• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Nutricide! - A Codex Criminalizing...


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 tothepoint

  • Guest
  • 58 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Arizona

Posted 01 April 2007 - 05:49 AM


I'm halfway through this video and it's pretty scary [:o] It is supposed to go into full effect Dec. 2009

"The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition. Ratified by ... all » the World Health Organization, and going into Law in the United States in 2009, the threat to health freedom has never been greater.

This is the first part of a series of talks by Dr. Rima Laibow MD, available on DVD from the Natural Solutions Foundation, an non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about how to stop Codex Alimentarius from taking away our right to freely choose nutritional health."

http://video.google....84912495233634
40 min

The beginning is a tad slow, just so you know.

#2 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 01 April 2007 - 10:29 AM

I'v been trying to get some attention regarding this issue about a year ago. No reaction at all on this forum.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 01 April 2007 - 07:20 PM

What exactly is going into law in the U.S. in 2009? Where is there a written article about this? I don't think separating Americans from their supplements is politically possible these days.

#4 tothepoint

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 58 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Arizona

Posted 01 April 2007 - 08:45 PM

I was really tired while watching this last night (so it may be off), but this is what I absorbed.

Well this codex was originally made as a guideline for nutrition in 1962, but then it got adopted by the World Trade Commision as a guideline for what types of food and supplements can be traded through various countries. She said something about how the "Trade" is all about profits and how the codex was made with conflicting interests. Now the United States is not part of this codex (I think) but as more countries adopt it we will be forced to join the bandwagon.

***Ok, i might have jumbled a few things up, but if you go to just before the halfway point she explains everything. ***

She said that if it is adopted (and there are many bills trying to switch from the 1994 Freedom of Nutition type bill to this new codex) then several things will happen, one of them being that antibiotics will be REQUIRED for many animals, including cows.

#5 wayside

  • Guest
  • 344 posts
  • -1

Posted 01 April 2007 - 11:56 PM

"Why won't these Guidelines restrict U.S. consumers' access to vitamin and mineral supplements?

Some consumers mistakenly believe that with the adoption of the Guidelines on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, the U.S. is required to automatically change its laws and regulations to comply with the international standard. Some have expressed concerns that the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its trade dispute settlement panels may place pressure on the U.S. to change its laws because of international trade agreements such as the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), which references Codex as the international organization for food safety standards.

We see no basis for these concerns. First, the DSHEA covers a much broader range of dietary supplements than the vitamin and mineral supplements that are the subject of the Codex Guidelines. Moreover, for supplements covered by these Guidelines, we note the following:

* The SPS Agreement does not require a country to adopt any international standard. Rather, the SPS Agreement provides that members may base their Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures either on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist, or may establish measures that result in a higher level of protection if there is a scientific justification, or if a country determines it to be appropriate in accord with provisions of the SPS Agreement (SPS Agreement, Article 3(1) and (3)).
* WTO and WTO dispute panels do not have the power to change U.S. law. If a WTO decision in response to a dispute settlement panel is adverse to the U.S., only Congress and the Administration can decide whether to implement the panel recommendation, and, if so, how to implement it.
* For dietary supplements, it is unlikely that another country will accuse the U.S. of imposing a trade barrier for the importation of supplement products into the U.S. marketplace because the U.S. laws and regulations are generally broader in scope and less restrictive than the international standard.
* However, other countries with more restrictive laws and regulations for dietary supplement products than the U.S. may create trade barriers to the importation of products manufactured by the U.S. dietary supplement industry. Thus, the U.S. government's involvement in the setting of international standards can help minimize the potential of trade barriers to U.S products in international trade.

Further, there is no basis for the concern that the Codex Guidelines on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements would require dietary supplements be sold as prescription drugs in the United States. First, there is nothing in the Guidelines that suggests that supplements be sold as drugs requiring a prescription. Second, U.S. regulatory agencies are bound by the laws established by Congress, not by Codex standards. Third, because of our generally less restrictive standards, it is unlikely that the trade dispute would be brought against the U.S.

In summary, U.S. consumers' access to a broad array of dietary supplements under DSHEA would not be changed in any way by Codex's adoption of guidelines on vitamin and mineral food supplements."

http://www.cfsan.fda...ms/dscodex.html

#6 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,410 posts
  • 94
  • Location:California

Posted 02 April 2007 - 12:35 AM

"Why won't these Guidelines restrict U.S. consumers' access to vitamin and mineral supplements?

http://www.cfsan.fda...ms/dscodex.html


Thanks for doing the legwork here wayside. I suspected this was the case.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 02 April 2007 - 06:24 PM

A small step for man, a first step for mankind. Or whatever.

Believe what you like or be a pessimist like me :) It's rather a long-term issue then something to worry about next year.

I think this movement that also has it's European version deserves a good watch and clever opposition.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users