Alimentarius 法例

哈佬人們? Alimentarius 法例?這個月31日啊!
HELLO? Codex Alimentarius? This December 31st people!

I’ll keep this direct: What on earth is going on with you guys and gals? Codex Alimentarius (VMG) is being passed this coming Thursday, December 31st and there’s next to zero activity on the subject matter on ATS or online.

Nutrients are about to be declared as toxins! The vitamins and minerals of the foods that you and I eat are about to be drastically reduced! The permissible level of Vitamin C, for example will be lower than what is requisite in preventing scurvy! Essentially we are about to be starved to death! Why are we not in a frenzied panic investigating this together? In contemporary terms, this is the biggest power grab by elitist population reduction advocates and it’s happening with a whisper rather than a bang.
營養物快要被宣佈為毒素(註:詳情請往看The Simpsons Code 內文)!你和我吃的食物內的維他命和礦物質,即將大大減少!例如維他命C的允許水平,將會低於必要的去預防壞血病!必然地我們即將餓死!為什麼我們不在一起來個誠惶誠恐的調查呢?在現代來說,這是精英人口減少倡導者的最大的奪權,正在細細聲的發生,而不是打鑼打鼓。


The last post on ATS is dated in July and only received two responses:
The prisonpanet/infowars crew last covered Codex also in July:

Most of us, I hope, should be familiar with what this is. For those in the dark, it’s the UN’s and WHO’s implementation of a series of rules and regulations affecting the global management of food that will result in the nutricidal deaths of some 3 billion people across the planet. Naturally occurring nutrients such as vitamins are to be restricted so that they can only be purchased by prescription as supplements manufactured pharmaceutically.
我希望大多數人應熟悉這究竟是什麼,對於那烏sir sir的,它是聯合國和世衛在管理全球食品上所執行的一系列法規,影響將導致地球上約3億人的nutricidal死亡。自然產生的營養素如維他命會受到限制,因此他們只能以醫生處方購買,作為藥業上製造的補充品。
I have been road-blocked myself by the Irish Department of Health, time and time again. I’ve been referred interdepartmentally and internationally to get in touch the ‘relevant body’ but my attempts at contact have not been returned. I have been met with aversion and afforded as much respect as a paranoid lunatic at the very mentioning of the imposition of nutritional restrictions.

Is anyone familiar with what’s going on and does anyone care?


Codex Alimentarius (Mandate That Will Starve 3 Billion People to be In Place by 12/31/09)


Codex Alimentarius is not an easy subject to get to grips with. With as manyas 27 active committees meeting on an annual basis and reports comprising atotal of over 1,400 pages in 2005 alone, it is hardly surprising that mostpeople have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate itthoroughly for themselves. As such, when relying upon other people forinformation one needs to be sure that they have done their researchproperly; especially so in the case of websites that make claims to theeffect that it only takes 5 minutes to find out what Codex Alimentarius is all about. Sadly, therefore, and as we show here, much of the Codex-related material on the internet is both inaccurate and misleading.

FICTION: Codex will go into global effect on December 31, 2009.
FACT: The authors of the above statement do not seem to be aware that Codex already consists of around 300 official food standards, some of which have been in global effect since as long ago as 1966.

If however the authors of the above statement are referring to the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements then they are in factconfusing these with the European Union's Food Supplements Directive.

The Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements were adopted by theCodex Alimentarius Commission in July 2005, and provide a framework for thedevelopment of global restrictions upon the manufacture and sale of dietarysupplements containing vitamins and minerals. However, the Guidelines havenot yet established the maximum levels of vitamins and minerals that can becontained in supplements, and nor has there been any date set for theadoption of these.

The European Union's Food Supplements Directive, on the other hand, will gointo full effect in Europe on December 31, 2009, but it is a piece ofEuropean legislation and as such will primarily affect consumers living inEurope. Moreover, the Directive has not yet set the maximum levels ofvitamins and minerals that can be contained in supplements sold in theEuropean Union, and nor has there been any date set for the adoption oflegislation to implement such levels.

FICTION: Theoretical exceptions exist for natural substances which are submitted and accepted for testing by July 12, 2005 at a cost of approximately $250,000 per submission.
FACT: As with the previous example, the authors of the above statement are confusing the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements with the European Union's Food Supplements Directive.

Under the text of the Food Supplements Directive, vitamins and minerals noton the permitted (positive) lists are prohibited from being marketed inEurope. There is an exception to this restriction however, which is when asafety dossier supporting use of the substance in question was submitted tothe European Commission, the European Union's executive body, by 12 July2005. According to the UK Food Standards Agency, industry estimatesregarding the cost of producing these safety dossiers ranged from 80,000 to250,000 per dossier.

The Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, meanwhile,dont actually differentiate between natural and synthetic vitamins andminerals, and explicitly permit both to be used in the manufacture ofsupplements.

FICTION: The alternative Vitamin and Mineral Guidelines promoted by some health freedom organizations are Codex compliant, and if passed by countrieswould protect them against World Trade Organization (WTO) trade sanctions.
FACT: This is utter nonsense. Tellingly, therefore, what the promoters ofthese alternative texts have seemingly not as yet publicly addressed is thespecific legal mechanism via which their revisions could supposedly beutilized in place of the official Codex guidelines.

In the real world, of course, compliance with the official Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplement Guidelines is effectively mandatory, and until suchtime as it is revised by Codex itself the existing text is unfortunately theonly game in town.

FICTION: Codex has officially reclassified Vitamin C and every other vitamin and mineral your body needs from the class of nutrients to the class of toxins.
FACT: Whilst it is true that through its proposed use of risk assessment to determine safe upper levels for vitamins and minerals Codex will essentially be treating these nutrients like toxins, it has not officially reclassifiedthem as such, and nor could it, as they occur naturally in foods and areessential for life. In fact, vitamin and mineral supplements are actuallyclassified as foods by Codex, which is why its guidelines for these productsare entitled the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. In short, therefore, the claim that Codex has officially reclassifiedVitamin C and every other vitamin and mineral your body needs from the classof nutrients to the class of toxins is both untrue and absurd.

FICTION: The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission meets every two years, always offshore (Rome, Bonn, Paris, etc.) and never in Smallville, U.S.A.
FACT: The Codex Alimentarius Commission holds its meetings in Geneva andRome. It never meets in either Bonn or Paris. The Commissions subsidiarycommittees and task forces, however, meet in a wide variety of locationsaround the world, including Bonn and Paris.

Moreover, the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene has held 32 of its 37 annualmeetings since 1964 in the United States, the vast majority of which havetaken place in Washington D.C.

FICTION: Dr. Grossklaus, the head of Codex Alimentarius, owns the RiskAssessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on the "benefit" of using RiskAssessment to assess nutrients.
FACT: Dr. Rolf Grossklaus is the Chairman of the Codex Committee onNutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), not the head ofCodex Alimentarius. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge he does not ownany risk assessment company advising CCNFSDU or Codex on the benefit ofusing risk assessment to assess nutrients.

FICTION: Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, CCNFSDU chairman, is also the Chairman of theBoard of BfR, a private corporation which specializes in Risk Assessment.
FACT: As well as being Chairman of the Codex Committee on Nutrition andFoods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) Dr. Rolf Grossklaus is Director ofBfR. However, BfR (the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment) is a GermanFederal Government Agency, not a private corporation.

FICTION: Dr. Grossklaus, Chairman of CAC and anti-nutrition Chairman of thepivotal "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 inclusionof CCNFSDU-approved material in baby formula which could kill 10% ofnewborns in his country. After the delegate was forcibly removed, Dr.Grossklaus nonchalantly declared the issue approved by "consensus".
FACT: Codex meetings can indeed be dramatic at times, however the abovestatement is utterly false. Significantly therefore, it is apparent that theauthors of the above statement did not even bother to attend the Codexmeeting in question.

FICTION: DSHEA Protects America From Codex Alimentarius.
FACT: DSHEA only protects America from Codex so long as it remains in placeand unaltered, and so long as other legislation isnt passed to weaken itseffectiveness. There are now a growing number of threats to DSHEA thatcould, in time, potentially conspire to dismantle it. The most serious ofthese threats are the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral FoodSupplements compliance with which is effectively mandatory.

FICTION: The WHO has severely chastised the Codex Alimentarius Commissionfor not making a significant contribution to human health in its 42 years ofexistence.
FACT: A number of health freedom websites reported after the July 2005meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome that a miracle hadoccurred, and that the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) had expressed significant displeasure withthe anti-health approach to nutrition taken by Codex over the past 4decades.
These reports also claimed, variously, that a WHO Under Secretary for FoodSafety had spoken sternly, sharply and scathingly of the fact that little contribution to human health had been made by Codex; that WHO had statedthat things would be different in the future; that the Terms of Reference ofthe Codex Committee on Food Labeling and the Codex Committee on Nutritionand Foods for Special Dietary Uses are going to be changed; that Codex willimplement the WHO Global Strategy for world health through diet, physicalexercise and nutrition; and that Codex will make a yearly report to theWorld Health Assembly about its progress in implementing the WHO Strategy.However, and as we have described previously in our article Miracle in Rome,these assertions are largely either mistaken or exaggerated.
WHO and FAO did not express significant displeasure with the anti-healthapproach to nutrition taken by Codex over the past 4 decades at thismeeting. Moreover, neither did they state that little contribution to humanhealth had been made by Codex, or that things would be different in the future.
In addition, although a paper prepared in advance of the meeting by WHO andFAO had suggested that consideration could be given to the possibility of considering amendments to the terms of reference of CCFL and/or CCNFSDU,this matter was not brought up at the Codex meeting itself. Indeed, and as the transcripts and recordings from the Codex Alimentarius Commissionsdiscussions on the Global Strategy clearly demonstrate, both the UK(speaking for the 25 countries of the European Union) and the United Statesappeared to be of the opinion that the current Codex mandate should beretained.

As such, therefore, although it is certainly possible that Codex willparticipate in the implementation of the Global Strategy, it presently seemslikely that this work would be carried out within the current terms of itsmandate, and that as such it is likely to pay little real attention tonutrition and dietary supplements.

FICTION: Codex Alimentarius sharply restricts or eliminates most medicinalherbs and limits the conditions which can be treated using medicinal herbsto a small number of trivial ones.
FACT: The main Codex texts that relate directly to herbs are the Guide forthe Microbiological Quality of Spices and Herbs Used in Processed Meat andPoultry Products and the Code of Hygienic Practice for Spices and DriedAromatic Plants. However, and as will be immediately apparent from theirtitles, these texts deal with culinary herbs, not medicinal ones. Moreover,whilst some other Codex texts, such as the General Standard for theLabelling of Prepackaged Foods and the General Standard for Food Additives,also make mention of herbs, these likewise deal with culinary herbs, notmedicinal ones.

Codex last considered the issue of medicinal herbs in 1996, when the meetingof the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses(CCNFSDU) that took place in Bonn, Germany, in October 1996 considered a new proposal by the Codex Coordinating Committee for North America and the SouthWest Pacific to establish lists of Potentially Harmful Herbs and BotanicalPreparations sold as Foods.

Subsequent to the 1996 CCNFSDU meeting the Codex Alimentarius Commission met in Geneva in June 1997, and agreed that no further action was neededconcerning herbs and botanicals, on the grounds that this was a matter fornational authorities to address. The matter was therefore deleted from theCommission's Work Programme.

As such, it can be seen that Codex does not restrict or eliminate mostmedicinal herbs, and nor does it limit the conditions which can be treatedusing medicinal herbs to a small number of trivial ones.

FICTION: An official joint publication by the WHO and FAO called "Diet,Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases" is in favor of nutritionalsupplementation.
FACT: The WHO/FAOs Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseasespublication describes how shifting dietary patterns, a decline in energyexpenditure associated with a sedentary lifestyle, an ageing populationtogether with tobacco use and alcohol consumption are major risk factorsfor noncommunicable diseases and pose an increasing challenge to publichealth.

However, this publication is mostly strongly dismissive of the relationshipbetween dietary supplements and the prevention of disease. For example, whendiscussing the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, vitamin Esupplements are described as convincingly having no relationship to theprevention of this particular class of diseases. (Page 88). Moreover,beta-carotene supplements are even described in the publication as possiblyincreasing the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. (Page 82).Similarly, evidence that dietary elements such as vitamin E, chromium ormagnesium might decrease the risk of developing diabetes is described asinsufficient (Page 77); whilst evidence that vitamins B2, B6, folate, B12,C, D, E, calcium, zinc or selenium might decrease the risk of developingcancer is merely described as possible/insufficient. (Page 100).In conclusion, therefore, whilst the aforementioned WHO/FAO publication doesof course have some positive things to say about nutrition in general, itwould be a gross exaggeration, at best, to say that it is in favor ofnutritional supplementation.

FICTION: The WTO can take a country to court in its own courts.
FACT: Although the WTO is increasingly using Codex texts as the benchmarkwhen ruling on international trade disputes it cannot in itself takecountries to court. Trade disputes are initiated by countries, not the WTO,and the resulting cases are heard at the WTOs headquarters in Geneva,
Switzerland, not in a countrys own courts.

FICTION: CAFTA is not a health freedom issue.
FACT: CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement) extends the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA a treaty between Canada, the UnitedStates, and Mexico) to Central America and the Dominican Republic, thusacting as a stepping-stone towards the creation of a hemispheric, harmonizedtrading bloc for the entire American continent.

As such, and in exactly the same way as the relatively liberal dietarysupplement laws of the UK were eventually overridden by the restrictiveEuropean Union Food Supplements Directive (as a result of successivetreaties that the British Government had signed with its Europeanneighbors), CAFTA could ultimately lead to US dietary supplement regulations(i.e. DSHEA) becoming susceptible to harmonization with the more restrictivelaws of countries in Central America.

CAFTA is therefore most definitely a health freedom issue.

FICTION: FTAA is not a major health freedom threat.
FACT: FTAA (the Free Trade Area of the Americas) is undoubtedly a majorhealth freedom threat, as it would effectively extend CAFTA into SouthAmerica, thus creating a harmonized pan-American trading bloc encompassingthe entire American continent. This could ultimately lead to US dietarysupplement regulations becoming susceptible to harmonization with the morerestrictive laws of countries in both Central and South America.

Although the ultimate goal of the FTAA is officially described as being to achieve an area of free trade and regional integration, the recent evidence of the European Union (EU) project shows that this can only be achieved viathe dismantling of the political and legal systems of participating nationsand the replacing of these with a hemispheric government. In essence, therefore, this is why many observers see the FTAA as an embryonic EU in the making.

Following the recent Summit of the Americas that took place in Argentina,however, where leaders from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay andVenezuela were unable to agree to move forward with the FTAA project, somecommentators were quick to suggest that the plan is now dead and buried.Nevertheless, such a conclusion would not appear to be warranted by thefacts, as 29 of the 34 proposed participant countries want to resume talks on the issue in 2006 and Mexico's President Vicente Fox has specificallystated that these nations are willing to move forward with free tradenegotiations without the dissenting countries.

Given that South American leaders are already developing a political andeconomic bloc modelled on the European Union, it is becoming increasinglylikely that a harmonized pan-American trading bloc encompassing the entireAmerican continent would also utilize the European Union as its model, andincorporate similar Codex-compliant restrictions upon health freedom andfreedom of choice to those that already exist in Europe.

Significantly therefore, FTAA participant countries including Antigua andBarbuda, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica,Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, United States, Uruguay andVenezuela all sent delegations to the July 2005 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome, and not one of them opposed the adoption ofthe Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements as the new globalstandard.

As such, the idea that FTAA is not a major health freedom threat is becoming increasingly difficult to understand.

FICTION: Linus Pauling, Ph.D., won the first of his two Nobel Prizes for hiswork on Vitamin C.
FACT: Linus Pauling won the first of his two Nobel Prizes in 1954 for hisresearch into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to theelucidation of the structure of complex substances". His second Nobel Prizewas for Peace, and was won in 1962. Neither of these prizes were won forwork on vitamin C.

Date: 13-Jan-06


Codex Alimentarius 的主要七点


Codex Alimentarius: 全球食品帝國主義 (書介)

Codex Alimentarius已經開始 照足計劃