Nutrients are Toxins? Nutrition is Bogus? Seed News!
Risk Assessment--
this is the science used by
the head of Codex Alimentarius
to suggest Nutrients are Toxic
and Nutrition and Health have no relationship.
MICHAEL R TAYLOR, Current FDA Food Czar
is a proponent and author of books
on Risk Assessement.
Date: 8/5/2009 4:05:19 PM ( 15 y ) ... viewed 3188 times
Published on: 11/30/2001 Last Visited: 7/12/2006
Codex chairman, Dr. Rolf Grossklaus' pronouncements
include the assertion that "only pharmaceutical drugs
prevent and mitigate disease", even though product inserts
state categorically that drugs don't cure disease,
but only control symptoms
As unbelievable as it may sound, Dr. Grossklaus actually declared nutrients to be toxins in 1994 and instituted the use of toxicology (Risk Assessment) to prevent nutrients from having any impact on humans who take supplements! It is worth mentioning that Dr. Grossklaus happens to own the Risk Assessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on this issue.
In fact, Dr. Grossklaus, who has said that nutrition has no place in medicine, called the EFSD the "future face of Codex" during CCNFSDU meetings.
...
Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, CCNFSDU chairman, is also the Chairman of the Board of BfR, a private corporation which specializes in Risk Assessment. Dr. Grossklaus's company submits Risk Assessment values to Codex. In his position at Codex Alimentarius, Dr. Grossklaus contributed to the bizarre definition of nutrients as toxins, and promoted the use of Risk Assessment to determine their "maximum" dosages.
Dr. Grossklaus is on record having said that "nutrition is not relevant to health" and that nutrients "have no place in the prevention, treatment or cure of any disease or condition".
Dr. Grossklaus, Chairman of CAC and anti-nutrition Chairman of the pivotal "Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses" (CCNFSDU), had the delegate from India bodily removed during a November 2003 CCNFSDU meeting. The delegate's crime? Insisting on discussing the inclusion of CCNFSDU-approved material in baby formula which could kill 10% of newborns in his country. After the delegate was forcibly removed, Dr. Grossklaus nonchalantly declared the issue approved by "consensus".
...
So if the Chairman (i.e. Dr. Grossklaus) does not like what is being said, he can flip a switch (or refrain from flipping it in the first place), and that will be that. This guarantees that there is no sustained opposition if the Chairman does not want there to be any opposition.
QUOTE BELOW:
BEEF FINE wITH CODEX
In the 1970s, the Commission tackled the issue of food labelling, including elements such as ingredient and additive listing, date-marking and the labelling of irradiated foods. In 1995, following extensive reviews of scientific evidence, the Commission declared that the use of hormones in beef production did not pose problems to human health and that trade in such products could proceed. The Commission is currently examining the status of foods derived from biotechnology and requirements for good animal feeding practices.
On May 3, an official European Union (EU) scientific panel issued a
139-page report which affirmed that at least one of six growth hormones
contained in U.S. beef exports and banned by the EU can definitely cause
cancer. The EU's Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures, consisting
of European and US-based endocrinologists, toxicologists, and other
scientists, told the Associated Press that the hormone 17 beta-oestradiol
"has to be considered as a complete carcinogen." The EU panel stated
moreover that all of the banned hormones "may cause a variety of health
problems including cancer, developmental problems, harm to immune systems
and brain disease... Even exposure to small levels of residues in meat and
meat products carries risks..."
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman condemned the EU scientific panel's
"unsubstantiated arguments" and warned that the US would go ahead and
impose trade sanctions on the EU beginning in July.
WE BECOME SILENT
This is a Must See Video
in Seven parts
PART one says 1 million peple stood up
to the FDA in one dayto defend a right to supplements,
uploaded
10:04 PM
STUNNING VIDEO OF MICHAEL R TAYLOR
IN PART TWO when DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
of THE FDA in the 90's
MICHAEL R. TAYLOR
2:07 into the film
RON PAUL
PREEMPT OUR LAWS"
9:44 PM
August 5, 09
Just had my eyes opened again.
There is a Monsanto news wire
that collects info on what
the large owner of most of the world's
seeds is doing around the work.
MONSANTO NEWS WIRE:
Great resource http://www.topix.com/com/mon
I also looked at a magazine
of UN activity that led me to the
story about seeds in Afghanistan.
I wondered if these were GM seeds?
Highly likely that they are. The UN
FAO favors biotech seeds, as does
the WHO, as does Codex,
as does our own FDA, as far as I can tell,
with MICHAEL R TAYLOR, our new food
Czar in such a powerful position.
His plan is harmonizing the our nation
with Codex rules.
the website of the Natural Solutions Foundation,
is beholden to no one: our only interest is health freedom.
Rima E. Laibow, MD, successful natural medicine physician since the 1970s, has studied 16,000 pages of Codex documentation.
Her conclusion is that people who say that Codex
is “consumer protection”, “voluntary”,
or “harmless” are, at best, seriously mistaken.
Codex Unscientifically Considers Nutrients as Toxins
The Codex Alimentarius Commission says its standards and guidelines are “scientific”. But in truth they are engaged in mad science, not valid science.
Here’s why:
The Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline uses Risk Assessment to (supposedly) assess “safe” upper limits for vitamins and minerals. Risk Assessment is part of the science of toxicology which is properly applied to substances such as arsenic, lead, mercury, pesticides and other poisons.
But while Risk Assessment is the right science for assessing toxins, it is the wrong science for assessing nutrients!
Nutritional science is a part of Biochemistry, which deals with the metabolism of things like vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins and carbohydrates.
Using Risk Assessment instead of Biochemistry to assess nutrients leads to false data. And false data results in junk science.
Codex is using Risk Assessment to set so-called “upper limits” for nutrients which are so low that they are, by intention, without nutritional impact on even the most sensitive human being!
Why Use the Wrong Science? To Deceive You
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is using the wrong science for the job of assessing nutrients. It is seeking to deceive the public that it is “scientific” through the use of junk science (applying toxicology to nutrients).
And because many people don’t know the difference between toxicology and Biochemistry, and most haven’t even heard of “Risk Assessment”, a lot of people have bought the nonsense that Codex is “scientific”. Codex is not scientific. It has nothing to do with science. It is all about short-sighted economic self-interest.
For example of the type of “science” that Codex is engaged it, the CAC treats Vitamin C with the same logic as arsenic, lead, mercury, mustard gas, or any other deadly poison. Any reasonable person can see that this is unacceptable.
It’s Not About Science Anyway
The Codex moneymen do not seem to understand the simple fact that the detoxification organs of the human body have the ability to expel excess nutrients because evolution has had millions of years to perfect our relationship with nutrients. So there is no need to treat nutrients as toxins and set “upper limits”.
Toxins on the other hand are in large part products of the Industrial Revolution and thus they are very new to our bodies, and so cannot be handled properly by our detoxification mechanisms. That’s why toxins are toxic!
Comparing nutrients and toxins with the same assessment method is not even close to comparing apples and oranges. It is more like comparing crude oil and water! It is like saying that because drinking crude oil will kill you, therefore, drinking water will kill you too, and so let us, in our sheer arrogance and ignorance, put an upper limit on the amount of water you can drink - “to protect you from yourself”! It may sound absurd, but from a scientific point of view, that is exactly how absurd Codex Alimentarius is.
There is not one trace of reason, logic or science in how Codex treats nutrients as toxins.
It is no exaggeration to say that Codex Alimentarius is based on junk science.
The Vitamin and Mineral Guideline
Codex is made up of several different standards for different aspects of food. One of these standards was ratified (i.e. approved and made ready for implementation in WTO-countries) by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2005, in Rome, Italy. The name of this standard is the Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline.
"Codex" is a shorthand way of referring to the joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and to its main body of work--a collection of international standards for food quality and safety that protect consumers and facilitate international trade. The words Codex Alimentarius are Latin and mean "food law" or "food code". The Codex Alimentarius Commission bas been developing international food standards since 1963, shortly after the establishment of a joint Food Standards Programme by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAQ) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Most Recent
Government Articles
Congress Upset That Earmarks Are Taxed By Federal Recipients
Will The U.S. Follow Europe When It Comes To Defense Spending?
Australian Health Care System Awards IBM Contract
President Signs Defense Budget
US Government takes a step to allow DRS purchase by Finmeccanica
More »
The work of Codex is the preparation of international food standards, codes of good practice, labelling guidelines and many other recommendations that Governments can use to regulate international and domestic trade in food. These are all voluntary standards; there is no direct obligation on member Governments to apply Codex standards. However, the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) oblige countries to base their national food standards and regulations on Codex standards, unless the country concerned can show legitimate reasons for applying stricter or more comprehensive standards.
Food standards, in one form or another, have been in place for centuries, and their main objective has always been the same: preventing fraudulent practices and adulteration, protecting the consumer and facilitating the exchange of goods. Advances in food chemistry and microbiology in the nineteenth century led many countries independently to develop national food standards programmes, and by the time of the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture in 1943, it was recognized that the differences in national food standards had the potential to create barriers to trade in foods. Drawing upon initiatives in Europe to establish a regional Codex Alimentarius, FAQ established the international Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1961 and asked WHO to join it in a joint Food Standards Programme. The Commission first met in 1963 and has now held 23 meetings, the most recent one being in Rome in June/July 1999.
In the 1970s, the Commission tackled the issue of food labelling, including elements such as ingredient and additive listing, date-marking and the labelling of irradiated foods. In 1995, following extensive reviews of scientific evidence, the Commission declared that the use of hormones in beef production did not pose problems to human health and that trade in such products could proceed. The Commission is currently examining the status of foods derived from biotechnology and requirements for good animal feeding practices.
Food safety standards developed by Codex are all based on a complete review of scientific data and information by the long-standing Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and the joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues. These two bodies are composed of internationally renowned food scientists, toxicologists, veterinarians and other specialists who provide independent advice to FAO, WHO and Codex. On general consumer protection issues such as the prevention of fraudulent practices, Codex standards are recognized in the United Nations General Assembly Guidelines on Consumer Protection as forming the best basis for national policies and plans in regard to food. Codex standards have such a well-established reputation as an international reference, that in any debate on food quality and safety it has become customary for health officials, government food control authorities, manufacturers, scientists and consumer advocates to ask first of all: What does Codex have to say?
One of the most important benefits of Codex work is the way in which it can be used by developing countries to build up national food control programmes without having to spend excessive amounts of time and money to undertake the basic research that underpins each Codex standard. Like many UN bodies, Codex is intergovernmental in character; any member nation of either FAO or WHO may join the Codex Alimentarius Commission. There are currently 165 member nations. The Commission has a long history of cooperation with international nongovernmental organizations representing the food industry and trade, consumer organizations and special interest groups, and scientific professional associations. This cooperation enriches the work of the Commission by ensuring the scientific and technical soundness of its standards and their acceptability to the community at large.
Mr. Lupien is Director of FAO's Food and Nutrition Division and Randell is with the joint FAO/WHO Food standards Programme.
COPYRIGHT 1999 United Nations Publications
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
12Next »
WANT TO KNOW MORE
ABOUT CODEX ALiMENTARIUS
and MICHAEL R TAYLOR,
or FOOD CZAR?
I am looking for the podcast...I heard...
some time in the last week about #HR 2749.
Hope I find it.
The interviewer kept saying...
Good for the Safety of who?
SEED REPORTS
THESE NEEDS TO BE EDITED DOWN
shocking????
Seeds of Hope in Afghanistan
An FAO Photo Essay
Text by Peter Lowrey and
Images by Giulio Napolitano
What kind of seed were they using
in Kabul????
Article
It was hard to believe I was in strife-torn Afghanistan when the Deputy Minister I was interviewing in his well-defended Kabul office said he was overcome with optimism. But Afghanistan threw many surprises at us during a two-week mission by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to three provinces to examine efforts to get the country’s most important sector—agriculture—on track again.
(NaturalNews) – Farmers in South Africa have reported an inexplicable failure to seed in three different varieties of corn genetically modified (GM) by the Monsanto Corporation.
“One can’t see from the outside whether a plant is unseeded,” said Kobus van Coller of Free State province. “One must open up the cob leaves to establish the problem.”
The problems occurred only in corn engineered by Monsanto for increased yields or for resistance to the company’s trademark herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate). Failure to seed has been documented in the provinces of Free State, Mpumalanga and North West.
According to Monsanto, the crop failure occurred due to “underfertilization processes in the laboratory,” and has only been a problem in “less than 25 percent” of the seed from the three corn varieties.
(NaturalNews) – Farmers in South Africa have reported an inexplicable failure to seed in three different varieties of corn genetically modified (GM) by the Monsanto Corporation.
“One can’t see from the outside whether a plant is unseeded,” said Kobus van Coller of Free State province. “One must open up the cob leaves to establish the problem.”
The problems occurred only in corn engineered by Monsanto for increased yields or for resistance to the company’s trademark herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate). Failure to seed has been documented in the provinces of Free State, Mpumalanga and North West.
According to Monsanto, the crop failure occurred due to “underfertilization processes in the laboratory,” and has only been a problem in “less than 25 percent” of the seed from the three corn varieties.
Marian Mayet of the Africa Center for Biosecurity disputed the company’s claims, however. According to her sources, some farms have experienced crop failures as high as 80 percent. She also expressed doubt over Monsanto’s explanation for the problem, laying the blame instead on the GM technologies used to produce the seed.
“Monsanto says they just made a mistake in the laboratory, however we say that biotechnology is a failure,” Mayet said. “You cannot make a ‘mistake’ with three different varieties of corn. We have been warning against GM-technology for years, we have been warning Monsanto that there will be problems.”
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Wednesday, Aug. 05, 2009 04:04AM EDT
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
Next spring, farmers in Canada will be able to sow one of the most complicated genetically engineered plants ever designed, a futuristic type of corn containing eight foreign genes.
With so much crammed into one seed, the modified corn will be able to confer multiple benefits, such as resistance to corn borers and rootworms, two caterpillar-like pests that infest the valuable grain crop, as well as withstanding applications of glyphosate, a weed killer better known by its commercial name, Roundup.
But a controversy has arisen over the new seeds, which were approved for use last month by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Health Canada hasn't assessed their safety.
The health agency said in response to questions from The Globe and Mail that it didn't have to do so, because it is relying on the two companies making the seeds, agriculture giants Monsanto Co. and Dow AgroSciences LLC, to flag any safety concerns. But the companies haven't tested the seeds either, because they say they aren't required to.
The companies have checked the safety of each of the eight genes one at a time in individual corn plants, but haven't done so when they combined the foreign matter together in one seed, says Trish Jordan, a spokesperson for Monsanto Canada Inc.
"Every single one of the traits has been tested singly, and it has gone through the complete rigorous regulatory review process," Ms. Jordan said.
When the eight traits were subsequently combined into one seed through conventional breeding techniques, there was no trigger for an additional safety assessment, she said.
But the companies', and Health Canada's, position is disputed by opponents of genetically modified foods and consumer safety advocates, who say guidelines from the UN's food standards commission, Codex Alimentarius, recommend such testing, even when the novel traits are introduced through normal plant breeding.
Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, a U.S. advocacy group, says he's worried that combining a large number of foreign genes could lead to the creation of allergens or other deleterious substances in food that don't occur when only one gene is involved.
The government's decision to leave the safety testing to the companies is like "putting the fox in charge of the hen house," Mr. Hansen said.
Health Canada "has entirely abdicated its responsibility" for food safety, echoed Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, an Ottawa-based group that is critical of genetic engineering.
In its statement to The Globe, Health Canada said it approved the new corn because it didn't find anything untoward in testing conducted from 2002 to 2008 that looked at the safety of the genes two at a time.
"According to Health Canada's policy, when a company chooses to breed or cross approved genetically modified plants with other approved GM or non-GM plants, the company must inform Health Canada only if there is a change in the safety of the product," the federal agency said. "If there was a change, the company would have to provide the necessary information to Health Canada."
The issue of the safety of the new corn has wide-ranging importance because multiple foreign genes in seeds is the wave of the future in biotechnology. When genetic modification of plants began, breeders would introduce only one gene taken from a foreign source, such as a bacterium, at a time. Corn seeds now on the market have up to three foreign genes.
Ms. Jordan said the eight-gene corn, which the companies call SmartStax because numerous traits are stacked together, will be the basic platform for all Monsanto's future versions of the crop.
She said researchers are looking to add even more genes to it, including those for drought resistance, yield increases and more efficient use of nitrogen, an important plant nutrient.
The new corn isn't the sweet type eaten on the cob but is typically used for animal feed. Monsanto expects about 200,000 acres to be planted next year in Canada, mainly in Ontario, and that the crop will have enhanced yields.
Under the UN Codex guidelines, producers of genetically engineered plants, even when the producers subsequently use conventional breeding on their seeds, should provide information "to reduce the possibility that a food derived from a recombinant-DNA plant would have an unexpected, adverse effect on human health."
Health Canada says the view that further testing needs to be done on such seeds is "erroneous" because the Codex guideline doesn't explicitly mention the stacking of genetic traits as a trigger for such a review.
Mr. Hansen believes Health Canada's interpretation leaves the country open to possible trade disputes because other jurisdictions, such as Europe, could challenge the Canadian corn by citing a failure to follow the Codex guidelines.
Steve Demos, founder of soymilk and tofu producer White Wave Foods, has waded into the fight over whether Boulder County should allow genetically modified sugar beets to be grown on county land. He’s opposed.
No surprises there, but he does have a different take on the matter that merits attention.
First some background.
Several months ago, six farmers who lease Boulder County Open Space asked the county for permission to grow genetically modified sugar beets on their lease-holds. The beets have been modified by the Monsanto Company by the addition of a gene that makes them resistant to the herbicide Roundup, which is made by Monsanto. The modification allows the use of Roundup to control weeds in sugar beet fields, which boosts yield by several tons per acre. It also allows producers to use less herbicide and adopt no-till farming practices.
Since the beets were introduced a couple of years ago, they’ve taken the market by storm, now accounting for more than 95 percent of U.S. sugar beet acreage this year, including almost all the beets grown in Colorado and on privately owned land in Boulder County. Acceptance was probably accelerated by the success of Monsanto’s Roundup-ready soybeans, corn and cotton, which have been available for more than a decade and which in 2006 added up to 71 million acres of soybeans, 34 million acres of corn, and 11 million acres of cotton. The numbers are probably higher today.
loha Nancy,
To help deal with the effects of a flu shot, In my VidaCosta Good Health Encyclopaedia EBook that you can click onto and purchase at http://www.hallmarkebooks.com/,
there is a section on making a homeopathic remedy. If you can get an empty vial, that still has a drop or two of vaccine in it, you can make a homeopathic remedy that functions to help antidote the side effects. Also, lots of magnesium and Vitamin C will help.
Carolyn DEAn http://drcarolyndean.com/2009/07/21/three-ways-to-avoid-or-reduce-vaccine-rea...
Alert Webmaster
