bio-individual needs how much to take. Worst of all, the science upon which this tabacco-science report relies is all incestuous, internal Codex material and outdated reports - nothing contemporary! As I have said before: if this report was a PhD thesis, the faculty would sent Grossklaus and company back to kindergarten to learn how to write a proper review. No university would award a PhD on the basis of this nonsense.
d. The person in charge of this risk assessment is a certain Mrs. Taylor, on loan from the FDA whose claim to infamy is that she passed bovine growth hormone for human and animal consumption after the FDA scientists en masse protested its use because of its carcinogenicity. Her husband was in charge of the team that developed bovine growth hormone at Monsanto. She will not reveal whom she has chosen as her expert panel, and currently petitions are going to the UN's Kofi Anan to force her to reveal who is on her team. However, Christine Taylor is small potatoes - the stage is already set: the "safety" recommendations, from which this formula of dividing of the RDAs by 4 originated, have already been established by none other than Pfizer! Imagine that: Pfizer telling thew whole world what levels of vitamins are safe. This would be hysterically funny if it wasn't deadly serious.
3. In the first paragraph about the "Canadian Position", Health Canada stated that it objected to Codex's ideas - which was due to the enormous protests that came to the government as MP Lunney began to prepare his bill. The arguments provided are right and based on our Constitution.
4. In the final paragraph Health Canada provides the crucial piece of mis-information, namely that all this "will apply in countries that regulate such products as foods .... will not be applicable in this country." Totally untrue. First, voluntary compliance has already been outvoted at that same November 2004 meeting referred to earlier in their statement. Second, the interlocking treaties ensure compliance regardless. Third, this is a sub-committee of Codex which looks at special foods, only those foods with medicinal properties. That allows them (unless challenged, as they now are in the International Court, last January) to control entire classes of these supplements according to their junk science approach (Grossklaus Report October 2004), which most of you haven't had a chance to read yet. The EU Directive itself, with all of its clearly stated ideas on how to restrict which classes of supplements, is already the authority cited on the Health Canada website section that deal with supplements. The whole thing is rigged - the science and the compliance. In short: no science and no choice. Or, put another way: bogus science and illusory choice. Finally, what is not said is this: if supplements remain foods, Codex would have the power, only through its foods committees, to deal with one supplement at a time and for trade purposes only. That would mean, North American companies could tell Codex to fly a kite, as most trade by far is internal to this continent. It would also mean that any messing around with any supplement would involve real science, a plurality of opinions and so on - not only the handpicked, secret committee appointed by Codex.
This plan is to be ratified in July in Rome. If the International Court declares this exercise unconstitutional, this Codex sub-committee will have to go right back to phase one and figure out another way to accomplish their ends. If simultaneously Canada has Bill C 420 in place, this sub-committee's jurisdiction is questionable. Foods, according to the Codex mandate, vary so enormously (as Health Canada pointed out) in availability and quantity as well as differing population requirements, the whole thing becomes uncontrollable, except for export and import considerations.
The "foods vs drugs" paradox is puzzling at first, but not anymore when one considers the various smoke screens involved and the outright deception underlying the entire argument. That deception is the use of bogus science.
Cheers, Helke
posted by Chris Gupta on Thursday March 10 2005
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/03/10/health_canada_bull_on_codex.htm
Related ArticlesMagnesium: Research Misconduct?
Here is another example of how systematically - the pharmaceuticals manipulate safe and cost effective solutions and put us at risk and all the time extolling their self serving concern for the patient. Just one, of far too many, examples of this sort of thing happening time after time. Its sad to see how the researchers get sucked into these! This is an update that includes links and error corrections.... [read more]
October 23, 2005 - Chris GuptaBRUSSELS SPROUTS MORE CONTROLS
Please go to STOP BRUSSELS FROM KILLING NATURAL MEDICINE and take action now. Thanks Chris Gupta ..."the importance of B6, and the other vitamin B compounds. In the same week that the FSA produced its weighty document, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study of heart patients who had had an angioplasty. Usually, around 20 per cent of all angioplasty patients need a repeat operation within... [read more]
August 31, 2003 - Chris GuptaTen drugs to avoid whenever possible
It just keeps getting better and better for the medical Mafia. Continue pumping us with more toxins and just deal with symptoms. Thus creating a whole horde of future customers (patients) - Gee I wonder why they are so set against safe nutritional alternatives?? What a bonanza! Chris Gupta 1. Prozac. This wonder drug whose side effects are now being uncovered. Aside from all the known side effects, including insomnia,... [read more]
July 27, 2003 - Chris Gupta
